Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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?
[/QUOTE]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.
580 Bothas were built that shouldn't have beenWhile 580 Bothas were made, a further 676 were canceled.
So we agree we have an entire factory wasting its time up to May 1942 producing an aircraft that should never have been built.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.
We agree that we now have a second factory whose production effort up to June 1941 has also been wasted.The factory at Dumbarton stopped production in June of 1941 with just 55 aircaft delivered since the Jan 1st of 1941.
Please show me how the idea holds up.
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."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.
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"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. ."
As mentioned the numbers either were small or did not existA 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. ."
If your relying on new factories to support your position then straws are being grasped at.In fact another newly built Blackburn factory built 1700 Swordfish during the war, starting in Dec 1939. ."
No I am happy with the PE 2 to replace the Blenhiem and Ventura until the TU 2 came aboutAs to your suggestion, are you borrowing the time machine from the TU-2?."
But when was the design available.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. ."
Never.But when was the design available.
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..
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.
If your relying on new factories to support your position then straws are being grasped at.
No I am happy with the PE 2 to replace the Blenhiem and Ventura until the TU 2 came about.
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.
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.
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?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.
you still haven't addressed the engine problem.
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
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.
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?.
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.
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.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.
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.By the way TU-2 Prototype doesn't fly until what, 13-14 months after the Martin B-26.
Bristol Hercules, PW R-2800, Wright R-2600...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 ?
4000 kg it was for post war planes. But possible in 1942-43 at short range from american "hardened" (metal plates, concrete..) airfields.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.
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.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?
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.Some early prototypes had TWO 7.62 MGs for rear defence.
"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.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
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 think I'd wrather have 2 x P-47s then 1 x Tu 2.
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.
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.
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.
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