Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Maybe so. The command system was dysfunctional in many ways. Engine makers, probably, had even less space for creativity than air construction bureaus.So I'd point the finger on the top brass, that failed to push more towards the more powerful engines type ASAP, rather than on the factory workers making the respective engines.
R-2600 or R-2800? From the prototype and further on, subject USA doesn't object to the exports and production capacity permits.What Western radial do you have in mind for the Tu-2, and when?
It's worth noting that the I-185 M-71 Etalon in 1942 testing was found to be superior in manoeuvring to all German and Russian fighters tested at that time. So there must be things other than weight and wingspan/area at play here for that to be true. From what I could find, the I-185 was an extremely clean design that produced very little drag. There's definitely flaws and the M-71 had some teething issues to go through, but the I-185 would still be a competitively capable fighter, and possibly the best fighter they could hope for until the Yak-9U, La-7 and Yak-3, with the possibility of the I-187 and I-188 down the line as well.Soviet single engine fighters vs Bf 109
Plane.................wing area sq/ft.................normal T-O weight lbs
109-4...........................174..........................................6400
I-16 24........................160..........................................4220
LaGG-3.......................188..........................................6940
MiG-3..........................188..........................................7390
Yak-1............................184..........................................6270
Yak-7 (1941)..............184..........................................6530
Yes, I rounded off a little bit. Soviet weights tend to be rather variable.
Now for the I-185 fans.
I-185............................167.......................................7710-8230 (depends on version and source)
Basically the M-71 engine was a crude long stroke (and extra 14.5mm?) Wright R-3350 ( a R-3640 if you will). One can imagine the handling problems in a small fighter, 2 feet less wingspan and 30 sqft less area than a FW 190. Or compare to a LA-5.
They were pushing for more powerful engines as soon as possible. Sometimes too soon. They were somewhat trapped by the existing tooling and Russia did not have a lot of capability to retool.So I'd point the finger on the top brass, that failed to push more towards the more powerful engines type ASAP, rather than on the factory workers making the respective engines.
I think that it is pretty clear that I was pointing out towards the Mikulin engines as the ones that were more powerful.They were pushing for more powerful engines as soon as possible. Sometimes too soon. They were somewhat trapped by the existing tooling and Russia did not have a lot of capability to retool.
The Soviets built around 150 M-106 engines which is a very large number for an experimental engine. Some were installed in production YaK-1 fighters but the combination was not used in service and the planes had the engines replaced by M-105 engines. About 50 Yak-9PDs were built with M-106PV engines in in mid/late 1944(?). The M-106 had been planned for several other planes in 1939-41. Some accounts are confusing (at least to me) with one source saying that the M-106 was phased out of production in May 1943 but later says that the M-106PV was flight tested in a Yak-9PD in Oct 1943 and a later version of the M-106PV was tested in a Yak-9PD in April of 1944. Perhaps the 50 M-106PVs that were built are not counted in the 150 M-106 engines?
The Soviets had planned to build 2000 M-107s (with 4 valves) starting in April 1941 and the completing the 2000 engines by the end of the year. But a number of problems with the engine limited production to just 29 engines in 1941. Production was started in 1942 but..............? Soviets stopped production twice post war to sort out problems.
Soviet leadership may have had a lot of problems. But they were, at times, willing to accept engines of a lower standard than some other countries. Sometimes they OK'd an engine for production after a 50 hour test and hoped to extend the overhaul live to 100 hours at a later date.
The top brass were not at all happy with the M-105 engine. But the M-106 and M-107 were not running reliably enough to switch over.
They are supposed to have built 686 M-107s in 1941-42. They had trouble with broken con-rods, pistons and crankcases.
I do have to wonder about the test.It's worth noting that the I-185 M-71 Etalon in 1942 testing was found to be superior in manoeuvring to all German and Russian fighters tested at that time. So there must be things other than weight and wingspan/area at play here for that to be true. From what I could find, the I-185 was an extremely clean design that produced very little drag. There's definitely flaws and the M-71 had some teething issues to go through, but the I-185 would still be a competitively capable fighter, and possibly the best fighter they could hope for until the Yak-9U, La-7 and Yak-3, with the possibility of the I-187 and I-188 down the line as well.
