Soviet aircraft the west coulda/shoulda used?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


It only took about another year to deliever production examples.


By 1942 American projects were into the later model P-47s.
In fact the Bell P-59 project (jet) was started in Sept 1941 with 13 pre- production airframes started in March of 1942.
Order date for the XP-63 was 6/27/41
Grumman Hellcat was first ordered July of 1941 with first flights of Wright engined Prototype in June 1942with P&W engined prototype in July 1942. First production plane delivered in Oct 1942. I really doubt a American production line for the Yak could be up and running any faster if the decision to do it wasn't made until Feb/March of 1942. Many other American manufactures took a year or more to go into production after the decision was made.
 
No disrespect to the Russian designers and workers. They were starting from behind the curve and had to often work in appalling conditions-- Political, climate, and bomb damage/invasion.
They were able to come up with effective warplanes and build them in large numbers.
Unfortunatly for this discussion, most of the 1941 models were little more than protoypes themselves and even if ordered into production before or at the same time the prototype actually flew many of them needed considerable "tweeking" before they were even fully acceptable to the Soviet authorities.

Again I say that much credit is due to the design teams and factory workers who turned some of these less than satasfactory models into the much more effective versions of of even 1-2 years later considering the conscription, factory evacuations and moves and so on. Much credit is also due to the pilots, many of whom had much less airtime than many western pilots who would be considered "green" in theri own air forces.

WHile the MiG-1, Yak-1 and LAGG -1were large advances over many of the older aircraft in sevice with the Russian air units that does not mean they were realy up to western standards in their original 1940-41 forms. There may be some dispute as to when the M-105PF engine went into production which might further affect how a ealy fall 41 aircraft might fair in an evaluation compared to a spring or sumer 42 example.

Considering the difficulties the west was having in gearing up production in 1941-42-43 I just do not see any "spare" capacity for Russian aircraft and the engines the would need in the US.

Well, OK the Brewster Buccaneer/Bermuda could be gotton rid off but given Brewsters later record of slow/none delievery this wouldn't get you much

By mid to late 1942 when the better performing Russian planes show up the west also has a few better planes further along their production tracks. WHile the LA-5 is a very good airplane the choice of western engines for it is rather limited. THe Wright R-2600 is close in power (actually a little low) but is about 6 in (150mm) larger in diameter. Yes you could stick it on but you won't get quite the same perfomance. That leaves the P&W R-2800 which is in rather short supply. What American airplane using the R-2800 does anyone suggest get cut to provide engines for American LA-5s?
 
I'm talking about production. The Russians took our planes, yes? They must have needed planes then, right? I'm not condescending to anyone about anything but we had a lot of factories that were under no threat of being bombed. We lend-leased things all over the place. An idea to ramp up production to hand out weapons to our allies in large numbers makes tons of sense to me.

Nobody has yet convinced me that a (lighter than 7000 pound) dogfighter based around the V-1710 is a bad idea. There's nothing wrong with the engine, there's nothing wrong with our aircraft industry.

I also like plywood fighters and I think the really good ones showed how competitive they could be (Mosquito for instance). I think that Duramold Plywood could have been used to great effect in producing a fighter like that with the added benefit that wood was cheaper than aluminum.
 
Last edited:
To all those who think the Americans had vast numbers of workers standing around doing nothing and just waiting for something to do.

See: Waco CG-4 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

THe Glider program was one reason that woden aircraft went out of fashion in the US war production schemes.

THe Aluminum shortage never really materialized and many Makers of wooden aircraft and/or furnature makers were working on the glider program so there wasn't a large amount of excess capacity to make wooden planes with.
 
I respectfully disagree! Both the Typhoon as P-47 were never designed as ground attack aircraft. They became them because their original role had been taken over by other fighter aircraft !

Of course it's true that the P-47 was up to the task. The history of WW2 is well known. But if we're talking about Russian aircraft which would have been useful for the Western AFs, then I think the IL-2 is a possiblity.

I also disagree with the argument of geographics. Look at the map again and you'll see that there's not that much difference: plains, hills, few mountains (except for Italy), some forests, some big rivers, ... In fact, the army would have been more affected by it: just think of tank warfare for instance. Yet we don't see that differing that much. Of course, I'm talking about the Eastern Front of 1944...


