Soviet Hurricanes - where, when, ...?

[Andrey Dikov]

Originally Posted by Pilot

Andrey Dikov- nice info, how could be possible to get a sample of the book you have mentioned?

It wasn't published yet.

[Kari Lumppio]

Salut!

I think Graham has nailed it when he mentioned above that Hurricane was good performer at 20 000 ft (~ 6000 m).

I refer to FinnAF ace Hans Wind's war time lecture about fighter tactics:
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2...csLecture.html

(it's translation from Finnish to English)

I quote:
"The easiest one to shoot down of the enemy fighters is the Hurricane. It is totally helpless against us below 3,000 meters. It is slow and very clumsy and unmanoeuvrable...
...
The Hurricane and Spitfire are slow and clumsy fighters at low altitudes. They seek dogfights at high altitudes (over 5,000 m) where their characteristics are extremely good... "
(Emphasis shown is mine)

So Hurricane was sort of two planes in one package. This was the result of two gear compressor? What was the altitude when Hurricane Merlin's compressor second gear kicked in?

It looks like Hurricane was in it's best at high altitudes, preferably with radar leading. Like in Battle of Britain. In essence Hurricane had performance of an interceptor. In Soviet Union MiG-3 was designed for the same purpose. And both were used mainly as front line fighter. Soviets surely knew how to use the Hurricane properly as many were assigned to PVO (Murmansk) units where it was in it's own role.


Just my two cents worth,

Kari

[Andrey Dikov]

Kari, Hans Wind and his lectures are the last useful in this discussion, imho.

None of Wind's claims against Hurries can be confirmed by real Soviet losses, and out of 20 Finnish claims against 3 giap KBF Hurries, only 3 have corresponding Soviet losses. Out of these three Hurries, two were shot down by classic sudden attacks without dogfighting. So I don't think Wnd can be regarded as an expert about Hurricane and its combat characteristics.

[Kari Lumppio]

Privet Andrej!

We are not talking about Wind's claims. You did read what Väinö Pokela told in the intro? "... Someone suggested that one of the squadron pilots go to Kauhava to lecture on tactics". The lecture was AFAIK collected wisdom, not only Wind's personal experience. It is a good description of tactics seen from FinnAF Brewster pilot's percpective.

I tend to think similarly about many of Wind's claims as you seem to do. But the fact that the three Hurricane claims by Wind do not correspond to losses doesn't change not one thing in Hurricane's power (speed)/altitude curve, does it?

Tshukovski's (spelling) book "Baltic Sky" seems to confirm the habit of Hurricane (quoting Wind): "It is best to shoot this plane in the forward part of the fuselage when it almost immediately bursts into flames."

I am eagerly looking forward to be able to read your text about 3 GIAP Hurricane experiences.

All the best,
Kari

[Mirek Wawrzynski]

Reading some post about Hurricanes, I think you should read (only in Russian) a major Zimin's memories - I istriebiteil - about his personal and commander expirience with this particular plane. It is on the net in Russian.
He was a commander of 485. IAP and quile long his unit fought versus Me 109 F in 1942 of JG 51 and JG 54. This regiment had been not smashed in 2-3 weeks of combat tour, as were fate of severals others regiment with the same Hurricanes, like 439., 488. IAP. More it fought for several months of hard fighting with betetr Me 109 F. It was possible in 1942 in such plane as Hurricanes too.

One thing is the handling quality of the plane
Second quality of Soviet benzine, oil ect - low.
Third, as it loved and many Russian said about Hurricane as a very not good, clamsy plane, horrible and terrible ect..

This thing is last but not least the general expirience and level of knowledge about air combat tactics and skill of use the tactic in many Soviet regiments in the period 1941-42 and even 1943.
Zimin made many "revolutionary" changes in the tactic of his units and quite much improved the training of the own pilots. So his unit could surrvived several months on the front - period IV-IX 1942.

To much time I have read many ungly claimes of Soviet pilots for terrible Allied Hurricane and much worse British and American weapons but very seldom, particular before 1990 I have met in official memories, stories any critics about own knowledge about tactics, own flying expirince, wrong commanders. All what was wrong was from "capitalism" - all "good" were from Soviet side. So ŁaGG-3 (1941-1942) or I-16 typ 24, or typ 29 were much better then clumsy Hurricanes. OK why teh they do not produced them instead of Hurricanes? If were so "good" or MiG-3 ect..

