What is there that that bothers you, and makes you not to trust on the Finnish Blenheim tests?Vaeltaja wrote:After seeing Finnish flight test result of SB-2s.. Nope, not really.I seem to trust on the Finnish flight tests (Do you?)
Regard, Juha
What is there that that bothers you, and makes you not to trust on the Finnish Blenheim tests?Vaeltaja wrote:After seeing Finnish flight test result of SB-2s.. Nope, not really.I seem to trust on the Finnish flight tests (Do you?)
Series I (Mk.I, British) = 1000 lb. or 900 kg (8x100 + 4x25 kg.) with Finnish racks.Juha Tompuri wrote: The Finnish Blenheim bombload thing is a bit unclear to me, but AFAIK during Winter War the max (theorethical) bombload of the planes with Finnish bombracks was something 900-1000 kg
The ones with English bombracks, 563- or 527 kg
About I-16.Vaeltaja wrote: Well.. If we agree that Blenheim and SB-2 had roughly comparable performance and that I-16 (not actually sure which I-16s were used in Winter War) had higher top speed than what Fokker D XXI had (at least according to Finnish pilots it was so). Then Soviet I-16s should have had better chance of taking chasing and taking down Finnish Blenheims than what Finnish Fokker had chance of chasing down and dropping SB-2s.
The unclear thing for me is the wording at the Raunio book.Martti Kujansuu wrote: Series I (Mk.I, British) = 1000 lb. or 900 kg (8x100 + 4x25 kg.) with Finnish racks.
Series II (Mk.I, Finnish) = 922 kg. (8x100 + 4x12,5 + 24x3 kg.)
Series III (Mk.IV, British) = 1160 lb. (4x250 + 4x20 + 4x20 lb.)
Series IV (Mk.I, British) = ""
Series V (Mk.I, Finnish) = 972 kg. (8x100 + 4x25 + 24x3 kg.)
Series VI (Mk.IV, Yugoslavian/Finnish) = ""
In english: "four 12.5-25kg bombs to a wing""...neljä 12.5-25 kiloista siipeen"
AFAIK no Finnish plane was able to carry 250kg bombs during Winter War.Martti Kujansuu wrote:A 250 kg bomb is not the same as five 50 kg bombs, since it is my understanding the destructive power of the bomb grews by the volume, that is power of three. A 100 kg bomb might not have destroyed those half a dozen tanks that were destroyed by Blenheims on July 4th 1941 at Karelian Isthmus. Fokkers usually had the same targets as Blenheims; convoys, factories, railway stations and such. To really access their success we need Soviet loss data.
The Finnish MK IV data is with the local 100 octane fuel and with some extra boost.Vaeltaja wrote:To Juha Tompuri...
First the listed result of the Blenheim maximum speed was on other sites always claimed on Blenheim I. Elsewhere Blenheim IVs all gained speed results around 420 to 430 kph. Finnish data seems to exist as an outlier as Finns gained higher top speed with Blenheim IVs and lower with Blenheim I.
The tests were flown with ordinary planes, not with factory polished ones,Vaeltaja wrote:Then we have the second example, the SB-2. Again Finnish data seems to exists as an outlier. Of course there could be plausible explanations - perhaps something like Mercury XVs in type I hull and/or not being able to tune/repair properly the war booty engines - for both but it doesn't seem too good at first glance.
Seems to have been faster than the majority of the enemy planes.Vaeltaja wrote:And yes. What i aimed to debunk was the claim - or something i perceived as a such a claim - that Blenheim would have been somehow exceptional aircraft at the time of the Winter War. From the data (apart from Finnish test data) the Blenheim does not appear to be exceptional aircraft in any sense for a light bomber of its era - not exceptionally fast, long ranged or having strong defensive armament. Which points out that something else than the aircraft itself was required to be considerably different in Finnish operations compared with Soviet operations for the Blenheim to have been operating as successfully as it did. That is to say quality (tactics) and daring of the bomber crews seems to have been far more important than perceived 'superior' qualities of the aircraft for the Blenheim's successes in the Winter War.
Pretty fast it was.Vaeltaja wrote: Blenheim does not appear to be exceptional aircraft in any sense for a light bomber of its era
Pretty fast, yes just like the other light bombers. Exceptionally fast, no. Having outstanding performance, no.Pretty fast it was.
Others?Vaeltaja wrote:Pretty fast, yes just like the other light bombers.Pretty fast it was.
As above.Vaeltaja wrote:Exceptionally fast, no. Having outstanding performance, no.
Juha Tompuri wrote:Others?
When bought, and also after that Blenheim seems to have compared well against the "others".
As an aircraft it was not exceptional nor was it outstanding by the Winter War. More like average for a light bomber design. How (and how well) it was used is another story. Captured Pe-2s and Pe-3 might have been able to repeat that had they been used for that purpose.Juha Tompuri wrote:As above.
Also exceptional and outstanding in that sense that at no time after Winter War Finnish bombers had such freedom of operations because of their performance.
Actually no arguing at my case, just trying to steer this discussion honest and fact-based.John Hilly wrote:Come on Guys! Honestly!
Is there any sense left in this argument.
Not that outstanding as it has been, yes.Vaeltaja wrote:Juha Tompuri wrote:Others?
When bought, and also after that Blenheim seems to have compared well against the "others".
When bought, yes it was exceptionally fast aircraft with outstanding performance - for mid 1930s light bomber. Already by 1939 it was no longer exceptionally fast (Do 17s, SB-2s had already caught up with it - as had fighter designs) nor was it's performance any longer as outstanding as it had been.
Faster than average.Vaeltaja wrote:As an aircraft it was not exceptional nor was it outstanding by the Winter War. More like average for a light bomber design.Juha Tompuri wrote:As above.
Also exceptional and outstanding in that sense that at no time after Winter War Finnish bombers had such freedom of operations because of their performance.
Well... Pe-3 wasn't a bomber and when the Pe-2's entered Finnish service, there were enemy service fighters that were +100km/h faster than it.Vaeltaja wrote:Captured Pe-2s and Pe-3 might have been able to repeat that had they been used for that purpose.
Ideal would be SR-71Juha Tompuri wrote:Vaeltaja wrote:Well... Pe-3 wasn't a bomber and when the Pe-2's entered Finnish service, there were enemy service fighters that were +100km/h faster than it.Vaeltaja wrote:Captured Pe-2s and Pe-3 might have been able to repeat that had they been used for that purpose.
That is certainly true.Juha Tompuri wrote:Not bad for mid 30's plane.
Both Do 17Z and SB-2M-103 had perfectly comparable performance. Hence.. average. Please do note that there were several even faster light bomber designs around as well - they have just got less publicity.Juha Tompuri wrote:Faster than average.
Those were the fastest remotely bomber resembling aircraft Finns had. And AFAIK Pe-3 was able to carry some bombs.Juha Tompuri wrote:Well... Pe-3 wasn't a bomber and when the Pe-2's entered Finnish service, there were enemy service fighters that were +100km/h faster than it.