Kris
 
Interesting point, however I must point out that the P-47 continued to be a fighter even after it's ground attack abilities were put into service, right up to the end of the war.

The IL-2i version never realized that ability. All other versions of the IL-2 were slow and required air superiority for it to accomplish it's task. Wherever the P-47 went, it went with impunity, wether it was on the deck or at 30,000 feet.

It was not uncommon for the P-47 to accompany bombers to a certain point, "hand them off" to the next fighter escort, and then drop from thier high altitude and conduct harrassment of enemy ground units on thier way back to base. It was a multi-role aircraft that was a valuable asset to any airforce that used it.

And I thought we were talking abut the time period of about the onset of the war, not 1944. In the beginning of the war, the geography of the west and the east were totally different. By 1944 the fronts were drawing close together, and of course at that point the geography would be similiar.

The early years of the war saw western Allies flying across the channel into France and Belgium, which does have hills of varying degrees along with plains, but also networks of hedgerows and broken terrain. In the East, you had rolling hills and steppes with large wooded tracts. There was a difference in ground attack methods between the two fronts. The IL-2 operated close to the front whereas the western Allies had to fly across the channel to strike at targets.
 
I'd like to make a couple of other interesting observations to freshen things up a bit.

In 41 while the Soviets were still in "emergency mode" and the winter was crawling in, the first of several hundred Hurricanes had already been received with brilliant British dedication to immediate aid (imho Churchill was playing the German forces off between the Eastern and Mediterranean Fronts, which worked beautifully).
Often the Hurris were unusable however, poorly suited to the particularly rough Russian field conditions and weather, the Soviets wound up removing armoured seats and radios and fitting them to their own a/c (typically LaGG-3 around Leningrad) unless relatively limited supplies of local servicing fluids and minor components could be installed to the Hurricanes. They just weren't suited to operating at 30 below and the available fuel quality meant boost had to be recalibrated below +6lbs which killed performance even on a good day. The Soviets first found them useful only as bomber interceptors (MkII's with 12 gun or cannon armament), and later only as light attack aircraft (during 42 on the Stalingrad approach, Hurribombers were used widely to attack German transport lines, still fast enough to be rarely intercepted in hit and run tactics).

Now the talk is the LaGG-3 and Yak-1 with M-105P (low boost) engines was not very adequate in terms of performance compared to the latest 109F in 1941, but this was still better suited to Russian conditions (both rough field and weather) than western types. During 1942 however there was better supply of high grade fuels and the Soviets cleared the Klimov for higher boost pressures (the one and only difference between the M-105P and PF motors, and the recalibration could be performed in the field). I assume the Hurribombers were also recalibrated to +8 or +12lbs in 42...but by then Ural production was already improving quite a bit on the LaGG and Yak fighters (many of their early inadequacies were due to the recent shift of factories and subsequent, dramatic drop in airframe finishing quality, refinished examples of the Yak-1 in Dec41 gained as much as 15km/h over production versions taken randomly off the line in a Tsagi report and this was quite typical until about mid-42).
But finishing quality aside we're talking about indigenous aircraft which could operate under any weather and field conditions typical to the Soviets.

Several US types were pushed to be included in Lend Lease shipments, but the Soviets were not interested in some, extensive testing revealed several simply couldn't operate under the required conditions. The P-39 was reportedly updated several times with features requested by the Soviets, as it had not become a popular aerial fighter in its intended role with the USAAC/F and most of its numbers were headed there, but it wasn't a matter of surplus, it was a matter of whether or not the Soviets wanted them or could even use them, since they'd have to pay for them eventually.