The true is more difficoult, than many would like to see and undrestand. In many cases for horrible rate of losses were responsile not ugly Hurircanes but very low Soviet pilots training and tactical skills on all leverl from the buttom to the top llevel (it means for example the lack of flying in pairs, in fours ect., lack of radio sets) presented in fronatl air regiments - not only there - in the period 1941-1943.


Regards,
MirekW

It is very easy to say it was very bad "plane" and all other was OK, Is it true? I do not think so.

[Graham Boak]

I had quite a long posting which seems to have been lost, so I'll try to regenerate it.

Franek: The Hurricane was deliberately a conservative design, in order to get it through development and into production quickly. It suffered from bad advice from RAE, that the thick wing section would not prove performance limiting, but other than that it had little that was aerodynamically poor, in the standards of the time. It is very rare that any design, once placed in production, will undergo major aerodynamic changes. The costs, in development, new jigs and lost production, is excessive - the designers are better off producing a totally new design incorporating other improvements. In the case of Hawkers, this was the Typhoon. As a measure of the lack of effort, look how long it took to do the obvious and fit a Merlin 45.

The Russian fighters of the next generation all had smaller wings and a smaller fuselage cross-section. Given equal power, this would (and did) result in faster speeds. Although the wooden construction was heavier than an equivalent metal, I'm not sure that they ended up heavier than the Hurricane (though less well armed). The wooden skin did allow a high quality of surface finish with little drag from excrescences, steps, gaps and fasteners. The shorter wings and higher ratio of aileron to wing areas, plus the lack of wing armament, would explain their superior agility. Yes, the Hurricane did "suffer" from propaganda-inspired (or at least patriotically-inspired!) criticism, and has continued to suffer from excessive criticism to this day, but this doesn't mean that every criticism is unjustified.

Kari: yes, the Mk.II was designed as a bomber destroyer at higher altitudes, in the anticipation of a Battle of Britain II. The Mk.II was longer and heavier, not just for the engine but also as part of the growth of weight due to added capability, that aircraft of all generations suffer from. The Merlin Mk.XX did not produce a lot (if any) more power at lower altitude than the Mk.III, and the result was an aircraft clumsier and less effective AS A PURE FIGHTER, at low-level, than the Mk.1. From memory, the second gear came into its own above some 18000ft, and provided a considerably better performance higher up. Performance curves can be found in Mason's original Hurricane book, from Macdonalds. Sadly for its pilots, wherever it went the Mk.II found itself fighting at lower altitudes than its optimum, and suffered accordingly. Even with 100 octane.

[Franek Grabowski]

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.

[Kari Lumppio]

Gumorron!

What I wanted to point out with my quote of Wind's lecture was that even enemy (FinnAF) had noticed that Hurricane performed less well at low altitudes and came to it's own above 5000 meters (~16 000 ft). Nothing more and nothing less. Cannot help if that is too hard to comprehend.

Enough said,
Kari

[yogybär]

Interesting discussion, Gents.

Once more, it is not the easy B/W-thing but more complex. So, the Hurri didn't fit well into the circumstances on the Eastern Front (low fights, low-octance fuel).

Maybe we should not forget one thing: Even the RAF used Hurricanes as fighterbombers in 1944 (against V1-bases i.e.). They suffered horrible losses.

[Graham Boak]

Franek: The Hurricane wing was considerably thicker than that used on other fighters of the same design period - the Spitfire is the outstanding case in the other direction, but isn't the Hurricane's wing thicker than that of the I-16, 109, P-36 or Claude? Yes, it was the same problem with the Tornado/Typhoon. The main problem with the fuselage was the excessive depth, and thus large cross-section, in order to give a good view forward and downwards. To alter this would have meant major changes to the basic design. Yes, the canopy could be improved, as indeed it was on the Spitfire, and the Hurricane's structure lends itself to such a mod. It probably is a missed chance, but the comparison you make with the Yak.1 is much later than the Hurricane's main period of use, and later designs than the Hurricane were being built with rear view as bad - Tornado/Typhoon, Mustang, Yak and the entire production run of Bf 109s. The fabric covering of the rear fuselage is irrelevant, and the Corsair had fabric covered wing panels much later. The use of fabric covering for the control surfaces lay in handling requirements, and remained in use on e.g. the Mustang. A separate case can perhaps be made for metal-covered ailerons at high speeds, but are there specific reports of heavy ailerons on the Hurricane? Maybe it never went fast enough for it to matter?

The Yak 3 could comfortably outperform the Spitfire Vc at other than high altitudes: the Vc was the heavyweight dragmaster of the Spitfire V family. A better comparison would be the LF Mk.Vb, with its stellar performance at (very) low altitudes.