Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
Well, I guess you could re-engine to the Wright R-2600.
Soviet aircraft the west coulda/shoulda used?
- Thread starter claidemore
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
I agree with you regarding sim data versus real data, MM
It's two different worlds that need to remain seperate!
I know that arguing the poor performance of a flight model requires involvement of actual data, but it doesn't work in the other direction. I know alot of younger folks tend to use sim performance in debates over actual machines events, perhaps because they haven't applied themselves to actual reference material (that does require reading, something that seems to be rare these days).
When I offer data and/or statistics in a debate, I go for actual legitimate reference sources and once in a while, I even learn something...I think we all do at one point or another. That's the beauty of a great forum like this, where everyone can bring the best of the best to the table.
As far as working in the woods goes, that was many moons ago...I'm older now, and don't heal near as quick as I used to...you couldn't pay me enough money to "get up top" these days!
It's two different worlds that need to remain seperate!
I know that arguing the poor performance of a flight model requires involvement of actual data, but it doesn't work in the other direction. I know alot of younger folks tend to use sim performance in debates over actual machines events, perhaps because they haven't applied themselves to actual reference material (that does require reading, something that seems to be rare these days).
When I offer data and/or statistics in a debate, I go for actual legitimate reference sources and once in a while, I even learn something...I think we all do at one point or another. That's the beauty of a great forum like this, where everyone can bring the best of the best to the table.
As far as working in the woods goes, that was many moons ago...I'm older now, and don't heal near as quick as I used to...you couldn't pay me enough money to "get up top" these days!
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
According to hartmann, he always went for the oil cooler. The Il-2 did fly rather straight as it wasn't very agile. Even more so, its best defense would be to fly in formation.
One really has to understand just how well these attack aircraft could defend themselves when flying in close formation. They were never the sitting ducks they are often thought to be. Rudel's memoirs are quite illustrative: he flew his Ju 87 until the last days of the war, and kept on instructing his squadron that if they stayed in close formation they were going to be allright. Looking at the loss figures for Ju 87, Hs 129 and Il-2 it becomes obvious that they had little to fear from interceptors. However ... that was on the Eastern front: Ju 87s suffered horrible losses over Italy. But then again, so did the Fw 190F.
I also have to respectfully disagree about the MK 108 being more of a grenade launcher with the shells lobbing towards the target. yes, its MV was lower than that of the MG 151 but it was comparable to the older MG FF which was used by the Fw 190A until late 1943 and beyond. We have to keep certain things in perspective: a gun fires rather straight at least for the first second. In case of the MK 108 that means a range of 500 m. At longer range it was definitely not accurate enough. But which fool fires at a target half a mile away?
Kris
One really has to understand just how well these attack aircraft could defend themselves when flying in close formation. They were never the sitting ducks they are often thought to be. Rudel's memoirs are quite illustrative: he flew his Ju 87 until the last days of the war, and kept on instructing his squadron that if they stayed in close formation they were going to be allright. Looking at the loss figures for Ju 87, Hs 129 and Il-2 it becomes obvious that they had little to fear from interceptors. However ... that was on the Eastern front: Ju 87s suffered horrible losses over Italy. But then again, so did the Fw 190F.
I also have to respectfully disagree about the MK 108 being more of a grenade launcher with the shells lobbing towards the target. yes, its MV was lower than that of the MG 151 but it was comparable to the older MG FF which was used by the Fw 190A until late 1943 and beyond. We have to keep certain things in perspective: a gun fires rather straight at least for the first second. In case of the MK 108 that means a range of 500 m. At longer range it was definitely not accurate enough. But which fool fires at a target half a mile away?
Kris
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
I never really understood why the Mikulin engine of the MiG-3 was only good at higher altitude. I mean, I can understand the need for a high altitude interceptor but why couldn't the engine have been retuned for lower altitude again?
Kris
Kris
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
I think the problems were more airframe than powerplant
The MiG-1 was a pig for spinning in, whilst the MiG-3 attempted to address the inherent limitations of the airframe, they were never fully worked out. At the low- and medium-altitude combats that characterised the Eastern Front, the MiG-3 lacked manoeuvrability and of course an engine being tasked at the wrong altitude.
So handling and manoeuvrability; the engine of course, didn't help.
It was fitted with a Shvetsov ASh-82 radial and was proposed for production as the MiG-9 (not to be confused with the jet MiG-9) but the Soviets weren't interested in disrupting manufacture of the La-5 for an aircraft that didn't offer any advantages over it.
Shortround6
Major General
If I may I would like to answer both of your last posts.