And for the radials, favor the M-82 over the M-88 series ASAP.They were pushing for more powerful engines as soon as possible. Sometimes too soon. They were somewhat trapped by the existing tooling and Russia did not have a lot of capability to retool.
Perhaps that could be done.And for the radials, favor the M-82 over the M-88 series ASAP.
Given that the test was started in early 1942 and was completed in November 1942 along with the usage of "all Soviet fighters", one could assume they would be testing against the Yak-1B, Yak-7A, early Yak-9, LaGG 23 series, and the early La-5? The German aircraft in question was a Bf 109 F-4, which it reportedly out-sped at sea level and at 5,000 m by narrow margins.I do have to wonder about the test.
I also wonder what they were comparing the I-185 to. A prototype Yak or Lagg or service versions?
For the installed power I am not seeing a huge advantage in drag, 600kph at sea level for 2000hp?
I also have to wonder how a service version would have performed. It is easy to make a "clean" design if you don't really care if the pilot can actually see for landing or over the the nose for defection shooting.
Did you mean Tu-2? Tu-4 required a whole new industry, not just a factory.The next question is if building M-82 powered IL-4s was going to show much advantage or if they could really make TU-4s in an IL-4 factory (or use the same materials?)
You are correct. I did mean the Tu-2.Did you mean Tu-2? Tu-4 required a whole new industry, not just a factory.
we can assume that 2000hp fighter should out perform panes with lower powered engines, especially much lower power. Assuming that the 109 and I-185 are about the same size (not going to argue over a few percent) the I-185 had about 50% more power, it should out-speed the 109F by a lot more than a narrow margin.Given that the test was started in early 1942 and was completed in November 1942 along with the usage of "all Soviet fighters", one could assume they would be testing against the Yak-1B, Yak-7A, early Yak-9, LaGG 23 series, and the early La-5? The German aircraft in question was a Bf 109 F-4, which it reportedly out-sped at sea level and at 5,000 m by narrow margins.
However the Etalon setter had an improved cowling design which boosted it to 400 mph at 5,000 m - about 10 mph faster than the previous aircraft without the new cowling design.
Most of the issues seemed to spring from the teething issues with the engine, however the M-71 would be getting the attention it deserves in this theoretical so one could assume that its issues would be lessened.
A lot of 1930s aircraft had poor vision to the front, and even worse vision to the rear. Too much had been sacrificed for speed (low drag). British very quickly started putting Malcom hoods on Spitfires. British stuck Malcom hoods on early P-51s in increase rear vision. Some countries accepted some really ludicrous cockpits/canopies on experimental aircraft.And besides, if the Soviets cared about landing or deflection visibility, they certainly wouldn't have fielded the long-nosed MiG-3!In all seriousness though, the I-185 seems to be relatively similar in forwards visibility to the La-5 and Yak-9, with the overall cockpit visibility being standard for Soviet fighter aircraft at the time.
My cunning plan is to have the M-82-powered fighters in service at least 6 months before that was the case for the La-5, so they can impact the air war in the best part of 1942. Followed by the Tu-2 from the late 1942.Perhaps the Soviets could have built more M-82s at the expense of M-88s.
The next question is if building M-82 powered IL-4s was going to show much advantage or if they could really make TU-4s in an IL-4 factory (or use the same materials?)
Tough question. The IL-2 is in its own weird little limbo since there really wasn't anything like it elsewhere. Closest comparison was the Ju 87 but that was a dive bomber.@ everyone - how high should we rate the Il-2? Both the armored attacker idea, and it's materialization? Make more of them, or less, or keep at historical level?
