Soviet aircraft the west coulda/shoulda used?

[Clay_Allison]

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.

 

[MrCreak]

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.

No that was the problem; we wanted to make it all in-house, but some things don't translate directly.
For example the little plastic bit - we had to set up a new "industry" practically since nobody in the UK Made anything like it.
Aircraft (and practically everything else manufactured) are set up to take as much advantage as possible of existing tooling and off-the shelf items.
If the off-the-shelf items don't fit (wrong measurement system) then you have to set up manufacturing for those or use the nearest available equivalent.
Hence weight/ size differences which have vast knock-on effects down the line.

If the closest equivalent is, say, 10mm larger all round, then everything around that item has to be moved (especially if it's high temperature equipment), which in turn moves other stuff, which means you have to redesign bays, mountings...

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.

 

[Altea]

I don't think they had an entire factory to spare.

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

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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.

BINGO!

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.

"1937, Tupolev was arrested together with Vladimir Petlyakov on trumped up charges of plotting a "Russian Fascist Party." In 1939, he was moved from a prison to an NKVD sharaga for aircraft designers in Bol'shevo near Moscow, with many ex-TsAGI people already set to work. The sharaga soon moved to Moscow and was dubbed "Tupolevka" after its most eminent inmate. Tupolev was tried and convicted in 1940 with a ten year sentence, but was released in 1944 "to conduct important defence work." (He was not to be rehabilitated fully until two years after Stalin's 1953 death.)"

 

[Altea]

Don't quite understand what you're trying to say but also consider the Soviets used slave labor and had some people working duress.

Sorry for my english. I'm saying that because of the total war mobilisation and industy evacuation, some soviets factories reminded without workers, and with a considerable amount of unused tooling.

Of course j'm not shure that planes like Su-2, Ar-2 or Yak-4 that production completly stopped due to circumstances were probably not of any kind of interest for western users in 41/42. But soviets were still interested in it, and it would have made no problem to tranmit the whole tooling in the US or Canada/ Commonwealth countrys.

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.

And since we are talking about november-december 41, there were some worring incertainlies about the production resumption of some types like the Yer-2, Il-4, Pe-8. (In the meantime their production was canceled).


In that tragical conditions, i don't think that soviets would have made any resistance to send not only some assembly lines, but full factories in the west (far far east in fact).

 

[Condora]

Just to illustrate the point, the germans had a *small* logistics problem when they invaded the Soviet Union:
as soon as they left their original area of influence, they discovered the gauge was different in the USSR, and couldn't use german trains there. They were limited to any functioning captured russian train until the gauge was changed, and by then they were retreating, not advancing.

I think the most effective way would be for the western allies to "make their own russian plane", using what they had at hand. If it doesn't work as well, identify the difference that causes the problem, and correct it.

 

[Colin1]

I think the most effective way would be for the western allies to "make their own russian plane"

and with the debate having evolved thus, why not cut out the 'Russian' and just "make their own plane"
Which they did

 

[Condora]

I think I did not explain well...

I was not talking about the "should we pick THAT plane or the other", but the problem of trying to do something according to foreign specs.

What I meant is doing something like the russians did with the HE-100 or the B-29: they got one of those, and sort of reverse-engeneered it, using the tools/equipment/engines they had available.

 

[Civettone]

Once air superiority was theirs, I suppose 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. If the West would have had a shortage in aluminium and other elements, I suppose the La-5FN would be a good choice.

And the French were quite fond of their Yak-3s...
Kris

 

[Colin1]

...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...

in this case the P-47

 

[Civettone]

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

 

[Clay_Allison]

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.

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.

 

[Clay_Allison]

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

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.

 

[Shortround6]

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.

Why?

Mig was a bad handling, poorly armed aircraft with short range.

And if you want a boat engine to power your aircraft you could always get Packard to give you some engines from the production line that supplied Higgins, Elco, and Huckins.

 

[Civettone]

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.

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

 

[Clay_Allison]

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

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.

My point was that big slow targets like the Il-2 and the Ju-87 couldn't run away like the P-47 and were more armored but less likely to save their pilots than a plane with a combination with power and speed.

 

[claidemore]

Why?

Mig was a bad handling, poorly armed aircraft with short range.

Mig 3 had a tactical range of 1250 km. 150 km more than a P40-E.

Pokryshkin liked the Mig 3. In his words:

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! "

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.

 

[Clay_Allison]

besides the aircraft, the US sure could have used some real cannon like the 20mm ShVAK, the Berezin UB or the Volkov-Yartsev VYa-23.

 

[Shortround6]

Mig 3 had a tactical range of 1250 km. 150 km more than a P40-E.

Correct, I was thinking of the Mig 1. The Mig 3 cruised faster than the P-40E too. although it would be interesting to find some figures for each plane for cruising speed used, at what altitude for what range using what for a fuel load. Some older books say the Mig 3 had a 245 liter 'overload' fuel tank and while many fighters used such tanks later in the war with restrictions on combat use if fuel was in the tank I don't believe I have seen anthing on this concerning the Mig 3. It may not apply. Interesting to find out if range figures for P-40 include drop tank or not.

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.

An old book ,quite possiably out of date with new knowledge from the east says "...stability had been decidedly improved, as were the control forces, and by general consensus, the handling characteristics were now acceptable, although it was tacitly admitted that the MiG-3 was no novices's aeroplane and, while a major improvement on the MiG-1, it called for a high degree of piloting skill."

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.

OK, 58 aircraft out of about 3,300 had two (?) 20mm cannon and this is at the end of the Production run?

 

[Colin1]

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?

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