Ideal fighter for VVS, 1941-42

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by tomo pauk, Apr 17, 2012.

  1. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    8,006
    Likes Received:
    441
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Time to design something for the Eastern front: the fighter plane to be churned like hot rolls for VVS is what is needed this time. Preferably not just a modification of an historical design - a 'clean sheet of paper' approach would be fine. The plane should enter mass production at the beginning of 1941, and should have enough of growth potential for whole of 1942. Even for later, if you're very good :)
    You can propose a design that is suited to be 'branching' into specialized roles (high/low level, short/long range etc); the two-engined design also fits in the thread.
    Only the stuff historically available for the USSR (engines, armament etc) is to be used as ingredients, conceivable LL parts are NOT to be used here.

    If we can be without politics here, that would be fine (sorry if I'm PITA for repeating this).

    MODERATORS, could you please relocate this into the 'World War II - Aviation' subforum. Thanks :)
     
  2. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Like Britain, the Soviet Union did not produce much aluminum. If you want large scale production the aircraft should be made of wood and the engine should be a cast iron V12.
     
  3. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Copied from Kurfurst site.
    He100 evaluation by VVS.jpg

    The Soviets thought highly of the He-100. That might make a good starting point for a new Soviet fighter design.
     
  4. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    8,006
    Likes Received:
    441
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Was that an example featuring the surface cooling, or the 'regular' one?
     
  5. tyrodtom

    tyrodtom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2010
    Messages:
    2,485
    Likes Received:
    110
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    auto body repair
    Location:
    pound va
    Did anybody, anywhere, make a cast iron V-12 aircraft engine ? Russia may not have been buried in baxite ore, but let's be realistic, even the T-34 tank had a aluminum V-12 diesel, so just how short of aluminum were they?
     
  6. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,780
    Likes Received:
    802
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    They stopped using cast iron for large aircraft engines in WW I. Adding 200-400lbs to the engine weight without any gain in engine performance is a sure way to get a low performing airplane. Maybe they could compensate by reducing the armament to a single 7.62 mm machine gun? ? :)

    Such a plane would have to be in very large scale production since it would be little more than piloted targets for the Germans if flown by low time pilots.
    The idea is to produce planes on a large scale that are NOT shot down on a large scale.
     
  7. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Heinkel He 100 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Looks like the Soviets purchased 6 of the earliest prototypes with surface cooling.

    I don't know a lot about LaGG and MiG design history. Were they influenced by the He-100 as Wikipedia suggests?
     
  8. tyrodtom

    tyrodtom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2010
    Messages:
    2,485
    Likes Received:
    110
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    auto body repair
    Location:
    pound va
    #8 tyrodtom, Apr 19, 2012
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2012
    Both the Mig a LaGG are either wood or in the Migs case steel tube and wood construction, there's certainly no structual influence. Visually not one similarity. The Soviets toured Germany in late October 39, so the He100 were imported some time after that.

    The LaGG first flew in March 40, the Mig in April, so they would have already been deep into their prototype constuction, kinda late to make any changes influenced by the He100.

    It just sounds like a variation on the myth of the Zero being a copy of another aircraft.
     
  9. wuzak

    wuzak Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    4,185
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Hobart Tasmania
    Can't you see it? The Zero is a copy of the Hughes H-1. Howard Hughes said so!
     
  10. wuzak

    wuzak Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    4,185
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Hobart Tasmania
    What engines could we use for this?

    One of the weaker points for Soviet aviation was, surely, the engines, particularly in the early war period?
     
  11. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,780
    Likes Received:
    802
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    Early war you have 3 basic choices for engines, the M-62/63 nine cylinder radial, the M-88 14 cylinder radial and the V-12 M-105, all are under 1100hp to start with.

    You are faced with the same decisions the Russians were faced with, what is the lightest acceptable armament combined with the largest amount of fuel that can be put in the smallest airframe that can still be flown by low time pilots.

    Now try to make the plane very easy to manufacture, even by Russian standards.

    I don't think you are going to do much better than the Russians did.
     
  12. riacrato

    riacrato Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2009
    Messages:
    669
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Occupation:
    Project Manager in FADEC industrialization
    Well said Shortround. Given the circumstances (engines, raw materials, pilot training...) the Yak and LaGG fighters were pretty much the best they could built. Of course they had many teething problems that could've partially been avoided, but that's about it.
     
  13. alejandro_

    alejandro_ Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    Messages:
    246
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    18
    IMO Yak-1 was the best option:

    - Easy to build.
    - Adaptable.
    - Sturdy.
    - Good performance.
    - Easy to pilot.

    Interesting reading.

    Do you have the name of the book?

    I don't think so. When Yakovlev and other engineers were shown the type in Germany it was not rated very highly. The flying characteristics were good but not the "exploitation"* capability.

