Cobras, Mustangs, Thunderbolts, Eastern vs Western front, Franek vs ...

[mars]

Originally Posted by Schenck

Pilot

82nd FG lost two P-38s against 3 Yaks, so I am not sure your remark heavy losses is appropriate, not in this case of a dogfight over Nis airfield at least.

I believe in this incident was P-38s vs Yak-1s

[Ruy Horta]

All of the aircraft had superior radio and navigational equipment, altitude performance and better range so needed in air defence duties. They were send there because Soviet industry was unable to provide any capable design.

Judging by Mikoyan's line of high altitude designs I'm less inclined to believe that statement. Industrial output was aimed at maximising the output of certain types of aircraft and engine to the detriment of all other designs. That other designs were capable or perhaps even superior didn't matter, the choice was made at the political level (often Stalin himself).

But even if such aircraft were produced, like the Mig-3 with superior high altitude performance, they were often limited to the same tactical doctrine as the more orthodox designs, low to medium altitude operation.

That Soviet industry could learn from other nations and did copy (adopt) foreign design is a fact, but that can easily be a universal statement for any industrial nation, but that they weren't capable of designing (or producing) their own solutions is IMHO incorrect.

[kalender1973]

Originally Posted by Ruy Horta

Judging by Mikoyan's line of high altitude designs I'm less inclined to believe that statement. Industrial output was aimed at maximising the output of certain types of aircraft and engine to the detriment of all other designs. That other designs were capable or perhaps even superior didn't matter, the choice was made at the political level (often Stalin himself).

Stalin was clear-thinking man and he know very good about the soviet industry posibility, therefore it was the only correct desicion in really bad situation in 1941. Threfore we never heard from USSR such story as from german Me-210 or He-177

Originally Posted by Ruy Horta

That Soviet industry could learn from other nations and did copy (adopt) foreign design is a fact, but that can easily be a universal statement for any industrial nation, but that they weren't capable of designing (or producing) their own solutions is IMHO incorrect.

Ruy it is a key point. And the best sample? Clear, P-51. Somebody would say: "Ok, the US engineers was not capable to design own luiquid cooling engine, therefore they steal(copy, adopt) the britain Merlin. Two leading industry nation were able to create suitable plane at the fall of 1943" But we all understand that it was correct decision and don't speak about inferior US human potential

[Graham Boak]

I'm sure I could find more recently published Soviet pilots' comments to the effect that the Spitfires Mk.V received in 1943 were considered semi-obsolescent, outdated and too fragile, which if a little biased do not seem too unreasonable, considering the times and alternatives. I see no need to regard such comments as purely propaganda based. Any overall dismissal of the Spitfire would be another matter.

As for production problems with the Spitfire: given that it comfortably exceeded any other Allied fighter this seems harsh. Lack of deliveries to Russia might be more related to the RAF and Allied air forces need for such aircraft in the same period. More, if available, would have been very welcome in India! The problems of delivering them to Russia should also be taken into account: this was no small matter, particularly after the collapse of the Northern convoy route.

Sorry, but a handful of interesting prototypes using non-production engines, lacking decent radio and other equipment, does not equate to the ability to actually produce and operate a high-altitude fighter. Soviet industry may indeed have had the potential, but could not actually do so in the circumstances of the time. I don't criticise their priorities, but these do affect capabilities.

Although the Yak series could out-maneouvre a Spitfire at lowlevel - and the very best outperform too, at low-level - this does not seem terribly convincing as a reason for not employing the LF Mk.IX over the front. Not every Yak was a -3, and not every Lavochkin a -7. The Mk.IX's far superior altitude performance does seem a better reason for using it in the PVO. That they were "wasted" because no German bomber offensive ever returned is information gained from hindsight, not a legitimate planning assumption at the time.

