Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Whatever people think or not, when using the same Merlin XX, the Yak-1 was at least 140 km/h (665-520km/h) faster than the Hurricane. This with non strategical materials. Using light alloys for wings Yak-1 would be 160-170 km/h (685-520) faster with internal radiators inclueded inside the wing as the Yak-9U. Due to western high quality production standards and higher octane number fuel it will probably gain some 20-40 km/h more...In fact, Yak figher was gaining 20-25 instrumental extra km/h if used with 100 octanes western fuel (blue one) instead of the soviet 4B-78 (red one). But due to the overheat and engine guarantee for short runs only...True, the machines don't care, however my point was about the people using them.
Even the Russians seemed to prefer the useage of their own engines, over those from other nations.
Look at the widespread use of the Shvetsov radials and the Klimov V-12s in their own aircraft.
If they didn't care where the aircraft came from, then why put all the money and time into developing their own aircraft in the first place?
Of course. But if soviets were producing their own P-40, the large and heavy Tomaschevitch I-110 ????????? ?-110, and Curtiss Corporation a small and light airframe similar to the Yak-1 or the D-520 (or Czech Avia), they would have switch on that better american airframe production with no major ethic problem.I bet that if they were given a choice, they'd prefer to develop and use their own aircraft, or at least, their version of another nations aircraft.
Can't swap parts from a British RR Merlin and an American Packard Merlin either.
It was above all far easier to mass produce, even for unqualified and inexperienced workers. But that is not the question.last post, you were lamenting on why the other allied nations didn't lease some aircraft from Russia?
From what I understand, a lot of what Russia produced during the war was rather crude and standardization of parts wasn't up to par to make them useful.
One story that comes to mind is the Finn's, during the development of their "Humu", an indigenous version of the F2A-1.
Being cut off from American supplies at that time, they found that the Russians M-82 was a copy of the Wright Cyclones that they had been using and sought to use captured versions, scavenged from shot down aircraft, in the Humu.
Further analysis showed that the Shvetsov radial was so much more crudely built than the actual Wright engines they already had, that the parts couldn't be swapped between them.
VG-33;
He may have made a missprint.
THe M-62 was another Shvetsov engine. It was a copy of the 9 cylinder Cyclone as I stated above but as I stated and as you have stated it is vey doubtful that the American version (inches) and Russian versions (metric) were IDENTICAL.
Of course !! Remember the story by Pravda about an auto race between a Ford and a Zil. They announced that while the Zil came in second, the Ford was next to last.Great research and an interesting read, VG-33!
Thanks for posting that.
However, there's a side that wasn't touched on (although you skimmed pretty close in the beginning), and that begs the question - Could Nationalism have played some role in Stalin's letter to Churchill?.
Its no secret that nations tend to be more supportive of an Indigenously designed and built aircraft, rather than having to "borrow" one from another nation, but will, if the need arises and only until they can, themselves, design and build something that will suit their needs.
Not saying this is absolutely the reason for the cancellation of Hurri and WH deliveries, just stating that that is another way to look at it.
Elvis
I do not agree with much of the previous discussion. Yak fighters were not comparitively tested by western powers and the sources of plane performances is suspect. Gee, it looks from the data provided that these were the best planes in the war and the Russians should have fought with nothing other than the Yak for air superiority.
Consider the poor lowly P-39. An American plane that was considered such a dog in the west against the Germans and Japanese so that it saw little use in Europe and limited use in the SW Pacific. (t soon became the joke in the Pacific Theatre that a P-400 (an early P-39) was a P-40 with a Zero on its tail. They were used in the Med as a light patrol bomber or a ground attack plane, often escorted by P-40's.
Wartime Service of P-39 with USAAF
However, the Russians loved the P-39. Somehow it could handle Bf-109 in the east but not the west. Gee, if the Yak was such a world beater, why would they ever put it in the air?
Soviet P-39 Aces
Here is a list from a Russian source of their fighter aces. Look over the column of planes used. There are a lot more P-39 entries than Yak entries.
Soviet top Aces of WWII rating
Maybe, just maybe the Russian sources telling of it's stupendeous performance profile is a bit overstated?
P-39's failings were low performance at altitude (= unsuitable vs. Luftwaffe at ETO) and lack of combat range (= problem in Asia/Pacific).
I'm gonna change my tune on this one.I'll take the P-40, thankyou....even a Griffon-powered one.
Elvis
*SNIP*
I'll bet every Sherman (Zippo) tank crewman would have traded up to a T-34 in a heartbeat.
Yeah, I think there are some Soviet weapons that the western allies could have put to very good use.