Soviet aircraft the west coulda/shoulda used?

[Glider]

Not really.


Yes the Botha was real dog and proved to be rather lethal to the men she was supposed to be training after being deemed totally unsuited to combat. Trouble is that production started in 1939 and only 580 were built. This might be 575 too many but how many were built AFTER the Soviet Union was invaded?
Or how many were built after the plans for the PE-2 and TU-2 could resonably have been expected to arrive in England?

The point is that there were resources available. Design and engineering teams don't just pack up and go home when the first plane takes to the air.
Had the Dud aircraft been stopped when it was realised that they were duds, resources were available and the idea holds up pretty well.[/QUOTE]

 

[Shortround6]

The point is that there were resources available. Design and engineering teams don't just pack up and go home when the first plane takes to the air.
Had the Dud aircraft been stopped when it was realised that they were duds, resources were available and the idea holds up pretty well.

[/QUOTE]

Please show me how the idea holds up.

While 580 Bothas were made, a further 676 were canceled. Production at the Brough factory peaked at 32 in June of 1940 with from 6 to 18 a month being compleated from Jan of 1941 to May of 1942 when production stopped. A whopping 114 being built at this plant in the last 12 months of production. The factory at Dumbarton stopped production in June of 1941 with just 55 aircaft delivered since the Jan 1st of 1941. I don't know all of what these factories went on to make but the Dumbarton factory was making Short Sunderlands under subcontract. I magine uses were found for other "unused" capacity.

you are correct, "Design and engineering teams don't just pack up and go home" . they stay and try to improve the aircraft or go on to design new aircraft, see Blackburn Firebrand. First prototype flew on 27 Feb 1942. 18 months after a full scale mock-up had been compleated.

Now maybe the Firebrand didn't turn out all that well either but the engineering staff at Blackburn weren't sitting around on their hands.

By the way, the Botha had been ordered "off the drawing board" which might have soured the Goverment (along with several other such projects, like the Coventeer tank) on ordering large scale production based on paper drawings.

Edit> just found more information on Blackburn. In the Summer of 1940 they appointed as a "sister" firm to Grumman and made rsponsable for all modifications to Grumman aircraft to bring them into line with British requirements. This includes Martlets I-III, Martlet/Wildcat IV, V, and VI. Avenger I to III, Hellcats I and II (including night fighters) and also Corsair Mks I to IV the also handled a few other types. Fom the end of 1940 to 1945 Blackburn handled over 400 modifications and trial installations. Blackburn aslo was involved in coproduction of the Fairey Barracuda and had an extensive repair organazation going which also including the the breaking down for salvage of between 400-500 airframes. I think that many other British companies (or american for that matter) when looked at closely cold be seen to be working at a rather hectic pace that might not be reflected in a simple "planes produced number".

 

[Glider]

Please show me how the idea holds up.[/QUOTE]

Certainly

While 580 Bothas were made, a further 676 were canceled.

580 Bothas were built that shouldn't have been

Production at the Brough factory peaked at 32 in June of 1940 with from 6 to 18 a month being compleated from Jan of 1941 to May of 1942 when production stopped. A whopping 114 being built at this plant in the last 12 months of production.

So we agree we have an entire factory wasting its time up to May 1942 producing an aircraft that should never have been built.

The factory at Dumbarton stopped production in June of 1941 with just 55 aircaft delivered since the Jan 1st of 1941.

We agree that we now have a second factory whose production effort up to June 1941 has also been wasted.

So we agree that we have production at two factories which could have been put to better use. My suggestion is simply that the Production of the PE2 would have been a better use of this resource. Remember that we also have the Botha design team who could have worked on getting the PE 2 design translated.

 

[Shortround6]

Please show me how the idea holds up.

Certainly


580 Bothas were built that shouldn't have been
So we agree we have an entire factory wasting its time up to May 1942 producing an aircraft that should never have been built.
We agree that we now have a second factory whose production effort up to June 1941 has also been wasted.

