Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

The main myth of the Continuation War

Discussion in 'Winter and Continuation Wars' started by Artema, Mar 13, 2010.

  1. belasar

    belasar Court Jester Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,384
    Likes Received:
    1,129
    To reverse engineer a plane like the Mosquito you would need far more than right wood. You would need a very good glue and Merlin engines. The Germans tried to build their own 'Mosquito' (Ta 154) yet they never got it to the large scale production phase and their aircraft industry was much better than Finland.
     
  2. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    8,743
    Likes Received:
    1,850
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Discussed and dismissed here:
    http://www.ww2f.com/threads/air-war-over-finland.52527/#post-847487

    The takeaway is that the Finns made airworthy less than 30 Soviet aircraft, about 4% of their aircraft on hand at the start of the continuation War. Further, this was not reverse engineering them, it was repairing them to flying status. Finally, Finland lacked the aeroindustry capable of producing them in meaningful numbers.

    As to Finnish reverse engineering capability...The VL Humu(reverse engineered Brewster Buffalo)
    VL Humu - Wikipedia
     
  3. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    8,743
    Likes Received:
    1,850
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Yes, the wartime Lukko wood glue was not up to its pre-war quality and caused problem with Finnish wooden aircraft.
    VL Myrsky
    And again, production in meaningful numbers was a great problem.
     
  4. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    22,558
    Likes Received:
    1,088
    Location:
    Kotka,Finland
    A couple of countries had great success in air battles with Brewster Buffalo one of them being Finland. Many blamed it for many reasons.

    Brewster F2A Buffalo - Wikipedia


    Many Finnish pilots racked up enormous scores by using basic tactics against Soviet aircraft. The default tactic was the four-plane "parvi" (swarm), with a pair flying lower as bait, and a higher pair to dive on enemy interceptors. The Soviet Air Force was never able to counteract this tactic. The top-scoring B-239 pilot was Hans Wind, with 39 kills.[36] Lt Hans Wind, with six other Buffalos of LeLv 24, intercepted some 60 Soviet aircraft near Kronstad. Two Soviet Pe-2 bombers, one Soviet Hawker Hurricane fighter, and 12 I-16s were claimed for the loss of just one B-239 (BW-378).[37] After evaluation of claims against actual Soviet losses, aircraft BW-364 was found to have been used to achieve 42½ kills in total by all pilots operating it, possibly making it the highest-scoring fighter airframe in the history of air warfare.[citation needed] The top scoring Finnish ace, Ilmari Juutilainen, scored 34 of his 94½ kills in B-239s, including 28 in BW-364.[38]

    During the Continuation War, a lack of replacements led the Finns to develop a copy of the Buffalo built from non-strategic materials such as plywood, however the Humu, as they called it, was already obsolete and only a single prototype was built. By late 1943, the lack of spares, wear-and-tear, and better Soviet fighters and training greatly reduced the effectiveness of Finnish B-239s, though LeLv 26 pilots would still claim some 35 victories against Soviet aircraft in mid-1944. The last victory by a Buffalo against Soviet aircraft was claimed over the Karelian Isthmus on 17 June 1944
     
  5. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    8,743
    Likes Received:
    1,850
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Well, this leaves a lot out.

    Yes, it was cancelled in mid-1944, because the design was obsolete. However, the Finns began the design process in 1942. Unfortunately the Finns ran into many problems with the redesign - different placement of the fuel tanks adversely effected the aircraft's center of gravity, there was an unforseen weight increase, the engine chosen for it's power plant did not perform as well as expected, structural problems, etc. As a result it was about 2 years from beginning to first flight, by which time, combined with it's inadequate fighter performance had rendered obsolete.
     
  6. ARWR

    ARWR Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2020
    Messages:
    135
    Likes Received:
    31
    Location:
    The Shire
    The Argentinians tried but whilst the result looked good, and very Mosquito like, performance was somewhat mediocre
     
  7. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    8,743
    Likes Received:
    1,850
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    P&W 1830 Twin Wasps instead of Merlins will have that effect on performance.

    They had much better performance with their "Hornet" knockoff with Merlins, but the project was dropped in favor of jets.
     
  8. ARWR

    ARWR Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2020
    Messages:
    135
    Likes Received:
    31
    Location:
    The Shire
    Which were also less than exciting despite Herr Tank's efforts
     
  9. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    8,743
    Likes Received:
    1,850
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    I don't know...the I.Ae. 30 "Nancu"(Argentina's British Hornet knockoff) could do 460mph with two Merlins and had a range of about 1,700 miles. Have not found anything on it's maneuverability yet.
     

Share This Page