For the so-called "poorer nations" like Australia and so forth, well I don't think economy was such an issue with LL, after all Australia even started building Mustangs in 1944. In this case I think it was the availability of aircraft types, we chose the P-40 because Spit production was needed by Britain and getting US freight was eaiser than British freight, probably also the reason we didn't use many Merlin engine P-40s but stuck to Allison versions.
I'm guessing if the US had the Yak in major production say late 42 we'd have stuck with the all metal P-40 anyway, the Yak is composite/fabric, the Klimov basically a redeveloped Hispano-Suiza and the equipment is poor. Say this license built version used all American parts, what, fifties in the wings and an Allison? So it's a P-40 with crappier airframe and equipment? And if talking about a redesign, as has been mentioned why do that when it is easier to design the Mustang from scratch? I mean you're talking about basically a Yak-3 with an Allison and fifties in the wings being available the same time as the MkI Mustang, which is a cleaner, fresher design with better equipment/design features that RAF pilots declared handled better than a Spit at low altitude (hence the suggestion a Merlin should be fitted).

I mean in terms of single seat fighters comparing to late war Allied types the Soviets really made the grade with the La-5FN, La-7 and Yak-9U/P (with its 1650hp motor and much better throttle heights). Earlier stuff was workable and had potential, but I think their best value was being indigenous and inherently capable of functioning well under Soviet field conditions.

But the Il-2, Pe-2, Tu-2 and La-5/7 were all excellent and very worthy a/c imho, easily comparable to the best in the west ca.1944 production. The Yak I think was a production dream for the Soviets, it started off like a Hurricane and wound up like a Mustang (Wright field comparatively tested a Yak-9P captured during the Korean war as equivalent to a P-51D in all respects but better manoeuvrability). At any given time though I don't think it was any better and possibly not quite as good as parallel Allied fighters like the MkIX/VIII Spit and P-47 (or in 41 the MkII/V Spit and P-40E).
 
The IL-2i version never realized that ability. All other versions of the IL-2 were slow and required air superiority for it to accomplish it's task. Wherever the P-47 went, it went with impunity, wether it was on the deck or at 30,000 feet.
Click to expand...
I don't really agree with this. The Ju-87 required local air superiority to function but not the Il2, most defitely not. The Il-2 frequently operated in contested airspace throughout 1943, at Kursk for example, with relatively few losses.

And this business about single shot 30mm kills...and that Oldsmobile cannon in the P-39...I would direct these comments once again to an appropriate expert like Tony Williams. When talking about heavily armoured small a/c penetration and flat trajectories is key. The Mk108 virtually "lobbed" its rounds and the yank 37mm has a hard time penetrating thin plate (it was not in any way an anti-armour round). Now the Soviet NS-37 and 45mm were very powerful weapons noted for single shot kills at extreme range against fighters, but then they were also noted for almost stopping the firing a/c (Yak-9T/K or LaGG-3T) mid-flight with recoil. These guns are a totally different kettle of fish and were designed for thick armour penetration (ie. light anti-tank work), unlike the Mk108 or Oldsmobile gun which are aerial guns designed for taking out large targets with broad vulnerable sections at fairly close range.

Sure any single 30mm round will take down any small a/c shot in the wingroot, and just a few rounds will have a similar effect on the wingroot of a B-17, but what are you going to do as a Luftwaffe interceptor, radio the Il2 pilot and ask him if he wouldn't mind flying straight and level so you can lob an Mk108 shell into his wingroot at close range?
Your best chances of manoeuvring hits are going to be at centre of mass, right where the armoured bathtub is, which I dare say would take a glancing Mk108 round surprisingly well. I don't think it'd stand up to a Mk101/103 round however.
 
Keep in mind that the Mk108 minengeschoß round was an extremely potent HE round, and can't really be compared to other 30mm (or 37mm) cannon rounds. It wasn't designed to penetrate armor as much as it was designed to detonate violently, creating maximum amount of damage to it's target. This would be catastrophic to an aircraft's structure and/or surfaces. As I said previously, the 30mm minengeschoß was 4 times more powerfull than the MG151/20 20mm minengeschoß. The difference between the two rounds is that one or two Mk108 rounds would bring down a B-17 where it took 20 or more MG151/20 rounds to do the same.

A pilot who flew a Mk108 equipped aircraft wouldn't "lob" shells at a target, but would close in to maximize the weapon's accuracy. This meant closing in from about 690 meters or less even though it's range was technically up to 1,000 meters, but not very accurate at max.

The Mk101 and it's successor, the Mk103 were of a different design, and chambered a different 30mm (30x184B) round than the Mk108 (30x90RB). These two weapons were more specialized as anti-armor weapons. They had a number of cartridges available, the tungsten-tipped AP projectile being the most common used.
 