So we agree that we have production at two factories which could have been put to better use. My suggestion is simply that the Production of the PE2 would have been a better use of this resource. Remember that we also have the Botha design team who could have worked on getting the PE 2 design translated.[/QUOTE]

How did they know it should never have been built until they built it?
And having been stung by the Botha do you think they would have ordered teh PE-2 into production before flying an example of it?

"So we agree we have an entire factory wasting its time up to May 1942"
No we don't agree because that factory was working at something like 1/3 capacity on Bothas while it was changing over to build 635 Fairey Barracudas.

"We agree that we now have a second factory whose production effort up to June 1941 has also been wasted." again we disagree because while the Botha prodution may have been wasted the REST of the factory was making Sunderlands, 250 by wars end.

A question might be weither those factories would have been able to turn out those numbers of aircraft if they hadn't been geared up to produce the Bothas.

In fact another newly built Blackburn factory built 1700 Swordfish during the war, starting in Dec 1939.

As to your suggestion, are you borrowing the time machine from the TU-2?

First PE-2 bomber prototype doesn't even fly until Dec 15, 1940 by which time about 340 Bothas had been built. What were the British supposed to do, Stockpile Aluminium, engines, propellors and instraments while waiting 15 months for Russians to get the plane into the air for the first time?
And that is assuming that the British and the Russians were on good terms at the time which they weren't. Something called the Winter War with Finland the year before.

I am not sure about the entire design team but chief designer G.E. Petty was working on the Firebrand in July of 1940, only 5 months before the PE-2 flies and 11 months before the Russians are invaded.

Next question, just were are the engines going to come from to power it. It is not like England has a surplus of Merlins in 1941. Or do we just get Bristol to stop making those useless Mercury and Perseus engines and have their design team and engineering staff change over to Merlins. After all we know the Centaurus engine is a loser right so why waste time on it.

 

[vikingBerserker]

I believe the Pe 2 first flew in May 39 (VI-100), production started in June 40, and into service in Aug 40.

 

[Glider]

"So we agree we have an entire factory wasting its time up to May 1942[/I]
No we don't agree because that factory was working at something like 1/3 capacity on Bothas while it was changing over to build 635 Fairey Barracudas.

I don't belive this point to be correct. The Prototype Barracuda didn't fly until 29th June 1941, service trials were not completed until February 1942 which showed the need for further changes including airframe strenthening. Only 30 were built before the mark II entered production. It doesn't take 2 years to prepare a factory for production of an aircraft, particualy if the aircraft didn't fly until June 1941. So the capacity did exist.

"We agree that we now have a second factory whose production effort up to June 1941 has also been wasted,Again we disagree because while the Botha prodution may have been wasted the REST of the factory was making Sunderlands, 250 by wars end. ."

250 by wars end is one thing, how many by May 1941, I thought but could be wrong that the initial order was for 15

A question might be weither those factories would have been able to turn out those numbers of aircraft if they hadn't been geared up to produce the Bothas. ."

As mentioned the numbers either were small or did not exist

."

In fact another newly built Blackburn factory built 1700 Swordfish during the war, starting in Dec 1939. ."

If your relying on new factories to support your position then straws are being grasped at.

."

As to your suggestion, are you borrowing the time machine from the TU-2?."

No I am happy with the PE 2 to replace the Blenhiem and Ventura until the TU 2 came about

."

First PE-2 bomber prototype doesn't even fly until Dec 15, 1940 by which time about 340 Bothas had been built. What were the British supposed to do, Stockpile Aluminium, engines, propellors and instraments while waiting 15 months for Russians to get the plane into the air for the first time?
And that is assuming that the British and the Russians were on good terms at the time which they weren't. Something called the Winter War with Finland the year before. ."

But when was the design available.

 

[Waynos]

Instead of the PE-2, in its own timeframe, wouldn't they (if this situation had actually existed) have been better off tooling up for Mosquitoes anyway?

oops, wooden construction. Then they could restructure the design for aluminium or build the Hawker P.1005? Anyway you look at it, importing the PE-2 does not bring enough advantages to justify it.

