|
Re: Soviet Hurricanes - where, when, ...?
Graham
I am fully awared of reasoning behind the Hurricane. The wing seems pretty standard for the period and I suppose Tornado had the same or similar airfoil. Nonetheless there was a room for substantial improvements in the fuselage area, which should add precious mph or improve the qualities. Starting from this bloody greenhouse for rhubarb called canopy, going through cramped cockipt with limited backwards visibility and ending on the fabric covered fuselage and controls. With the technology, it was more less easily possible, having in mind similar Yak-1 to Yak-1b conversion. Perhaps Hawker wanted to stop the production at the very first possible occasion and to conver to Tornado but still I find it weird.
Soviet fighters were indeed different in their aerodynamic concept, but not without penalties. Wooden construction suffered from quality, was prone to weathering, could not withstant with combat loads and was too heavy and left too few space for installations. But the wood was available and alluminium not, so there is the logic. Overall, preformances of Soviet fighters were not as great as some want us to believe. If Yak-3 could be considered more-less equal to Spitfire VC, then the older fighters should not be substantially better than old poor Hurri, if at all.
Kari
Hurricane as well as other L-L aircraft had several advantages that make them favourable for air defense. Those were blind flying equipment, good radios, superior range and altitude peformance. Hence domination of Western aircraft in PVO units.
Concerning Wind's lecture, I would be rather carefull, unless it will be finally confirmed Finns fought with Soviet Spitfires.
And one final note - it was a standard tactics for Hurricane Is to draw Me 109Es into low level dog fight during the Battle of Britain.
|