Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
I see where you are coming from but it isn't' "quite" as bad when you are committed to making it all "in house" rather than making it piecemeal and depending on a mix of foreign and domestic parts.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I see where you are coming from but it isn't' "quite" as bad when you are committed to making it all "in house" rather than making it piecemeal and depending on a mix of foreign and domestic parts.I'd be surprised if it it took less than six, even with a large team of draughtsmen.
And no, with modern computers it takes far longer than days.
A few years ago I worked for a British company that had an American parent company, they sent us the drawings (not plans!) of their latest design of conveyor (basically two side pieces and a lot of rollers - simple), and told us that it was going to be a new product line in the UK.
I was in charge of the project.
3 months later we managed to produce the first one: it's not simply a case of converting the dimensions and getting on with it, you have to make sure that all of the "bought-out items" (i.e. stuff you don't manufacture yourselves - hydraulic cylinders and fittings, nuts, bolts, etc) are compatible.
An aircraft is not an isolated item, it uses many parts that already exist and which conform to existing standards - THAT'S what makes it difficult.
And then you get onto the "little" things - do the two nations use differing system voltages? (So do you buy equipment from the original nation, switch EVERYTHING or start a secondary national standard?). Likewise hydraulic pressure, pneumatic pressure...
To give an example the original system used 1/2" diameter steel rollers as a sensor in places: British Steel stopped producing imperial sizes decades ago, no problem, switch to 12mm, but the fittings (plastic) that held it were designed for 1/2" and wouldn't have held 12mm. Even though these plastic bits were relatively small and minor components (less than an inch long) it was going to cost £30,000 for new tooling to get them injection moulded - because nobody in the UK made them.
Everything has a huge knock-on effect when converting from metric to imperial and vice versa, and that's without National standards in voltages/ pressures/ material grades... tyre sizes? Instrument dial sizes? Hydraulic/ pneumatic connections?
It's a very big deal and not one that's particularly "fun" or profitable.
Even ten years later that design is one of the least well regarded inside the company
I see where you are coming from but it isn't' "quite" as bad when you are committed to making it all "in house" rather than making it piecemeal and depending on a mix of foreign and domestic parts.
I don't think they had an entire factory to spare.
Ask any design engineer: the worst job in the world is working on stuff that isn't your own.
Give me a clean sheet of paper and a set of specs every time. It's far less hassle.
A big soviet factory it's a small town (up to 100 000 inhabitants!).But at least 5 of them were out of work by the end of 1941.
Su-2, Ar-2, Yak-4,Polikarpov I-18, MiG-3 unuesed complete tooling, or some Yak, LaGG, Yer-2, Pe-8 etc...assembly lines.
Best regards
Don't quite understand what you're trying to say but also consider the Soviets used slave labor and had some people working duress.
and with the debate having evolved thus, why not cut out the 'Russian' and just "make their own plane"I think the most effective way would be for the western allies to "make their own russian plane"
in this case the P-47...the Il-2 Sturmovik would have come in handy with western allied air forces. Other than that, I think the West always had a equivalent to the Soviet planes, and usually a better one...
Polikarpov I-18/ I-185, and MiG-3 were in the same case, but could have been much appreciated outside the soviet union in 42.
The P-47 was tough, but it also eluded damage with superior speed on its fighter-bomber missions. Once the bombs were dropped, it could haul butt away from the "scene of the crime". P-47s accounted for amazing tonnage in trains, trucks, light armor, bridges, barges, and any other targets of opportunity and likely it was a combo of the sturdiness of the airframe construction and the speed lent it by the R-2800 that gave it amazing survival rates.Definitely not !!
The P-47 is often considered to be a flying tank but in fact it was nothing but. You'll read over and over again on how sturdy it was. But in fact, that's a big exaggeration. It's still about armour. And the Il-2 had a ton of steel armour. How much did the P-47 carry? Maybe a quarter of that??
Plus, the P-47 didn't carry cannons like the Il-2.
Kris
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.
Sure, it was a great aircraft, no denying there.The P-47 was tough, but it also eluded damage with superior speed on its fighter-bomber missions. Once the bombs were dropped, it could haul butt away from the "scene of the crime". P-47s accounted for amazing tonnage in trains, trucks, light armor, bridges, barges, and any other targets of opportunity and likely it was a combo of the sturdiness of the airframe construction and the speed lent it by the R-2800 that gave it amazing survival rates.
The P-47 was also twice as big as some of the fighters you mentioned. That's a whole lot more shells you can take before the plane breaks up.Sure, it was a great aircraft, no denying there.
I'm just saying it's not to be compared with a proper heavily armored aircraft, like the Hs 129 or Il-2. The P-47 was sturdy but so was the P-39, the Tempest, the Fw 190, ... but none of them could stop bullets and shells because of a lack of steel hardened armour. No sturdy design can cover that up. We have to keep that into perspective. Il-2, Ju 87D and Hs 129 were in a whole different league.
Kris
Why?
Mig was a bad handling, poorly armed aircraft with short range.
Early Migs were trickier to handle, but changes made during production, such as adding LE slats and enlarging the horizontal stabilizer improved things considerably.In flight the MiG-3 was easy and obedient. One movement of the stick changed its position, stopped in revolution. I liked this machine, qualities and conception for attack! "
Mig 3 had a tactical range of 1250 km. 150 km more than a P40-E.
Pokryshkin liked the Mig 3. In his words: Early Migs were trickier to handle, but changes made during production, such as adding LE slats and enlarging the horizontal stabilizer improved things considerably.
Mig 1 and 3 were under-armed, but the last 52 Mig 3's and the half dozen Mig 3U addressed that problem with 2 x 20mm ShVAK. The 5 gun Mig, with 3 x 12.7 and 2 x 7.62 had adequate firepower, but lost some performance due to the gun pods.
Robert S Johnson may disagree with you on that pointThe P-47 is often considered to be a flying tank but in fact it was nothing but. You'll read over and over again on how sturdy it was. But in fact, that's a big exaggeration.
It's still about armour. And the Il-2 had a ton of steel armour. How much did the P-47 carry? Maybe a quarter of that?