Ideal fighter for VVS, 1941-42

[tomo pauk]

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

 

[davebender]

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.

 

[davebender]

Copied from Kurfurst site.

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

 

[tomo pauk]

Was that an example featuring the surface cooling, or the 'regular' one?

 

[tyrodtom]

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.

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?

 

[Shortround6]

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.

 

[davebender]

Heinkel He 100 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Six He 100s were exported to the Soviet Union and three were exported to Japan. Although any Japanese aircraft that survived the war would have been destroyed by the Allies, there is a possibility that parts of or even a complete He 100 may exist somewhere in storage in Russia.[citation needed] It is also possible the Russians made plans or blueprints of their He 100s while the design was being studied.[dubious – discuss]

The Soviets were particularly interested in the surface cooling system, having built the experimental Ilyushin I-21 with evaporative cooling, and in order to gain experience with it they purchased the six surviving prototypes (V1, V2, V4, V5, V6 and V7).[2] After arriving in the USSR they were passed onto the TsAGI institute for study; there they were analyzed with He 100 features influencing a number of Soviet designs, notably the LaGG-3 and MiG-1.[citation needed] Although the surface cooling system wasn't copied, the addition of larger Soviet engines made up for the difference and the LaGG-3 was a reasonably good performer. It's perhaps ironic that German aircraft would later be shot down by German inspired aircraft.

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?

 

[tyrodtom]

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.

 

[wuzak]

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

Can't you see it? The Zero is a copy of the Hughes H-1. Howard Hughes said so!

 

[wuzak]

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?

 

[Shortround6]

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.

 

[riacrato]

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.

 

[alejandro_]

IMO Yak-1 was the best option:

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

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

Interesting reading.

Do you have the name of the book?

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

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.

 

[davebender]

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.

 

[Altea]

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.

 

[Altea]

Interesting reading.

Do you have the name of the book?

Rudel, Pilot of Stuka, no?

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.

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

 

[Shortround6]

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?

 

[Shortround6]

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.

 

[tomo pauk]

Would we see any love for the AM-35 here?

 

[Shortround6]

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.