    * This means how the aircraft will perform when operating at the front from air bases.
     
  14. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    I agree.

    The Yak was to the VVS what the Spitfire was to the RAF and the Me-109 to the Luftwaffe. All thee aircraft worked well and were produced in huge numbers. All three aircraft had decent upgrade potential which kept them competitive for the entire war.
     
  15. Altea

    Altea Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    225
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Maybe the french VG-33-36, british Mosquito?

    In fact neither Yak and LaGGs ,were intented to use 105 klimov's, nor the MiG-3 the AM-35.
    All airframes were calculated for more powefull engine's as Klimov 106/107 for the former ones or the AM-37/39 for the MiG-3, and so wrere someting overweighted, or underpowered as if you want when commited in production.
    The VG-33, might be the Ceh Avia B-135 airframe was better suited for smaller engines.
     
  16. Altea

    Altea Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    225
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #16 Altea, Apr 20, 2012
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2012
    Rudel, Pilot of Stuka, no? :lol:


    Well, it'a well known fact that LaGG, Yak planes were designed in the end of 1938, spring of 1939. Planes were assembled exactly as their were difinished in drawings and documents accepted by state commission of june 1939, the 29th.

    A little later, the same for the I-200 it was in fact a Polikarpov Kh project from the first part of 1939.

    So were, were not the He-100 in USSR, it had strictly no influence on soviet design, planes were buid exactly as they were definished by soviet bureaucracy.

    Moreover, He-100 were delivered in soviet union only mid-40.

    Regards
     
  17. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,780
    Likes Received:
    802
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    If you go with the smaller airframe you are limiting the development potential or suitability for other roles. Internal fuel needs to be close to the CG. Usually either in front of the pilot, under the pilot or in the wing roots. With small wings a larger percentage of the wing root is taken up by landing gear. Putting fuel tank/s under the pilot means a taller/fatter fuselage. You may not have room for the fuel you need if the airframe is too small.
    Please remember that drop tanks are for getting to the fight. Internal fuel is for fighting and getting home. Range problems cannot be waved away by using drop tanks.
    Higher wing loading (smaller wing) means more difficulties in operating from forward fields. Or for trying for the high altitude role.
    Small airframes make mounting heavier armament more of a problem. Is sticking with one 20mm and two 7.62mm guns what you really want to do?
     
  18. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,780
    Likes Received:
    802
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    There is a book only a few years old on the He 100.

    While an interesting aircraft it is no where near the wonder plane some people make it out to be. It had several limitations that would have quickly cropped up in service.

    1. Fuel tanks were in the wings behind and out board of the landing gear. I do not know if they were self sealing. Later versions added a 3rd tank behind the pilot. Is it with this 3 tank set up in achieved the specified ranges? The wing tanks did occupy a fair amount of the wing.
    2. The oil cooler was inside a tank of alcohol behind the pilot as a heat transfer system. Panels in the turtle deck behind the pilot and in the vertical fin cooled the alcohol for a low drag system but one with more sq. Ft. of vulnerable area than a normal oil cooler.
    3. The space for armament was rather limited. The 20mm gun behind the engine projected back between the pilots legs almost to the control column. The 60 round drum was almost in line with the rudder pedals. While a newer 20mm gun may fit the distances are going to be close and storage of ammo may be a problem if a large increase in ammo is wanted. The wing roots each housed a single 7.92mm MG, synchronized to fire through the prop. There were drawings and perhaps a mock up of a 4 gun wing (2 each side). putting in larger guns could again be a problem. The Germans may have been able to fit the MG 131 but other countries may have trouble trying to mount their own 12.7-13mm guns.
    4. No space for a center line store. not a real deal breaker but it does limit the plane to certain loads. Maybe a pair of 100 kg bombs is better than a single 250kg bomb?

    The He 100 offered speed and range but didn't really offer much more in a lot of different areas and it's ability to grow was limited.
     
  19. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    8,006
    Likes Received:
    441
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Would we see any love for the AM-35 here? :)
     
  20. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,780
    Likes Received:
    802
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    Nope :)



    While powerful It is heavy, large, would not accept a propeller hub gun. In the MIG-3 all 3 guns were mounted above the engine and were synchronized. While useful for the "high altitude" MIG-3 it was too specialized for a fighter to be turned out like hot rolls. Single speed supercharger optimized for hi altitude. Changing the supercharger (and/or gears) for a low altitude set up freed up several hundred horsepower but using such an engine in a Russian fighter gives you the equivalent of a P-40 using WEP. Lots of power down low but running out of breath at 4-5000 meters. If you want heavy Armament it has to go in the wings.
     
Loading...

Share This Page