We'll have to disagree until one of us finds evidence. I think that thin-walled heavily loaded MK 108 shell would knock anything out but a very lucky B-17 with one hit. I know people like to think of the Il-2 as a flying tank but it wasn't actually a tank. Add to that, the German is probably coming down from above in a 109 or 110 and you have a problem.
 
Hello Shortround6 ,

Correct, I was thinking of the Mig 1. The Mig 3 cruised faster than the P-40E too. although it would be interesting to find some figures for each plane for cruising speed used, at what altitude for what range using what for a fuel load.
Click to expand...
Might be useful: Â.Á. Øàâðîâ. Òîì 2 - òàáëèöû 20


For the I-200 state trials: 580 km at 565 km/h (09 Vmax speed), and from memory 784km at 465 km/h
The I-200/MiG-1 had one fuselage 110l and two 155l wing root tanks.

The P-40E had 35+50+62.5 us.gal tanks. (461l)

The MiG-3 carried an extra 265l ( with less than realy 250 usable litres, due to mis-shapen geometry) tank under the pilots seat and a second oil tank beneath the engine. In order to compensate the aft CG, the engine was moved 100 mm forward, lengthening the plane as same. Total fuel capacity 680litres (usable 640-650)

From P-40E pilot notes
700 miles at 188 IAS at 12000 ft with 100 us gal fuel (23 for warm up)
325 miles at 261 IAS at max continuous power at 9000 ft with 123 us gals.

From MiG 3 NII-VVS trials in 01-02/1941
At 0.9 V max (575-590 km/h) the serial n° 2115 reached 820 km, and the SN° 2107 857km failing to satisfy the NKAP request from October 40, for 1000 km range at 0.9 Vmax speed applied to all the new generation fighters Yak I-26, LaGG I-22, MiG I-200.

A big scandal exploded. Mikoyan and Goorevich quickly wrote to the NKAP "Real MiG-3 technical range is 1100-1150 km, our calculations are based on NII-VVS and state trials where it was observed a 0.38 kg/km fuel consumption. Moreover, during the state acceptance trials it was found uncumplete fuel use from tanks. This fault is actually corrected." Afterwards it was explained that 0.38 Specific fuel consumption (SFC) was obtained with an altitude corrector. Even without it device, in April 1941 two others serial planes made 1000km range flight between Moscow and Leningrad as usual at 90% max speed and 7300m height.
The sn° 2592 achieved 1100 km at 562 km/h without using security (Warm UP) reserve and the sn° 2597, 970km, probably loosing a little its way in the cloudy sky. Both off them had the new rear smaller tank cutted by full 80 litres. Total capacity: 530l instead of 650l.
First serial MiG to be fitted with reduced tank the sn° 2859 made trials in may 1941, the 21th.
802 of this new tanks were made by the factory n°1 in may-june 41, and send to the units to be retrofitted instead of the older ones.
From the 12th series plane, rear tank was cutted by 110 litres instead of 80.
From the 14th series, wing tanks were cutted by 50 litres more. And reminded like that until the end of production.

Since MiG OKB largely overstepped state requirements, it's look like a success story. But it wasn't and ended tragically. In the meanwhile someone from the country rulling classes get interested in that polemic being only of technical problem kind…and made political conclusion that NII institute deliberately minimized new plane achievements. In other worlds a sabotage act.
Brutal unjustified repression falled on AI Filin, the very competent NII-VVS manager and he was prosecuted; NII leading engineers Nikichenko and Voevodine were dismissed from their function and retrograded. What for? Without straight quality control the plane soon degenerated. For instance sn° 3943 was just able to reach 628 km, at 7200m height with 355kg (490l) fuel.

