Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Okay, the Wi-Fi here is a bit wonky so that edit got posted twice.
The Americans did benefit from from British jet technology. We also made our own improvements.
The F-4 was limited by ROE that eliminated its advantages. It was really superior to the MiG-21.
I said the T-62 was scary, and I'm a fan of the M60. The T-62 made us come up with something better. We did.
I said the SA-2 was a surprise. I think I said it was quite good.
The F-117 shoot down was a combination of NATO complacency and a surprising bit of initiative and luck on the other (non Russian) side. BTW, the F-117 pilot and the missile battery CO are now friends and have played some b-ball together.
What does your last point have to do with Soviet craptitude?
Yeah!!!!!!!!!!The P-39 also ruled the skies and was the single greatest reason for the Allied victory.
None of the aircraft you just listed are Sten SMG types. Most of these were initially innovatIve aircraft that stayed on the roster too long.
I never said the M-60 was great. I thought I implied the T-62 was better. I'm also a fan of the Brewster Buffalo and the Amiot 143.
The P-39 was the culmination of a lot more development than something like the XP-77 which was a Sten-SMG airplane.
The P-39 also ruled the skies and was the single greatest reason for the Allied victory.
This needs to be put to bed and without supper.They also had lower grade fuel, their main engine was the Hispano 12Y (which I like, but was definitely already getting a little old by the start of the war), and they were lacking in many resources.
It didn't.The M-60 is a bit baffling as to why it wasn't great. The Chieftain also seems to have been considerably better. But it (the M-60) was derived (I think?) from the M-26 Pershing which from what I understand was a pretty good tank. Where did it go wrong?
It didn't.
Progress was a bit slow at times. Israelis did rather well with it.
Soviet tanks often traded simplicity for "ease of repair", I am stating this badly.
They were crude and often not actually hard to repair, problem was they needed repair often and needed a fair amount of spare parts.
Track live was short. They used the same steering system the T-34 did (and that was crude in WW II). One Soviet tanker of the cold war claimed that over 30% of the Soviet tanks would be broken down with bad steering clutches trying to drive across Europe without even meeting enemy forces.
US tanks used much more complicated transmissions and steering gears but were easier to drive, they may have had faults but they usually did not fail in catastrophic fashion. But just like automatic transmissions in cars, they are harder fix when they do go wrong.
I thought the AK47 was a remake of the STG-44. Anyone have data on that?
I thought the AK47 was a remake of the STG-44. Anyone have data on that?
Trying to run Allison's or Merlin's on 95 octane was not going to end well. But that is very different than claiming the Soviets were held back from building high power engines by fuel.Well I'm not as much of an expert on fuel or aircraft engines as you, but from what I have read the two biggest problems the Soviets had with the Allied planes early on were 1) lack of spares or manuals, 2) the need to drain all fluids which wasn't built in (even for things like oil inside the spinner) and 3) dealing with oil and fuel requirements. The Soviet planes had much lower requirements for keeping the oil clean and ran best on their own lower octane (than the British and US fuel) gas.
By the time the "Greatest Fighter Ever Made" arrived, the Soviet mechanics and engineers had figured a lot of this stuff out, and those 'adaptations' were part of the fairly long workup it got before going into action. I think maybe having the engine mid-body also (possibly) helped protect it from the cold a bit in flight? Not sure but they seemed to have much less problems with the engines compared to the P-40.
2-stage supercharged versions of the V-1710 haven't used intercooler of aftercooler.Just about every production two stage supercharger used an intercooler or both inter cooler, aftercooler but then they were trying to use a higher overall pressure ratio than single stage supercharges.
I don't know of any aircraft engine that used a two stage supercharger without an intercooler ( a few race cars of the 30s did)
Trying to run Allison's or Merlin's on 95 octane was not going to end well. But that is very different than claiming the Soviets were held back from building high power engines by fuel.
The amount of boost you can use in an engine is dependent on 4 things (assuming no fuel injection).
in no order
1. Compression ratio of the cylinder
2. Amount of boost
3. the temperature of the mixture going into cylinder/s
4. The knock rating of the fuel
You can trade off compression ratio for boost, Merlin used 6.0 compression ratio and tolerated higher boost pressures(actually manifold pressure) than any other engine. The combination of the compression ratio and the boost hit a certain pressure before the fuel ignited. Allison engines used (99% of them) used 6.65 compression would tolerate about 8-10% less manifold pressure. It also gave the Allison about 8-10% better gas mileage when cruising. The higher the cylinder compression the more work you can get out of the same amount of fuel. However with lower compression you can squeeze more fuel into the cylinder and get more power, even if not as efficient.
The Soviets used 7.0 compression in the M-105 engines.
The Soviets did try to use lower compression on the M-106 and M-107 engines in addition to other changes.
They also lower the compression on the engines used in the IL-2 to get more power.
But since you are burning more fuel you need better cooling.
Now address #3 you can use two stage supercharging (for the same amount of boost the air will be heated less.) or you can use an intercooler. Some Ju 211s used the only single stage supercharger I know of with an intercooler that made production. It was good for around 100hp but you have weight and you need airflow (drag) though the intercooler.
Just about every production two stage supercharger used an intercooler or both inter cooler, aftercooler but then they were trying to use a higher overall pressure ratio than single stage supercharges.
I don't know of any aircraft engine that used a two stage supercharger without an intercooler ( a few race cars of the 30s did)
I don't know, 95 is usually what comes up.Ok but didn't the Soviets have lower octane fuel initially?