But when was the design available.

Never.

 

[Shortround6]

I don't belive this point to be correct. The Prototype Barracuda didn't fly until 29th June 1941, service trials were not completed until February 1942 which showed the need for further changes including airframe strenthening. Only 30 were built before the mark II entered production. It doesn't take 2 years to prepare a factory for production of an aircraft, particualy if the aircraft didn't fly until June 1941. So the capacity did exist..

don't know but I doubt the British let a factroy toodle along at 1/3 cpacity for over a year without making SOMETHING, even parts for another manufacturer. Especially in 1941. I also have seen in two places that the Barracuda first flew in Dec of 1940. Yes, extended trials may have delayed production.

250 by wars end is one thing, how many by May 1941, I thought but could be wrong that the initial order was for 15.

It could have been. that is how MK Is they made, point is that the Factroy wasn't doing nothing. It does take time to ramp up production, Blackburn wound up making 1/3 of all Sunderlands. A Sunderland is also about 3 times heavier than a Botha and I would guess a lot harder to make.

If your relying on new factories to support your position then straws are being grasped at.

Not really, were do you think some of the management and production engineering staff came from if not some of the workers, the fields of Yorkshire? (no disrespect to the peaple of Yorkshire) Blackburns new fatory was the SOLE SOURCE for Swordfish from the end of 1940 till the end of production. They would need at least a nucleus of trained workers to train the new hires. And without getting them from their own factories were were they going to get them? Hire them from Supermarine or Hawker?

No I am happy with the PE 2 to replace the Blenhiem and Ventura until the TU 2 came about.

Still with the time machine. Venturas were first ordered in early 1940. A modification of an airliner that was already flying. Deliveries were delayed until almost 2 years later, must of been all that excess capacity in America. Of course for a British company like Blackburn to make the PE-2s instead of Lockheed making Venturas you have to get all the raw materials and/ or sub-components (landing gear parts, instraments, engines) from America to England. Ventura might have been delayed due to Lockheeds being over committed and/or due to a shortage of R-2800 engines.
Blenhiem production was winding down in 1942.
you still haven't addressed the engine problem.

But when was the design available.

Which design? the VI-100 high altitude interceptor with two seperate pressure cabins and turbocharged engines or the Attack bomber? the VI-100 started flight tests 3-4 weeks AFTER the Mosquito.

 

[vikingBerserker]

Which design? the VI-100 high altitude interceptor with two seperate pressure cabins and turbocharged engines or the Attack bomber? the VI-100 started flight tests 3-4 weeks AFTER the Mosquito.

I believe that is incorrect.

The Encyclopedia of Weapons of WW II by Metrobooks.

Pe 2 "The VI-100 first flew on 7 May 1939." pg 316

Mosiquito "...the first prototype flew on 25 November 1940." pg 307

Combat Aircraft of World War II by Bookthrift also states this as well. - pages 182 95
It also adds: "...the Pe 2 went into service in August 1940" pg 183

 

[Glider]

Still with the time machine. Venturas were first ordered in early 1940. A modification of an airliner that was already flying. Deliveries were delayed until almost 2 years later, must of been all that excess capacity in America.

You are of course correct when you say that the first planes were ordered in 1940 unfortunately for the RAF most of the first order were taken over by the USAAF. This delay was increased when the USAAF placed an order for 200 aircraft the RAF having to wait in line. Production capacity in the USA was at full stretch.

of course for a British company like Blackburn to make the PE-2s instead of Lockheed making Venturas you have to get all the raw materials and/ or sub-components (landing gear parts, instraments, engines) from America to England. Ventura might have been delayed due to Lockheeds being over committed and/or due to a shortage of R-2800 engines.