You do have to be careful in making judgements from single pilot comments. If the Yugoslavs found the tropicalised Mk.V and the Yak 3 equal, except for the superior climb of the Spitfire, what do we make of comments that the Yak 9DDs of the Bari detachment could outmaneouvre the Spitfire Mk.IXs of adjacent Allied units? No-one would suggest that the 9DD was the most agile of Yaks, or the Mk.IX poorer performing than the Mk.V. The two results are incompatible: other factors must be involved. However, such comments are always fascinating. It would be very interesting to known "Jas" Storrer's comments on his "private" Yak 9 that he had in Italy. However, he didn't have to fight in it.

[Franek Grabowski]

Originally Posted by Ruy Horta

Judging by Mikoyan's line of high altitude designs I'm less inclined to believe that statement. Industrial output was aimed at maximising the output of certain types of aircraft and engine to the detriment of all other designs. That other designs were capable or perhaps even superior didn't matter, the choice was made at the political level (often Stalin himself).

No, neither of high altitude MiGs (I-220, I-221, I-222, I-223, I-224, I-230, I-231) turned out to be successful and this is the major reason they were not built. There was a political decision to built prototypes, as you would say, but it was a failure.

But even if such aircraft were produced, like the Mig-3 with superior high altitude performance, they were often limited to the same tactical doctrine as the more orthodox designs, low to medium altitude operation.

Well, what do we consider a high altitude aircraft? MiG-3 was optimised for higher altitudes indeed, but it still had a single stage supercharger and performance not comparable with later designs. The valid question is what was the actual performance of the aircraft as well, as it is often described as useless, but it must be noted it was not a doctrine nor political decision to cut the production, but a simple lack of engines, the whole production of the latter going for Il-2s.

That Soviet industry could learn from other nations and did copy (adopt) foreign design is a fact, but that can easily be a universal statement for any industrial nation, but that they weren't capable of designing (or producing) their own solutions is IMHO incorrect.

Soviet Union became industrial nation in late 1920s/early 1930s, and in a little different way than remaining nations. This is the key issue, which leads to logical explanation of Soviet problems. In regard of copying, there must be some proportion considered, and you can hardly find Soviet designs that were copied elsewhere (but PR China).

Originally Posted by kalender1973

Stalin was clear-thinking man and he know very good about the soviet industry posibility, therefore it was the only correct desicion in really bad situation in 1941. Threfore we never heard from USSR such story as from german Me-210 or He-177

Indeed, and we hear such stories like about MiG-3, Il-2 or Yak-9P, not to mention other minor or lesser known designs. Stalin could have been brightly thinking man but he was unable to change the reality.

Ruy it is a key point. And the best sample? Clear, P-51. Somebody would say: "Ok, the US engineers was not capable to design own luiquid cooling engine, therefore they steal(copy, adopt) the britain Merlin. Two leading industry nation were able to create suitable plane at the fall of 1943" But we all understand that it was correct decision and don't speak about inferior US human potential

It is a matter of fact that Americans were capable to built a reasonably good Allison engine but it is also well known that there was a little interest in them, radials being considered more effective and reliable. A matter of political choice you would say. When the need came, Allison lacked both resources and experience to built a Merlin-like engine in reasonable time.
BTW Packard build Merlins on clear British demand, and somewhat against American's will.

Originally Posted by Graham Boak

I'm sure I could find more recently published Soviet pilots' comments to the effect that the Spitfires Mk.V received in 1943 were considered semi-obsolescent, outdated and too fragile, which if a little biased do not seem too unreasonable, considering the times and alternatives. I see no need to regard such comments as purely propaganda based. Any overall dismissal of the Spitfire would be another matter.

I am afraid you would not find too many accounts of flying Spitfires in 1943, but a well known book of Ivanov, quoted in most books. Even the latter is not so critical about Spitfires as it is portrayed. You must know that almost every book dealing with western equipment must have had a passage explaining the reader Soviet superiority in that aspect. Everyone quote few such passages, but overall, the book is full of appraisal to Spitfire.
One another important point, that escaped somewhere - the range. Spitfire was not a particular long runner, but still superior to Soviet lightweight designs. The latter were just unable to fulfill their missions during the 1945 offensive as they simply lacked the range to follow the frontline. Therefore quite often drop tanks were used at the cost of bombload, this being avoidable with Spitfire IX.

