|
Re: Questions re Polikarpov-fighters.
That is my "hunch" too, with the exception that in cloudy skies, it can become irrelevant, (as happened a certain day over Dunkirk in 1940, when the topcover (Spitfires) above the clouds save nothing, but a fierce battle raged below. (Hurricanes and Defiants).
Somehow, (never having been there), my "hunch" too is that the weather on the Eastern Front was clearer than in the West. (Continental climate, versus Oceanic). May just be my prejudice.
Soviet aircraft were noticably short-legged. That, as well as low altitude rated engines, may explain there disregard of altitude advantage. Too much fuel would be used up in climbing to altitude.
The "rational" explanation for the soviet aircraft production program, must be based on construction factors, primarily engine supply. Now, M-88 were available for DB-3F (Il-4), and BB-1/Su-2. Maybe there was a situation akin to the DB600 situation in Germany, where the engine was just not good enough for fighters. Or, that so much productive capacity had been invested in in-line engines, (M-105 and AM 37/38) that uses had to be found for them. But then, what was the M-82 intended for? The soviets found themselves trying to attach it to all fighter projects, because it lacked application, (but seemingly had plenty of production capacity). I havenīt noticed cancelled programs, that would explain this anomaly of supply and demand.
Birgir Thorisson.
PS, on the translation. Could the "Lamp" be the glass, enclosing the cockpit? Cleaning the tailwheel be retracting the tailwheel?
|