I admit to not understanding this section at all. I have always said that the PE 2 could have been built instead of the Blenhiem or if you don't want to impact the Blenhiem production line, the Botha and or Albermarle. There is no link to the production of the Ventura in the USA to the Production of the PE2 in the UK. Why on earth would the UK need to access Ventura parts to build the PE2?

you still haven't addressed the engine problem.

The UK had a number of options, the Merlin is the obvious one being an in line engine in production for a host of aircraft.
If you want to leave Merlin production untouched the Taurus is a good option being small, light, with a good power to weight ratio plus a decent fuel consumption. Installing a Radial instead of in in-line is more work but the UK did this to a numb er of aircraft such as the Beaufighter, Lancaster and Halifax. I believe that the Battle was also converted in limited numbers but not totally sure on that.

 

[Shortround6]

I believe that is incorrect.

The Encyclopedia of Weapons of WW II by Metrobooks.

Pe 2 "The VI-100 first flew on 7 May 1939." pg 316

Mosiquito "...the first prototype flew on 25 November 1940." pg 307

Combat Aircraft of World War II by Bookthrift also states this as well. - pages 182 95
It also adds: "...the Pe 2 went into service in August 1940" pg 183

My apolagies, I made a misteke and you are correct about the Mosquito.

This site has a different date for the VI-100/ PE-2 however.
'100' (VI-100) high altitude interceptor by V.M.Petlyakov

 

[Shortround6]

You are of course correct when you say that the first planes were ordered in 1940 unfortunately for the RAF most of the first order were taken over by the USAAF. This delay was increased when the USAAF placed an order for 200 aircraft the RAF having to wait in line. Production capacity in the USA was at full stretch.

RAf actually did get the first few hundred Venturas made, they did release some for use by Canada.

See: Lockheed Ventura for RAF

I admit to not understanding this section at all. I have always said that the PE 2 could have been built instead of the Blenhiem or if you don't want to impact the Blenhiem production line, the Botha and or Albermarle. There is no link to the production of the Ventura in the USA to the Production of the PE2 in the UK. Why on earth would the UK need to access Ventura parts to build the PE2?.

Sorry, you are the one who posted " No I am happy with the PE 2 to replace the Blenhiem and Ventura until the TU 2 came about"
I thought you ment replace production of Venturas, not just replace them in squadron service.

The UK had a number of options, the Merlin is the obvious one being an in line engine in production for a host of aircraft.
If you want to leave Merlin production untouched the Taurus is a good option being small, light, with a good power to weight ratio plus a decent fuel consumption. Installing a Radial instead of in in-line is more work but the UK did this to a numb er of aircraft such as the Beaufighter, Lancaster and Halifax. I believe that the Battle was also converted in limited numbers but not totally sure on that.

Not much question that a Merlin might fit. the question is were do you get the Merlins from? Even if you can find factory capacity for the airframes by stopping the "DUDS" the duds really weren't using Merlins (well, except maybe for the Defiant) so which "somewhat better than a DUD" gets it's engines taken away?

Taurus had a few problems of it's own. Not sure if it ever got a 2 speed supercharger in production form.
A major increase in Taurus production might mean fewer Hercules engines. Doubts about Taurus led to more than one scheme to power Beauforts with P&W R-1830s.

thats about it for British engines without really working things over. I doubt anybody would be impressed with a pair of Napier Daggers. While the Beaufighter and the 4 engine bombers might be able to go between Merlins and Hercules engines trying to hang a pair of Hercules engines on a PE-2 airframe might be a bit much.

If you look hard enough you can find Battles with all manner of engines. Since they didn't really need (want) then for combat after the battle of France and since the airframe was actually rather sturdy it was quite popular as an engine test bed.

 

[vanir]

Has there already been an argument about the MiG-3? In my opinion it would've done very nicely in the Battle of Britain, kicked butt as it were.
I heard from a vet interview cruising height for free roaming jäger was 7000m, which was where the early Mark Spits were losing performance but the MiG was supreme at this height. The MiG is really strong from mid altitude to high.
Plus the Soviet idea of poor turn performance still runs rings around anything else.