Well, a question is which version of the M-82 goes into production 6 months earlier? The M-82-111 or the M82A-111 or the M-82F or the M-82FN. Obviously the preferred choice is theMy cunning plan is to have the M-82-powered fighters in service at least 6 months before that was the case for the La-5, so they can impact the air war in the best part of 1942. Followed by the Tu-2 from the late 1942
The IL-2 is quite a puzzle. see below.@ everyone - how high should we rate the Il-2? Both the armored attacker idea, and it's materialization? Make more of them, or less, or keep at historical level?
IL-2 was simple to fly. However it did not perform all that well in the early part of the war, How much was due to the plane and how much was due to poorly trained pilots is certainly subject to question. I am not sure that IL-2s in the first few months lasted much longer than Battles over France/Belgium. One Soviet account says that the single seaters were lasting 7 missions before being lost (shot down or crashed?). Using pilots that could not fly much better than take-off, straight and level flight and land on return is not going to work well regardless of aircraft type.The IL-2 itself was largely fine, I'd argue it was the poor training, vulnerable gunner position and lack of proper escorts were the biggest issues.
And crucially, Russia didn't have any fighter-bombers that could adequately pick up the slack the way the P-47, Fw 190 or Tempest could.
The early M-82 is just fine for 1942-43. It was making far better power than the main engine for the fighters of that time, the M-105PF, without much of weight and bulk increase.Well, a question is which version of the M-82 goes into production 6 months earlier? The M-82-111 or the M82A-111 or the M-82F or the M-82FN. Obviously the preferred choice is the
M-82FN But that version was not tested until the end of 1942, production started in Jan, 1943. It had a lot more changes than just the fuel injection.
You could have the M-82A-111 in large scale production a lot sooner. It was supposed to have a longer service life than the M-82-111. But it was a bit lower in power. No doubt it would the Lagg-3, just not quite as much. Engine life may be debatable, could be better or worse, I don't know.
Granted, not much of the high bar, but that seems much better than how long a Battle will last over Belgium or NE France in 1940.I am not sure that IL-2s in the first few months lasted much longer than Battles over France/Belgium. One Soviet account says that the single seaters were lasting 7 missions before being lost (shot down or crashed?). Using pilots that could not fly much better than take-off, straight and level flight and land on return is not going to work well regardless of aircraft type.
That is one of the reasons I've suggested that a fighter size of Spitfire is made.But the problem of using small fighters (those small wings) meant that there was a lack of aircraft to turn into single engine bombers like even P-40s.
An IL-2 at around 4400kg empty is a significant investment in materials/labor for limited return (bombs dropped and missions flown?)
It is not just the power of the M-82 in the early versions. Yes an M-82 that makes 150hp less would still be quite an advantage over the early M-105 engines (earlier than the M-105PF)The early M-82 is just fine for 1942-43. It was making far better power than the main engine for the fighters of that time, the M-105PF, without much of weight and bulk increase.
Combat of the Battles in the BoF is a little skewed. On attacks on some critical targets (heavily defended) they were wiped out in very, very short order. On some missions attacking general supply routes (not bridges) losses were a lot lighter, of course they also were not causing a lot of damage. IL-2s attacking the same German Bridges in France, defended by the same number of guns, in the same numbers of attackers, might have suffered nearly the same losses. Losses for specific missions are hard to compare to 'averages' over several months.Granted, not much of the high bar, but that seems much better than how long a Battle will last over Belgium or NE France in 1940.
This may have been a good idea, it might not have been a good fighter but as a single engine bomber it might have made sense?That is one of the reasons I've suggested that a fighter size of Spitfire is made.
I'm okay with 1600 HP. The 82F (F- forsirovany - 'forced') will make more power under greater boost = reliability might be taking a hit.It is not just the power of the M-82 in the early versions. Yes an M-82 that makes 150hp less would still be quite an advantage over the early M-105 engines (earlier than the M-105PF)
But there were a number of quality and/or heat problems. Engine life was shorter than expected and even on the late 1942 M-82F engine things had not been fully solved. How much was engine and how much was cowling I don't know but engine temperatures were critical and engines were known to lose cylinder heads and at times, complete cylinders. Better training and keeping a closer eye on the temperature gauge?