From Khazanov Medved, Maslov "Istrebitel' MiG-3"



Since the MiG-3 was al little longer, it may improve longitudinal stability. Since it was 250 kg (3355 kg instead of 3099) heavier this adversely affected manoeuvrability, and field performance. On the other hand, if the forwaed fuselage lengh was increased, the aft size remaind the same (...probalbly to short for a quick spin recovery. But it's just a supposal.). Probably the MiG-3 sn° 2122 was lost on january 41, the 19th for that reason. The test pilot Balunin being (with some success) in charge from 1940 of the full aerobatics program with MiG's experimental and first serial fighters, was switched to the MiG-3 spin trials programm. On may 1941, he failed to recover from a flat spin, bailing out from the sn° 2109.
The spin program was then stopped: some uncertainly reminds until now about the MiG-3 behavior on a spin, in particular those fitted with wing BS pods (and 250l aft tanks) .
About the control forces; the problem was corrected in statical and dynamical way on the experimental planes themselves, and then with an unexplained delay on serial ones.


Regards
 
Last edited:
"... The P-39 was reportedly updated several times with features requested by the Soviets, as it had not become a popular aerial fighter..." yes and the P-63 received major input from the Soviets. But Bell's attention to their client was because the Soviets had become their BEST client. Just good business.

Yes, Clay, the US had aircraft and the Soviets needed aircraft, but the Americans didn't cater to the Soviet's specific requirements with the exception just mentioned of Bell. . There are many areas - one can argue - where the US would have been better served by adapting Soviet practices such as diesel engines in tanks rather than ronsons but they didn't. They built the stuff they wanted/knew how to build and for the most part it was "take it or leave it" - which is fair enough when it's on their dime

The differences in front line conditions between the Soviets and the USAAF are not simply ideological - but very real. The Communists were in the process of boot-strapping a huge, backward country into the 20th century when the war began .... that is not a criticism but reality .. they coped and they prevailed. Much credit due to them.

Vanir ... I think your points are well made.

As to the Olds cannon - I agree with comments that state it was inferior to Soviet weapons. The Soviets have designed great weapons and the Russians have always used artillery effectively.

[aside] I was reading about PT boat operations in the early years of the Pacific theatre and was amused to note that many were retro-fitted with 37mm's scavenged from P-39's - worked very well against barges and shallow draft vessels. Slow rate of fire and trajectory weren't a problem, no need for AP rounds as the targets were all thin skinned - but what that tells you is just how inappropriate the Olds cannon really was was air warfare. Then imagine building a twin-engined bomber killer (Bell Airacuda) around two of these guns ... that's how far off some of the thinking was about what the coming air warfare was going to be like .... same for the role of battleships.

Finally - ".. I would suppose that rather than being condescending, Clay was suggesting that an inexpensive fighter be supplied to nations who weren't able to afford high-end machines, and rather than give them obsolete aircraft, provide them with a proven machine that could be produced quickly enough. At least that was the way I saw it. .." I appreciate that there was no intentional put down on Clay's part, GrauGeist, but time and again it seems nations seem to prefer "F-86 Sabres" over "Folland Gnats" - the Gnat being a more recent example of an "inexpensive" front line fighter for "disadvantaged countries ... and in the Indo-Pak war some pilots used the Gnat very effectively.

No slur on sims was intended GG - I just get annoyed when sim-world blurs with actuality. I know we have sims to thank for the good results the US is getting with Predator drones .... I admire you nerve for topping conifers ... I'm twitchy enough cutting then on the ground

MM
 
Last edited:
I would agree with Vanir on the Russian aircraft points.

I think he as stated some of the Russian conditons rather well.

going to the Flip side of trying to use Russian fighters in the west ( I will leave the bombers alone for now)
All three of the Early Russian fighters were short ranged, yes the MiG solved that problem earlier than the other two but the MiG had a problem of it's own. The MiG especially if built in the west would have REQUIRED Russian guns or production of Russian guns. The American .50 was heavier and slower firing than the Russian 12.7 leading to a loss of firepower that would only be made worse by substituting American .30s for the Russian 7.62s. The Hispano was never sychronized and is not an option for the MiG.
ALL of 3 of the Russian fighters had wings just a bit bigger than the wing on a 109. Not a lot of room for changing to wing mounted guns even if the wing structure was redesigned for it. Yes you could get some sort of wing mounted armament but can you get enough to compensate for the loss of the engine mounted 20-23mm gun if you try to use a western engine?
And you are into the whole redesign the engine installation, redesign wing structure, design armament installation and keep CG somewhere near the same point problem. Yes it can certainly be done it but it kind of loses that "we could do it fast and easy" appeal.
It is not quite the same thing to stick an one engine in another airframe to to test performance "potential" as it is to engineer a proper installation that will allow for proper cooling and oil supply under a varity of climate conditions and flight conditions. For instance even Merlins and Allisons require different radiator and oil cooler setups becasue even when making the same power their liquied cooling and oil systems absorb different percentages of the waste heat.
Even if a Russian aircraft performed well in the Heat of a Russian summer on the steppes does that mean it would have run cool enough in the North African dessert?
 
