GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The G5N was actually a promising design and would have been in the same league with other leading heavy bombers of the day if it weren't for the engine issues.
Made under license
- Thread starter The Basket
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
GreenKnight121
Senior Airman
- 734
- Mar 16, 2014
UK government approving sale of Nene & Derwent jet engines to the USSR in 1946 & 47.
The resulting Klimov-produced engines (the virtual Nene-copy RD-45 and the developed VK-1 enlargement of the RD-45, and the Derwent V-copy RD-500) powered Soviet military jets for many years (including [VK-1] the MiG-15).
The Russians actually ordered Derwents and Nenes from Rolls-Royce and received 30 Derwent Vs and 20 Nene Is and five Nene IIs, but they were never given a licence to build them. The RD-45 and VK-1s were reverse engineered copies outside of a licence agreement.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
It seems that Boeing never got any compensation for the Tu-4, either...
On the subject of the Soviet Union and the DC-3, Douglas gave the Soviets a licence to build the type in 1936 and the deal was that Douglas would supply examples to the Soviet Union for study; 21 were purchased and sent to Russia (some sources say 18), along with drawings, which caused delays to manufacture since the Russians worked to redo them from Imperial to Metric measurements. Engines, wheels and tyres, propellers and other ancilliary equipment were locally supplied, some of which had been built under licence from the USA at any rate, including the Shvetsov M-62 engine, which was a derivative of the M-25, which was a copy of the DC-2's Wright Cyclone. The Japanese and Dutch received drawings as well and initially had trouble transposing them to Metric that the first Japanese example completed, by Nakajima was assembled from US made parts. Showa production and subsequent Nakajima examples were built to Japanese tolerances, as were the Russian ones, which required extra strengthening to meet official standards.
The PS.84/Lisunov Li-2, although looking like a DC-3 was a very different airframe in many respects. Structurally the airframes were the same, but Russian research institutes insisted on heavier gauge materials and beefier structural elements to cope with their requirements for the aircraft. Built as a civil airliner and specifically military roles of transport and bomber - not just a conversion of existing transport aircraft, the bomber variants were built as such on the production line and incorporated internal bomb storage, bomb aiming positions and other things conventional transport DC-3s didn't have.
Douglas did only supply construction information and couldn't stipulate what the machines were to be used for, not that the Soviets would have listened anyway. A large number of Soviet engineers from aircraft factories and research institutes went to the USA to study the Douglas production lines, which was part of the deal and on their return to the Soviet Union began the process to get the type built since US production methods were far in advance of Soviet ones at the time. The entire process was of course different to how Western manufacture of aircraft took place. In the Soviet Union a requirement was issued to the research institutes by the requisite government department (strictly speaking, all the aircraft companies and air force and civilian research institutes were government departments, which is where the differences between the two systems reveal themselves), who released specifications and from those, different factories, i.e. aircraft manufacturers would then be chosen to build the aircraft required, based on the research institute's findings. This was all done under governmental guise, the appropriate civil or military government department making the final decision as to who was to build the aircraft based on the factory's suitability and experience.
At the time, only Tupolev and Ilyushin had experience in building all metal airframes, but following the recommendations of the defence department, Plant 84 at Kymkhi, run by Pavlovich Lisunov was selected to build the DC-3, with Vladimir Myasischev, who at that stage had worked for Andrei Tupolev and had yet to form his own firm, as project leader.
The tricky thing is, with the modifications made to the PS-84, and subsequent DC-3s supplied to the USSR, it's hard to tell them apart. This is a Douglas built DC-3 with Soviet engines in China (at the China Aviation Museum outside of Beijing).
DSC_6667
Compare that image to this one of a Lisunov Li-2 civil transport and minor differences become apparent (at the Civil Aviation Museum of China, in Beijing - not the same place as the aforementioned and better known museum).