As for production problems with the Spitfire: given that it comfortably exceeded any other Allied fighter this seems harsh. Lack of deliveries to Russia might be more related to the RAF and Allied air forces need for such aircraft in the same period. More, if available, would have been very welcome in India! The problems of delivering them to Russia should also be taken into account: this was no small matter, particularly after the collapse of the Northern convoy route.

Well, it is not Spitfire's fault Britain was uncapable to reequip Soviets with Spitfires. This is also out of scope, as we discuss qualities of aircraft and not possibilities to fly them by particular air forces. You may complain that this sod Hitler did not provide Stalin with quantities of Focke Wulfs as well.

Sorry, but a handful of interesting prototypes using non-production engines, lacking decent radio and other equipment, does not equate to the ability to actually produce and operate a high-altitude fighter. Soviet industry may indeed have had the potential, but could not actually do so in the circumstances of the time. I don't criticise their priorities, but these do affect capabilities.

Soviet industry lacked technologies and and experienced personnel at all levels of designing, production and exploitation.

Although the Yak series could out-maneouvre a Spitfire at lowlevel - and the very best outperform too, at low-level - this does not seem terribly convincing as a reason for not employing the LF Mk.IX over the front. Not every Yak was a -3, and not every Lavochkin a -7. The Mk.IX's far superior altitude performance does seem a better reason for using it in the PVO. That they were "wasted" because no German bomber offensive ever returned is information gained from hindsight, not a legitimate planning assumption at the time.

Spitfire Vs were removed of the front just because of the arrival of Ju 86P aircraft over Moscow. Actually, Spitfires were badly needed at the front because Soviet aircraft were flying unprotected from higher flying German aircraft. That is why Germans scored so unbelieveable scores, it was just because hit and run, while flying with relative safety above Soviets.

You do have to be careful in making judgements from single pilot comments. If the Yugoslavs found the tropicalised Mk.V and the Yak 3 equal, except for the superior climb of the Spitfire, what do we make of comments that the Yak 9DDs of the Bari detachment could outmaneouvre the Spitfire Mk.IXs of adjacent Allied units? No-one would suggest that the 9DD was the most agile of Yaks, or the Mk.IX poorer performing than the Mk.V. The two results are incompatible: other factors must be involved. However, such comments are always fascinating. It would be very interesting to known "Jas" Storrer's comments on his "private" Yak 9 that he had in Italy. However, he didn't have to fight in it.

I am afraid that it is you who is making such a judgement. I am not awared of Bari mock-up dog fight, but there is a substantial difference between and ad hoc organised combat and several days of tests with various pilots involved as Yugoslavs did. Similarly, Soviets did similar tests of Kingcobra vs Yak-9P, and the results were in favour of US aircraft.
Jas Storrar's comments would be welcome, but I am afraid they would not be decisive, as there is a substantial difference between flying for fun and in combat.

[Graham Boak]

I am afraid that it is you who is making such a judgement. I am not awared of Bari mock-up dog fight, but there is a substantial difference between and ad hoc organised combat and several days of tests with various pilots involved as Yugoslavs did. quote]

I do agree, though "several days of tests with various pilots" does not exactly imply great thoroughness. I thought that was much the point I was making, that looking at anecdotal or semi-anecdotal accounts, or even any single account, can be misleading, however genuine the participants. The only reliable source of data comes from organised series of tests done at the national flight test centres, and they rarely address direct comparisons. Even then they rarely are able to check "best current practice" on both sides but inevitably end up comparing their own national best versus the latest enemy that they could get their hands on. Always assuming the captured enemy can be made to work at optimum: the Russian test figures I've seen on the Bf 109F are clearly at fault above low altitudes, and the RAF initial figures on the Fw 190A have been criticised for not getting the maximum power from the engine. (Given that the early production BMW 801s were limited in power in German use, I'm not convinced that this was a genuine failing of the test.) There is a long and painful thread on this board(?) where one poster was clearly convinced that the performance gained from the British Bf 109G-6 was obviously affected by the retention of the gunpacks.

