"Stretch or not strech" of aircraft designs
- Thread starter spicmart
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Hello P-39 Expert,
It sounds like you are stating that ONLY the P-40 uses 10 Gallons of fuel for takeoff and climb to 5000 feet.
Wouldn't you expect the Airacobra to burn about the same amount of fuel in a climb?
The actual internal fuel difference is a bit more than you are listing here except for the P-40L and P-40N-1, but I will get into that a little later.
While the P-40 did use 52 gallon drop tanks early in the war, later a 75 gallon drop tank was more common.
In fact the P-40 had the capability to carry a 150 Gallon Belly tank ALONG WITH two Wing Drop tanks at the same time.
As for internal fuel capacity, with the Airacobra it is pretty simple:
After the P-39C, no Airacobra carried more than 120 Gallons split between two Wing Root tanks.
With the last Airacobras, the internal fuel was dropped to 87 Gallons.
With the P-40, there is a bit more variation.
There were usually three tanks, two (front and rear) in the Wing Center section and a Fuselage tank behind the pilot. The problem here is that depending on the model, the naming convention and capacities changed a bit so I will try to be consistent and NOT use the term "Reserve tank" because different tanks were considered to be reserve depending on the model.
As noted earlier, with the P-40L and early P-40N I believe, the Front Wing tank was deleted.
P-40 "Tomahawk" from AVG manual
Front Wing 41.25 US Gallons
Rear Wing 62.5 US Gallons
Fuselage 57.75 US Gallons
Total 162.5 US Gallons (130 Imperial Gallons)
Other sources list total at 132.5 Imperial Gallons.
P-40E Warhawk
Front Wing 32.0 Gallons
Rear Wing 51.0 Gallons
Fuselage 62.5 Gallons
Total 145.5 Gallons
P-40N Warhawk
Front Wing 34 Gallons
Rear Wing 56 Gallons
Fuselage 66 Gallons
Total 156 Gallons
Of course drop tanks would vary a bit as needed but the attached diagrams show what could be done.
- Ivan.
Attachments
- Range for the P-39 always seemed to be a problem operationally in American use.
- Range for the P-40 not as much.
- P-40s had to fly escort for P-39s in the MTO
According to this chart the P-40N, while nowhere near as fast as the zippy P-39N, managed 378 mph at 11,000 ft and still 344 mph at 30,000 ft.
This test showed 348 mph at 29,700 ft (with bomb shackles but only four guns). It also showed it still making 1400 ft per minute at 25,000 ft
That said I think the realistic combat ceiling for a P-40N was really more like 18-22,000 ft at the most. In the second test it still made 371 mph at 17,000 ft which isn't bad for early 1943.
Both of those tests were done at high boost (57" Hg) where available. Other tests done at lower power levels (and perhaps different weights, drag inducing extras etc.) give less spectacular results.
The P-39, particularly the later models, was certainly faster than the P-40 but with almost the same engine is there any reason to assume a P-39 would have better altitude performance?
As for weight, the P-40 was lighter than most P-51s. So to me performance wasn't so much a matter of weight as horsepower. And at medium and lower altitudes the P-40N had pretty good horsepower, like most other P-40 models (and P-39s I assume).
.
P39E,
In a perfect world with absolute situational awareness (SA) this might happen.
Every combat did not start with P40 opponents holding the high ground. And if they did, and you are sitting there in your 109 wanting to shoot down a P40 you would need to go down to his altitude to nail him. P40 dives to the heart of its envelope and then turns to meet the inbound 109. Simple, just takes keeping your head on a swivel and understanding both your and your opponents strengths and weaknesses.
If the 109 climbs back up then no one gets shot down it's another stalemate. I would have kept P40s in reserve and once the engagement starts scramble them to the 109s home airfield, to catch them low on gas and in the pattern.
There are more than one way to skin a cat and you have to get into a fight in order to shoot someone down.
Cheers,
Biff
This basically is what General Benjamin O. Davis of the 99th FS ("Tuskegee"), who also flew F-86s in Korea, said about P-40s:
"The P-40 operations in the Pacific and Europe were much like the F-86 and the MiG in Korea*. All the MiG's had to do was stay away from the F-86's; yet we had an eleven-to-one kill ratio of F-86's over MiG's**. Same thing with the P-40 and the Me 109. If the German fighters wanted to stay away, the P-40's couldn't get them. When the Me 109's came down to engage the P-40's we were superior."
Whether or not the Luftwaffe fighters could hit and run depended on the circumstances and the tactics of the Allied fighters. If they caught some fighters on their own they could try staying above them and bouncing or doing hit and runs. This was especially true when the DAF wasn't using wingmen and didn't have an official tactic to fight against it. Once the DAF adopted guidelines to contend with attack from above, it was less effective.
But the bigger problem came into play if the Germans needed to get at some bombers flying below the escorts. Then they basically had to get down to that altitude where the P-40s (or other Allied fighters, all of which seemed to have this problem of German fighters above them) and then they were mixing it up on a much more even basis.
If they followed down further below where the P-40s engines could be opened up, then they were potentially at a disadvantage. Some German pilots were very good and highly aggressive and went after them anyway. Others decided not to push their luck and did not chase. Those that did sometimes paid the price.
Many combats that started over a German base made it all the way back to an Allied base where re-enforcements or returning fighters could gang up on pursuers, just as you alluded.
* I am not saying I agree with the 11-1 victory ratio, I'm just quoting what he said.
Hello Schweik,
From what I have read, the fighters with the heavy cannon were a bit heavier (obviously), had relatively little ammunition and also were less agile. The combination probably needed a bit more piloting skill as did the coping with recoil from the gun's recoil as shown in testing the Yak-9TK.