michaelmaltby said:
an inexpensive fighter be supplied to nations who weren't able to afford high-end machines, and rather than give them obsolete aircraft, provide them with a proven machine that could be produced quickly enough
Click to expand...

Hoorray for that!
We'd have appreciated having a few modern planes in Portugal at the time, when it seemed Germany would try to come visit us, and we only had Gladiators to face the Luftwaffe.

During the war, we received some surplus Hurricanes and Spitfires from the RAF, but always the early models.
Also managed to get the hand on Airacobras, B-24s, Wellingtons, even P-38s, but always from some pilots who were forced to land here, and their planes were confiscated.

As a matter of fact, there is an amusing story, of ONE P-38 pilot who managed to get away WITH his plane: he was low on fuel, and forced to land. As soon as someone from the airfield showed up, he started berating them on their delay to refuel his plane. His bluff was so good, that when the instructions to detain him arrived, he had fuelled up and was already taking off again.
I think the only ones not laughing were the authorities and the guys from the airfield...
 
Great story, Condora, but .... "an inexpensive fighter". The P-40 and P-39 were inexpensive fighters built without coercion.

Were the Germans threatening Portugal? I just assumed that Spain's neutrality more or less protected Portugal's flank. Please, educate me on this.

MM
 
Getting to the idea of "an inexpensive fighter" if power by an Allison.

The engine won't be any cheaper or the propellor or the rediator, oil cooler etc.
The instrament panel won't be any cheaper or radios or oxogen equipment etc.
If the Armament is any cheaper it means that there is less of it.
If the plane weighs about about the same as a "more expensive" metal plane can you make the landing gear, tires, brakes retracting mechanism any cheaper?
won't the armour and bullet proof windscreen cost the same?

Just how much cheaper will the TOTAL cost of the "inexpensive fighter" be?
Especially if you have to pay for a whole new factory to make it.
How many have to be made before you break even compared to making existing aircraft on existing or expanded production lines.

Most countries that actually tried to make "inexpensive fighters" tried using smaller planes with smaller less expensive engines or engines that weren't considered first rate so the demand for them was lower.
 
Shortround6 I agree 100%.

One challenge - in my mind - was to make aircraft out of "non strategic" materials .. and I guess one could argue that if a country had an abundant resource that was non-strategic .. plus craftsmen who knew how to work with it .. then that could be leveraged into useful production.

But for countries with advanced industrial infrastructure like Germany, UK and USA the more significant challenge was to "engineer the hell out of manufacturing" once a plane was protoyped as with the Mustang and Me-109 where the reduction in costs were achieved - not by making aircraft simple or of non-strategic resources - but by creatively driving manufacturing costs down. That worked and still does.

MM
 

Only during the initial stages of the war was there any possibility of that happening...

For a while, there was the fear that the germans would feel a need to have control of the access to the Mediterranean and middle of the Atlantic: they were going everyplace else in Europe, and until it was clear that Spain's neutrality would be respected (and Portugal's too), the thought was that germans could decide to occupy the Peninsula too. Napoleon did it, and for the same reason: to completely cut Britain off from the Continent.

I guess that if that had happened, the result would be similar, as far as Portugal was concerned: abandon the country, fight back from the islands and colonies.

As soon as the Battle of Britain had ended, and Barbarossa had started, it was clear that an invasion would not happen. Folks just kept going with their lives, listened to the radio telling them how the war was going, and watched the spies from both sides pretending to keep an eye on each other (they didn't do much, even stayed at the same hotel, had breakfast or lunch together...).