It would be interesting to know which engines were fitted to those Yugoslav Spitfires: there's no doubt on simple power/weight comparisons that the Yak 3 would climb away from a standard Mk.V - an M rated engine could be another matter. I'm not familiar with Yugoslav use of the Yak 3, thinking of them as Yak 9 users.

[Franek Grabowski]

Originally Posted by Graham Boak

I do agree, though "several days of tests with various pilots" does not exactly imply great thoroughness. I thought that was much the point I was making, that looking at anecdotal or semi-anecdotal accounts, or even any single account, can be misleading, however genuine the participants. The only reliable source of data comes from organised series of tests done at the national flight test centres, and they rarely address direct comparisons. Even then they rarely are able to check "best current practice" on both sides but inevitably end up comparing their own national best versus the latest enemy that they could get their hands on.

Both Yugoslav Spitfire vs Yak and Soviet Kingcobra vs Yak were on official tests on demand of respective commands, and both forces were operators of both types, so they knew perfectly how to fly those aircraft.

Always assuming the captured enemy can be made to work at optimum: the Russian test figures I've seen on the Bf 109F are clearly at fault above low altitudes, and the RAF initial figures on the Fw 190A have been criticised for not getting the maximum power from the engine. (Given that the early production BMW 801s were limited in power in German use, I'm not convinced that this was a genuine failing of the test.) There is a long and painful thread on this board(?) where one poster was clearly convinced that the performance gained from the British Bf 109G-6 was obviously affected by the retention of the gunpacks.

Those test do not qualify in this comparison.

It would be interesting to know which engines were fitted to those Yugoslav Spitfires: there's no doubt on simple power/weight comparisons that the Yak 3 would climb away from a standard Mk.V - an M rated engine could be another matter. I'm not familiar with Yugoslav use of the Yak 3, thinking of them as Yak 9 users.

Ordinary Mk VC trops. Yugoslavs used both Yak-3s and 9s. It seems they were testing for possible combats against Greek Spitfires.

[Graham Boak]

But what was the production standard of an "ordinary" Tropicalised Mk.Vc by 1945? Despite the appearance of 4-bladed props and individual exhausts on Seafires and some RAF Mk.Vs, the low-rated engines did not need either of these fittings.

However good the Yugoslavs in these trials, Newton's laws still would have applied to them. With engines of similar power, the lighter Yak 3 should have comfortably exceeded the Mk.V in a climb. So either the Yak had lower-power engines for some reason, or the Spitfire had higher.

I presume we are talking about steady climbs, not zoom climbs. Which fuels were used in the trials? Do you have access to a report or are you relying upon anecdotal comments?

[Franek Grabowski]

Graham
As standard as Mk VC trop could be. It is indeed surprising after reading so many performance figures, but I would say it was just reality. Soviet propaganda for years worked to prove the world the Soviet Union is a leading country in all respects. It was so unrefined that some people here laughed that within few years Yaks will break the sound barrier.
Trials were described in a Yugoslav booklet about Spitfire. I was unable to obtain a copy of the report, but I would hardly call it anecdotal. Climb - I presume steady climb, please note that superior climb was already noted by 57 GvIAP in 1943. One possible explanation is that Spitfire was not loaded to achieve gross weight. The fuel does not matter, as Spitfire needed 100, so any deviation would be unfavourable for the aircraft.

[Juha]

All I can say is that Finns didn't think that Soviets built poor aircraft, at least not after the beginning of Winter War. From battle reports one get impression that Finnish fighter pilots were impressed by the manoeuvrability of Yaks even if in real world La-5(FN) was more dangerous opponent to FAF 109Gs.

Juha