Li-2 1
The PS.84/Lisunov Li-2, although looking like a DC-3 was a very different airframe in many respects. Structurally the airframes were the same, but Russian research institutes insisted on heavier gauge materials and beefier structural elements to cope with their requirements for the aircraft. Built as a civil airliner and specifically military roles of transport and bomber - not just a conversion of existing transport aircraft, the bomber variants were built as such on the production line and incorporated internal bomb storage, bomb aiming positions and other things conventional transport DC-3s didn't have.
Douglas did only supply construction information and couldn't stipulate what the machines were to be used for, not that the Soviets would have listened anyway. A large number of Soviet engineers from aircraft factories and research institutes went to the USA to study the Douglas production lines, which was part of the deal and on their return to the Soviet Union began the process to get the type built since US production methods were far in advance of Soviet ones at the time. The entire process was of course different to how Western manufacture of aircraft took place. In the Soviet Union a requirement was issued to the research institutes by the requisite government department (strictly speaking, all the aircraft companies and air force and civilian research institutes were government departments, which is where the differences between the two systems reveal themselves), who released specifications and from those, different factories, i.e. aircraft manufacturers would then be chosen to build the aircraft required, based on the research institute's findings. This was all done under governmental guise, the appropriate civil or military government department making the final decision as to who was to build the aircraft based on the factory's suitability and experience.
At the time, only Tupolev and Ilyushin had experience in building all metal airframes, but following the recommendations of the defence department, Plant 84 at Kymkhi, run by Pavlovich Lisunov was selected to build the DC-3, with Vladimir Myasischev, who at that stage had worked for Andrei Tupolev and had yet to form his own firm, as project leader.
The tricky thing is, with the modifications made to the PS-84, and subsequent DC-3s supplied to the USSR, it's hard to tell them apart. This is a Douglas built DC-3 with Soviet engines in China (at the China Aviation Museum outside of Beijing).
Compare that image to this one of a Lisunov Li-2 civil transport and minor differences become apparent (at the Civil Aviation Museum of China, in Beijing - not the same place as the aforementioned and better known museum).
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
There were some differences in the L2D, as some were actually produced for civil transport and the bulk were built for military transport.
I beleive it was the Nakajima L2D that was the afore mentioned and the Showa L2D-1 that was the latter.
I beleive it was the Nakajima L2D that was the afore mentioned and the Showa L2D-1 that was the latter.
Admiral Beez
Major
In these days before the rotary mini gun could one of the C-47 manufacturers make a credible AC-47 gunship for CAS?
Last edited:
The AC-47 was never used where there was any credible threat of AA, and it was usually used at night.
It flew a pylon turn around whatever it's ground target was.
Just think of being on the ground behind any AA gun and a aircraft starts flying around you in a steady shallow turn at maybe 200 mph, any half way competent gunner would slaughter it.
It flew a pylon turn around whatever it's ground target was.
Just think of being on the ground behind any AA gun and a aircraft starts flying around you in a steady shallow turn at maybe 200 mph, any half way competent gunner would slaughter it.
SwampTiger
Airman
- 10
- Dec 15, 2020
As noted by Tyrodtom, you first need control of the air for such a plane to survive. Any colonial war will do for that requirement. I can imagine an early twin engine bomber/transport with half a dozen HMG's will make any force of colonial rebels/freedom fighters run for the hills.
With a peer opponent, you don't try this more than once or twice.
With a peer opponent, you don't try this more than once or twice.
Admiral Beez
Major
Sounds like you need control of the ground too.
If you had control of the ground, why would you be using it ?
You just can't use it against anyone with up to date weapons, like bigger than rifle caliber guns, night vision, or AAA.
Using it in daylight against about any half ass military force would be suicide.
You just can't use it against anyone with up to date weapons, like bigger than rifle caliber guns, night vision, or AAA.
Using it in daylight against about any half ass military force would be suicide.
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
All a license is is just a legal right. Who supplies or does what is another matter.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