Admitedly at that time the initial exports would've been early MiG-1 versions with poor longitudinal stability and open cockpits, but this would've been superseded quickly.

 

[VG-33]

Hello

Lets see, British order the P-51 in March of 1940, it is first used in combat May of 1942? So following that time scale When does a Western built TU-2 see combat?
First TU-2 prototype doesn't fly until 3 months after the first P-51. While the Prototype shows amazing performance so do more than a few prototypes that don't pan out.

We can't compare Tupolev's and NA workong conditions, neither Donovan Berlin, neither Edgar Shmued were arrested by the FBI as enemies of the "American People". ANT 58 fly tests proved such successifull that Tupolev begun transmitting drawings for production line in february. But Tupolev design bureau had NO personnal test pilots and NO personnal factory. And NO possibility for producing aircrafts and force the destiny as NA did in april 41 before the -successsifull- end of the official trials in July 1941.

Moreover MiG-1 flew on april 1941, the 5th, and deliveries begun on december 1940. PB-100 flew on the end of the summer 1940, first seial plane, at end of 1940. Without german intervention Tu-2 should have been produced at the end of 1941.

By the way TU-2 Prototype doesn't fly until what, 13-14 months after the Martin B-26.

From october 40 to january 41 it makes 3-4 months, not 13-14. Since soviets had no engine to fit on the ANT-58, other requests were made by the NKAP in the meanwhile. That proves NOWAY that the ANT-59 was a better airframe than the 58.
It was just a matter of soviet taste, i think. Nobody was obliged to share it, loosing extra time.

As to the West having the resources, just what aircraft are you proposing to cut from production to make TU-2s? What engine are you proposing to use to power it ?

Bristol Hercules, PW R-2800, Wright R-2600...
I would propose to cut from Armstrong Withworth Albemarle, Hudson, Harpoon, Martin Baltimore, Vultee Valiant, NA T-6, Ryan PT-22... (training planes replaced by wooden or mixed planes as Yakovlev UT-2, or some Yak-7V).

ANd what do you get at the end. The version that went into combat in 1944 had this for performance:

" Cruising speed 442 km / h at an altitude of 5800 m, range - 2100 km at an altitude of 3000 m with 1.5 tons of bombs in the store 2700 liters of gasoline (about 2100 kg)."

While this is very,very good it is a far cry from the 4,000kg bomb loads listed on many web sites.

4000 kg it was for post war planes. But possible in 1942-43 at short range from american "hardened" (metal plates, concrete..) airfields.

Looking at this plane from a Western perspective, would you really want to fly from bases in England over France and Western Germany in 1943 at 10,000ft at around 270-280mph in a plane that had three hand operated (Non-turret) 12.7mm MG for defence?

Considering that soviet max speed is the max continuous spped at nominal power, you could fly at 340 mph (550km/h) at 18 000ft (5800m) that reduces very much your lethality conus. At 200 -220 mph of coarse like the B-26, you would have been attacked from all sides by fighters and need as much guns as a B -17G.

Some early prototypes had TWO 7.62 MGs for rear defence.

Probably a mistake: ONE 12.7 and TWO 7.62 at least or FOUR 7.62 for the ANT-58. 3 defense post (2 on the top, 1 on the lower side of the fuselage). Some mosquitos had no defense at all, with 642 km/h measured (638- 635 official) speed for the ANT 58 you may not need them too much.

Western "improvements" might have included 300-700kg of gun turrets would have reduced the performance of the TU-2. Please note that I use the word " improvements" with reservations

"Western improvements " would have transform the Tu-2 in a B-26, make loosing it's main advantage on the other planes : the diving bomber accuracy.

And so for the rest of soviet tactical aviation, making it as much as ineffective as Gen. Freyberg's one at Monte-Cassino.

