Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
Well, I guess you could re-engine to the Wright R-2600.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Well, I guess you could re-engine to the Wright R-2600.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
I think the problems were more airframe than powerplantI 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?
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?
Robert S Johnson may disagree with you on that point
It's not about armour at least, not to the exclusion of all else. Turning an aircraft into a barge full of pig iron does not make it more survivable. How do you armour control surfaces and tail units? Rear gunners were horribly exposed. The oil cooler wasn't protected. All you do is slow the aircraft down and make life easier for a cannon-armed Luftwaffe bird and the Wehrmacht flak emplacements once they were over the target. The Il-2's real ace card was numbers.
Without a general balance between
survivability
hitting power
manoeuvrability
speed
ceiling
range
for single-engined combat aircraft they're either going to fail, or require air superiority in which to operate. The other aircraft of WWII that famously sacrificed all else for one attribute (in this case, manoeuvrability) was the A6M-series aircraft and once the Allies worked out its ace card it became easy prey for the late-war USN/USMC fighters.
Let's look at the P-47 wrt that list
survivability - yep, pretty sure I've got Robert S Johnson on board with that one
hitting power - well, it couldn't crack a tank open but 8 x .50s and underslung ordnance still made it a battlefield menace you couldn't ignore
manoeuvrability - once the payload is delivered, the P-47 is back in the fighter role, he's got a good chance of leaving the scene of the crime before the Luftwaffe show up but if they do, they've still got to contend with a very capable fighter, not a scrap dealer wallowing around like a sinking barge.
speed - covered that
ceiling - not that important for ground attack but the P-47 wasn't shy in the high-altitude performance stakes
range - about 920Kms for the P-47 vs 600Kms for the Il-2 on internal fuel
Now take me through the list with the Il-2
Robert S Johnson may disagree with you on that point
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?- Turning an aircraft into a barge full of pig iron does not make it more survivable.
Where have you taken that from?-The oil cooler wasn't protected
-All you do is slow the aircraft down and make life easier for a cannon-armed Luftwaffe bird and the Wehrmacht flak emplacements once they were over the target.
Now take me through the list with the Il-2
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.survivability - yep, pretty sure I've got Robert S Johnson on board with that one
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.hitting power - well, it couldn't crack a tank open but 8 x .50s and underslung ordnance still made it a battlefield menace you couldn't ignore
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.manoeuvrability - once the payload is delivered, the P-47 is back in the fighter role, he's got a good chance of leaving the scene of the crime before the Luftwaffe show up but if they do, they've still got to contend with a very capable fighter, not a scrap dealer wallowing around like a sinking barge.
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.speed - covered that
I don't give a damn for what we need.ceiling -
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.range - about 920Kms for the P-47 vs 600Kms for the Il-2 on internal fuel
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.
Have you got some valuable numbers to support that was the P-47 a more nimble plane or a better turner?
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.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.
They would. It' better to use Il-2 ShKAS 0.3 cal for this purpose. And 23 or 37mm guns for tanks.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??
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.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?
What is the Brinell or Rockwell hardiness value od your thug steel, the 0.5 bullet stell, the panzer armor?
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.
Not to mention over 4,000 aerial victories in the ETO between 1943 and 1945 (including a V-1 buzzbomb).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 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.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.
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.many were brought down by fighters and flak by a round or shrapnel making its way to an oil cooler or radiator line.
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?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