ALL shells are subject to gravity which means that they ALL fall about 16ft in the first second of flight. They all fall about another 48ft in the second second of flight. the question is how far have they flown in that 1 second (or 2 seconds). Shells forward velocity will fall off slower at higher altitude. Thinner air means less drag. Low velocity guns are harder to use for defection shooteing. Not only is the shell dropping but you have to lead the target aircraft more. A plane that is going 500kph is actually traveling at 138meters a second. While the firing planes speed is added to the muzzle velocity of the fired shell you can start to see some of the aiming problems. like were is the target plane actually going to be in 1 second
As far as the AM 35 was concerened. It was "retuned" for lower altitude. it was called an AM 38.
To change from a high altitude engine to a low altitude engine is more than changing timing or carburator jets. the gear ratio in the supercharger drive has to be changed.
ALL shells are subject to gravity which means that they ALL fall about 16ft in the first second of flight. They all fall about another 48ft in the second second of flight. the question is how far have they flown in that 1 second (or 2 seconds). Shells forward velocity will fall off slower at higher altitude. Thinner air means less drag. Low velocity guns are harder to use for defection shooteing. Not only is the shell dropping but you have to lead the target aircraft more. A plane that is going 500kph is actually traveling at 138meters a second. While the firing planes speed is added to the muzzle velocity of the fired shell you can start to see some of the aiming problems. like were is the target plane actually going to be in 1 second
As far as the AM 35 was concerened. It was "retuned" for lower altitude. it was called an AM 38.
To change from a high altitude engine to a low altitude engine is more than changing timing or carburator jets. the gear ratio in the supercharger drive has to be changed.
1) The MiG fighter was never designed as a high altitude fighter, but as a general air superiority fighter.
2) It was never intended to use a M-35A, but a 1400hp Mikuline 37 (basically an AM-35 with an intercooler).
Because the M 37 was unavailable, the Mikuline AM 35A engine was used, giving only 1120 hp (1350 for TO) at SL and 1200 at 6 km.
The low altitude version was called the Mikulin 38. Basically the same engine that a M 35, but with a much smaller supercharger. It was giving 1600 hp at 1000-1500m. Too low for a fighter.
Some MiG-3 airframes were fitted with AM-38 for experimental purposes.
http://www.airpages.ru/eng/ru/mig3_2.shtml
VG
Last edited:
I don't know if S Johnson will disagree or not. But he certainly never flew assault missions with an Il-2 and probably never saw on what they are look like. And what if his point of view (with some limited interest) is contradicted by thousands af stormovik pilots and their fighter pilots guardians. I said what if, but actually it is already maid;
:: Àðòåì Äðàáêèí :: ß äðàëñÿ íà Èë-2 :: ñêà÷àòü êíèãó â rtf, fb2, iSilo, Rocket eBook :: Áèáëèîòåêà OCR Àëüäåáàðàí
Unfortunately it's not soon translated in English. "Only vet's interviews: I fought on a Il-2" With no political -background.
A barge? If there was a barge in the story it's not probably the one you're thinking about. Have you got some valuable numbers to support that was the P-47 a more nimble plane or a better turner?
A 1941 year Stormovik had a wing loading of only 138,5 kg/m² (122 clean condition), and a specific power of 3.17 kg/hp. 159 and 3.5 in 1944, 284 and 3.13 for the P-47D respectively.
So wich one is the barge, and why?
Where have you taken that from?
Do you know how many armour-percing bullet proportion there were in flak ammnution stocks? In a Luftwaffe fighter?
J've got my mother in law on Il-2 side. And so what? There is a lot of aeras where the P-47D is able to be definitly lost by a single but happy mauser rifle shot from a german infanteryman. Not a single place like that on the Il-2, except maybe for the oil radiator exhaust slot; but it's less than 3-4 inch, at rear 10° max trajectory angle. No one chance on 10 million to hit it from the groud.
0.5 caliber is much to big for the infantery and soft-skins, to light for armored cars. Better than nothing, but unadapted for ground support mission.
A very capable figher? Maybe at height and only in boom zoon tactics. A low height the P-47 TOT is worse than the stormovik one.
100 ok! But 190F-8 was much faster at SL. And anyway, it was making attacks only at 400 km/h to provide some accuracy.
I don't give a damn for what we need.
About 95% of VVS stormovik missions were made at the front line or at best 15-25 km iside german lines. And from 30-50 km distant airfieds.
In the navy it was different, stormoviks suffered because of their short range. But thy was never designed for maritime purpose
VG
Last edited:
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
This comment kinda jumped out. If a .50 cal is much too big for this (which honestly I do not understand as the objective is to kill they enemy), then would not the 20mm from the Il-2 also be way too big??