But the soviet designers can count on the M-106 and M-107 engines for production.................right
IIRC there were no instances where the force of IL-2 send was wiped out, even in 1941.Combat of the Battles in the BoF is a little skewed. On attacks on some critical targets (heavily defended) they were wiped out in very, very short order. On some missions attacking general supply routes (not bridges) losses were a lot lighter, of course they also were not causing a lot of damage. IL-2s attacking the same German Bridges in France, defended by the same number of guns, in the same numbers of attackers, might have suffered nearly the same losses. Losses for specific missions are hard to compare to 'averages' over several months.
The IL-2 had several problems that the Battle did not have. No rear gunner, this is as much (more?) having somebody in the back of the plane to warn to the pilot to take evasive action as it is to shoot down attacking fighters. Sending low time pilots into combat wo can barely fly the plane and expecting them to keep a good look-out to the rear was very hard even with a cockpit that offered good rear vision, which the IL-2 did not offer on the single seat version.
There is really no reason to pull out the M-105 engine out from a hat when discussing a big-ish fighter.The M-105PF doesn't show up until May 1942 and it not only has a shorter life, it has a number of internal modifications. LIke Piston pins, supercharger drive(?), crankcase modifications and reduction gear modifications. This is on top of the modifications made to the M-105PA engines in 1941 that strengthened the engine over the M-105P series.
Sticking an M-105P engine in a large wing "fighter" in 1940 is unlikely get a production 'contract'.
Now when in 1942 you might have been able to get the IL-2 'Junior' built I don't know. M-105PF engine gives you a useful increase in take-off/low altitude power and ditching the 23mm cannon saves a lot of weight (as does ditching a lot of the armor).
Using the M-82 engine in 1943 opens up a lot of possibilities for a plane with a 230-260sq ft of wing. Problem is starting design in 1940-41.
Why not have both? I do guess that presumably Polikovskiy's work might have been hoarded by one engine manufacturer and not spread beyond the "Hispano-like engines".A 2-speed S/C drive on an aero engine was a better thing than the Polikovskiy's swirl throttle that Mikulin used in the 1940s, despite the modern-days fame of the Polikovskiy's device.
The KV-2 was a normal stopgap design to take out Finnish fortifications. Better solutions were devised later on but were of no use to the USSR deep in the Patriotic War. Admittedly, there is no reason you couldn't pull a sorta SU-152 like some of the concepts drawn very early during the GPW, but it's possible the flexibility of a turret had been requested for KV-2.About the Soviet armor. Modern tanks were with thick armor, reasonably powerful guns and engines. What seems to be lacking was reliability (until 1942?), 'human interface' (Yugoslav tankers commented that going from the T-34-85 into Sherman 76 was like going from a tractor into a taxi), crew visibility. German guns from early 1942 have had no problems in killing Soviet tanks at the normal combat ranges (while Soviets were pretty much in 1942 and 43 with what they had in 1941, bar the APCR ammo), and the German sights seem to be better than what the Soviets had.
Older Soviet tanks were easy prey for the German AT means.
I'm not sure how much is realistic to expect better reliability and everything considering the Soviet way of doing things and the effects of the invasion and relocation of the industry.
How much the KV-2 and T-28 were actually worth it?
The KV-3 would likely run into the very same issues as Soviet heavy tanks beyond 50 tonnes, so not a practical proposition.A similarly quashed project of note was the KV-3 heavy tank. While it would probably be a logistical headache and likely nowhere near as viable as the IS-2, it would be a seriously tough target until the Germans fielded the more powerful long 75's and long 88's. Being based on the KV hull (up-armoured KV-220 specifically), it has the advantage of being ready a good bit before the IS series come into play, and the ZiS 107 mm was a devastating gun.
Why not have both? I do guess that presumably Polikovskiy's work might have been hoarded by one engine manufacturer and not spread beyond the "Hispano-like engines".