Regards

VG-33

 

[Glider]

Has there already been an argument about the MiG-3? In my opinion it would've done very nicely in the Battle of Britain, kicked butt as it were.
I heard from a vet interview cruising height for free roaming jäger was 7000m, which was where the early Mark Spits were losing performance but the MiG was supreme at this height. The MiG is really strong from mid altitude to high.
Plus the Soviet idea of poor turn performance still runs rings around anything else.

Admitedly at that time the initial exports would've been early MiG-1 versions with poor longitudinal stability and open cockpits, but this would've been superseded quickly.

I admit that I don't think the Mig 3 would have been of interest. It was a lightly (very lightly) armed aircraft fast at altitude but vulnerable at lower altitudes where most of the fighting took place.

 

[VG-33]

I think I'd wrather have 2 x P-47s then 1 x Tu 2.

And were your 2 or 20 P-47 able to hit a bridge, a Bunker , a boat with a 3300lb (1500kg) bomb from a step dive at 1200 km from their airfield?

Regards

 

[VG-33]

I admit that I don't think the Mig 3 would have been of interest. It was a lightly (very lightly) armed aircraft fast at altitude but vulnerable at lower altitudes where most of the fighting took place.

Well, the MiG 3 was flying from 505 SL to 656km/h at 8 km with a 0.732 reduction gear or 526-635 with a 0.903 reduction gear with a 830 kg AM-35A. In order to use it with a Merlin (620 kg), you will need at least 4 synchronised Hispano canons in the nose to keep the CG unchanged, (or a heavy Griffon, Sabre engine).

That makes it not a vulnerable aircraft compared with a Sptitfire at low altitude, and not a unarmed one (if carrying 200 kg of extra armament in the nose).

A real pity, the full soviet factory equipment was unemployed since october - november 1941. The only job to do was to send the whole package to the allies...

Regards

VG-33

 

[VG-33]

Hello

Hi,

The Tu-2 does nothing for me. It looks like a Buckmaster or Brigand to me.



A 1000kg of bombs internally is less than the B26. I know the Tu-2 could carry more weight with external racks, but I can't see that being a viable option in war, unless you have total air superiority, as external bombs would make the plane slower and more vulnerable.

I'm not shure that B-26 was able to take-off from a soviet wet grass airfield, even with 0 kg bomb load.

If we were talking about AFV, then I'd certainly say the Russians had a couple of superb tanks the allies could of used, but as far as aircraft go, the allies had all the types they needed.

And what if comparing the Stuka, Douglas SBD, Helldiver, Skua, Aichi D3 Val dive bomber results and B-26, B-25, Blenheim, Beaufighter ones?

Regards

VG-33

 

[Glider]

Well, the MiG 3 was flying from 505 SL to 656km/h at 8 km with a 0.732 reduction gear or 526-635 with a 0.903 reduction gear with a 830 kg AM-35. In order to use it with a Merlin (620 kg), you will need at least 4 synchronised Hispano canons in the nose to keep the CG unchanged, (or a heavy Griffon, Sabre engine).

That makes it not a vulnerable aircraft compared with a Sptitfire at low altitude, and not a unarmed one (if carrying 200 kg of extra armament in the nose).

A real pity, the full soviet factory equipment was unemployed since october - november 1941. The only job to do was to send the whole package to the allies...

Regards

VG-33

Where on earth are you coming from? Last I heard the Mig 3 had 1 x HMG and 2 x LMG which to me in mid 1941 is light or am I missing something.

Merlin engine and 4 x 20mm guns, sorry but where did these come from

 

[VG-33]

Where on earth are you coming from? Last I heard the Mig 3 had 1 x HMG and 2 x LMG which to me in mid 1941 is light or am I missing something.

Merlin engine and 4 x 20mm guns, sorry but where did these come from

Hello Glider,

Weighting more than 830 kg the Mikoolin AM-35 engine was about 200 kg heavier than a Merlin XX, 41,45 engine. I supposed of course a what if MiG-1/3 airframe remotorised with the Merlin.

Regards

VG-33