If a P-47 can shoot holes through a boiler of a locamotive which is at least half an inch thick, why do you feel it would be ineffective against amoured cars?
michaelmaltby
Colonel
I think everyone posting on this site, VG33, understands that the IL-2 is a hero of the Great Patriot War. We know more were built (by a very slim margin) than other types. That said, it still remains true that the IL-2 was appropriate for the EASTERN FRONT - unique to the conditions and the Soviet doctrine. I am happy that your Mother in Law agrees with you, VG, but unless she was a combat pilot, I think the comment is a wee bit over the top. As is "Not a single place like that on the Il-2, except maybe for the oil radiator exhaust slot; but it's less than 3-4 inch, at rear 10° max trajectory angle. No one chance on 10 million to hit it from the groud...".
I understand that that once perfected, the Il-2 had a great pilot survivability rate - well - so did the P-47 Johnson is certainly living proof of that.
To me VG - the key distinction between the two was that the P-47 was air conditioned and the Il-2 wasn't.
Think about it.
MM
VG, but unless she was a combat pilot, I think the comment is a wee bit over the top. As is "Not a single place like that on the Il-2, except maybe for the oil radiator exhaust slot; but it's less than 3-4 inch, at rear 10° max trajectory angle. No one chance on 10 million to hit it from the groud...".I understand that that once perfected, the Il-2 had a great pilot survivability rate - well - so did the P-47
Johnson is certainly living proof of that.To me VG - the key distinction between the two was that the P-47 was air conditioned and the Il-2 wasn't.
Think about it.
MM
michaelmaltby
Colonel
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The P-47 had a higher wing loading and slightly higher power mass. On paper the the IL-2 would have a better sustained turn rate, however the P-47 had a better roll rate which enabled it to enter into and out of a turn quicker.
Every aircraft has a vulnerable spot and although the IL-2 was probably the most heavily armored aircraft of WW2 many were brought down by fighters and flak by a round or shrapnel making its way to an oil cooler or radiator line.
Last edited:
They would. It' better to use Il-2 ShKAS 0.3 cal for this purpose. And 23 or 37mm guns for tanks.
A locamotive is made of common steel, a Panzer from armour. To make a hole in the armour you need at least an anti armor bullet.
What is the Brinell or Rockwell hardiness value od your thug steel, the 0.5 bullet stell, the panzer armor?
Regards
VG
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Rockwell or Brinell testing has no bearing in this situation because there is an element of force, density and trajectory. You factor in the weight of the round and the muzzle velocity plus the harness value of the round. Hardness testers are static and designed to take a surface hardness in a non-dynamic environment.
Last edited:
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
You can be sure that they weren't using wad-cutters or ball rounds in those 8 .50s.
A fifty with an AP round can punch through some fairly thick material.
A fifty with an AP round can punch through some fairly thick material.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
And 8 of them concentrated on a single target will do damage.
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
I just read an AP round that was used in WW2 could go through 22.2mm of face hardened steel @ 91m, and 19mm @ 500m.
I'm still somewhat confused as to how 2 x 7.62mm are better anti personnel/lite vehicle then 8 x .50's.
From D-Day to VE Day, they destroyed something like 86,000 railway cars, 9,000 locomotives, 6,000 AFV, and 68,000 trucks. Apparently the combination was a good one.
I'm still somewhat confused as to how 2 x 7.62mm are better anti personnel/lite vehicle then 8 x .50's.
From D-Day to VE Day, they destroyed something like 86,000 railway cars, 9,000 locomotives, 6,000 AFV, and 68,000 trucks. Apparently the combination was a good one.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Not to mention over 4,000 aerial victories in the ETO between 1943 and 1945 (including a V-1 buzzbomb).
I agree for the turn rate, but have no data for the roll rate, and roll acceleration. Roll rate/acceleration depends a lot of inertia moments, that means distance x weight influence. So if the Il-2 wing is lighter, despite of its biger size, the plane could have a better roll too, despite some prejudices.
Not by a 7.92 cartridge. In the P-47 you can hit the pilot, the oil circuitry, the fuel circuitry, or the ignition circuitry leading to the complete plane loss, by a simple Mauser rifle.
Regards
Last edited:
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Ok, so...cannon rounds taking out half the engine, flak tearing wingtips off, 30mm cannon takes off rear elevator, 7.92 rounds shatter instruments, 20mm holes to wings, fuselage, canopy and stabilizer just to name a very few instances of severe damage where they flew back across the channel and you're saying that a single rifle shot can do what all the above mentioned couldn't?
Seriously...