The regime's preferences were a bit on the german side, and as for the population, some of them had fought the germans in WW I, and in general there was more simpathy towards the british. The government's references didn't prevent them from letting the british set up an airbase in the Azores, and when the americans joined the fight, the situation was so much clearer that although the americans were refused to set up an airbase in the Azores, a second british base in the Azores was allowed... even though EVERYBODY knew not a single british would be in that second base, they would all be (and were) americans!

So, if Hitler had invaded Portugal - and messed up with Spain in the process -, I think he'd have lost a lot: the spanish were tired of fighting the civil war, but as soon as they would see the germans ruling their country, they would once more fight the invaders. Hitler would loose an ally - Franco -, and have a guerrilla war on his hands. The allies could have lost Gibraltar, Malta would be in a dire situation, but the allies would get two more countries on their side - countries with a lot of colonies and manpower elsewhere.
 
Clay_Allison said:
I'd have taken either. The MiG-3 could have been the high altitude fighter I'm always wishing we had, unfortunately only if we could get one of our automobile manufacturers to build the Mikulin under Licence.
Click to expand...
Hello

A Mikulin 35A, are you shure?

But it was so big and heavy: weight 830 kg, instead of about 600 for the Klimov, the Merlin and DB-601 Engines…for 2840 inch²!!!

Mikulin AM-35 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Its specific power is 25.8 (29 for take off.) hp/ lit and power to weight ratio 1.445 (1.62 hp/kg)

For the Klimov 105PA those indicators are 31.5 hp/l and 1.8 (1.9) hp/kg

About 42.5 and 1.95 for the V-1710F-20R Allison.

Personally, I would rather follow TsAGI devices

Ôîðóì ñàéòà www.airforce.ru: Ñòàòüÿ



« В марте 1944 г. в ОКБ-155 был проработан вариант истребителя МиГ-3 с мотором Пратт-Уитни R-2800-63 и турбокомпрессором Дженерал Электрик С-23, которые устанавливались на американском истребителе Рипаблик Р-47D-10RE "Тандерболт". За основу проекта был принят истребитель МиГ-9Е (И-211). При расчетной мощности 2250 л.с. (с учетом скоростного наддува) самолет должен был иметь максимальную скорость 740 км/ч на высоте 10000 м и практический потолок 14500 м. Полетная масса должна была составить 3800 кг. 8 апреля 1944 г. материалы были представлены на рассмотрение в НКАП, однако дальше теоретических разработок "дело не пошло »

With google translator it's making something like this : "The design bureau 155 made (designed) a MiG-3 version with a PW R-2800-63 engine with supercharger GE C-23 that were taken from a Republic P-47 D-10 RE « Thunderbolt ».
The basic airframe was from the MiG-9 E (I-211) experimental fighter. At calculated power of 2250 hp (with dynamic blow) the plane should fly at 740 km/h at 10000m with a service ceiling of 14500m.
The TO weight should be 3800 kg. In april 1944 all documents were send to NKAP to validate the project, but this affair wait no further than theoretical studies".

From the La-5FN datasheet, I extrapolated (roughly) MiG-9E performance:

Мотор М-82ФН Райт Пратт-Уитни
R-2600 2800
Вес сухого мотора 850 900 1030
Мидель мотора 1,25 1,50 1,40
Мощность на 2-й
границе высотности 1450 1450 1500
Расчетная высота
(с учетом скорост.
наддува) 6100 4800 7800
..........................................

Мощность у земли
Макс. Скорость
на расч. Высоте 650 620 685

670 km/ at 6100m and 1450 hp with an M-82FN should give 640 km/ at 4800m (1450hp at rated altitude) with a Wright R-2600 and 705km/h at 7800 with a PW R-2800 (1500 at RA) engines.

Not so bad.

Altea
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Y
WW II vintage aircraft used for special duty flights after WW II
Replies
0
Views
430
yahya
Y
M
USAAF aircraft lost through transport sinkings during Battle of the Atlantic?
Replies
2
Views
459
fubar57
How good was the soviet air force?
32 33 34
Replies
664
Views
48K
Dimlee
S
State-of-the-art Japanese fighters with western engines
Replies
10
Views
384
GregP
S
"Generations" of fighter aircraft
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
SaparotRob
Menu
Log in
Register