The FW 190 didn't vary all that much for armor until you got to the Sturmbock aircraft.
In fact the 190 Fighter Bombers were some of the lightest versions and significantly lighter than the typical fighter version because they almost never had the outer wing cannon and sometimes even deleted the cowl guns.
1 MG and 1 20 m cannon seems to be pretty light firepower for a strafer aircraft.
The Yak-1B had the cannon and only one cowl MG.
It also appears that just many of the Yak-9 before the Yak-9U had only the motor cannon and a single MG. The Yak-9T certainly had only a single MG besides the cannon for the simple reason that the feed for the bigger cannon took up the space normally used by the RH cowl MG.
The Soviets also recognized that these planes had a serious lack of firepower in general which is why they experimented with swapping out one of the 12.7 mm MGs for a 20 mm ShVAK in the Yak-9P and came to the conclusion that even THAT wasn't quite enough and went to bigger cannon with all the associated problems.
The point in picking the Ki-27 and Ki-43 wasn't because of performance. It was to illustrate different fighting styles. If you try to fight with a P-47 the same way as you would a Ki-43, you will get killed and that is the only point I was trying to make. The same applies to trying to use the P-47 the same way as one would fly a Yak-9.
Regarding Yak-9 versus Ki-43, they each came in enough different versions that it really matters which version is being compared.
You and I both know "Mud Mover" is a pretty generic term. Would you rather see a "precision" strike by the same aircraft using rockets, bazooka tubes or bombs or a strafing run by an aircraft that carries more than just two guns?
It really is a matter of knowing the aircraft and flying it to the aircraft's advantages.
The Soviet philosophy of fighters just didn't agree with how the Thunderbolt needed to be flown.
If you actually check out the performance specs, you will find that the typical P-47D series is faster at Sea Level than just about every version of Yak fighter that didn't have a M-107 engine installed.
Climb rate with any of the mid production Thunderbolts with a Paddle Blade propeller of either type was pretty comparable as well.
No argument that it is a higher tech aeroplane that is more complicated to operate and burns a sh*tload more fuel as well.
How much of that "Fear" is due to the tactical situation?
How many American or British pilots "Feared" encountering a late model Dora or a Ta 152 or even a Me 262? One on one is a comparison of aircraft quality, but when one side has a serious numerical advantage, the numbers mean more than the quality does.
FWIW, the German fighters you mentioned and even a late model A6M have a dive speed advantage over some of these Soviet fighters at least according to their manuals.....
Regarding the matchups you listed, it would depend on the versions of the aircraft involved and how each was flown. None of them has a clear advantage in all areas, but if I had to pick one, I would pick the FW 190D or a FW 190G.
I am normally interested in the equipment and don't really pay much attention to your quotes from the MAW unless they have some relevance to the technology. This is a rare case where you picked an aircraft (the Folgore and Veltro) that I had to do some general research on a few years back.
Cherry picking data? Must be a coincidence regarding the date.
Note that I didn't pick the date of the aircraft deliveries either.
Actually I am using several sources and they all seem to agree so they must all be wrong.
Regarding Macchi C.205, did you know that the first prototype for this aircraft was a Serie IX Folgore? It first flew 19, April 1942. The first production series wasn't delivered until April 1943.....
This sounds nice but it's not the reality according to numerous pilot anecdotes. If you tried to chase an enemy pilot for a long way by following 5,000 feet above, one thing that can and did happen is that their wingman or squadron mates notice you doing that and swoop down to get you. He may even call for help on the radio. After say a half an hour chase he may be nearing his own base. All of these things actually happened historically.
More importantly, as soon as you make any attempt to shoot at the fleeing aircraft you are going to be at the same altitude (within 300 meters or so) and therefore close to Co-E. Assuming he has any of the momentum from his dive, in a P-40K he's going to be able to turn much more sharply, will have a better roll rate, and 200 more horsepower to call on. Therefore such chases often did not end well for Luftwaffe pilots, based on numerous surviving pilot accounts which I have already transcribed & posted in other threads on this forum.
The P-40K is a low altitude hotrod. It is a bottom-feeder.
The altitude limitation is a tactical disadvantage. It is a handicap that can be exploited.
It is not a good thing or the US would not have spent so much effort trying to improve the P-40's high altitude performance AT THE COST of its low altitude performance.
You can use team tactics to address its shortcomings. You can contrive any situation you want to try to demonstrate why it isn't important and bring in as many anecdotes as you want, but that doesn't really change the physics and mechanical limitations.
As for "close to Co-E" after starting with an altitude advantage, that is really an indication that the pilot executing BnZ attack just screwed up.
Threads always seem to go off topic around here. This is no exception.
- Ivan.
Last edited:
No doubt they were a bit harder to fly, to use the big gun properly especially in air to air combat also took skill. From what I read though, of all those big gun installations, the one on the Yak-9T was probably the least problematic. And at the same time they were a bit more expensive, rarer and would also be given to more experienced pilots for that reason as well.
I'll take your word for it on the Fw, all I can say is that the 'Fokker' was mentioned in some of the accounts I read as one of the reason for the bigger guns. Bf 109s ('messers') were deemed vulnerable to a few well placed 20mm shells in the tail, wing root or cockpit. But yes as I assume you are aware if you have read any operational histories from WW2 in Russia pretty much all the Soviet fighters flew at least some ground attack missions as the need presented itself.
This is the crux of our debate here. We both agree the Soviets disdained the P-47. You assign this to a culture of flying, which I partly agree with - small agile planes, nose guns, high agility, low drag for better 'combat speed', easy to maintain and so on. The P-47 violated basically all of these rules. My argument is that the rules themselves made sense in terms of the conditions the Soviets faced (and developed the way they did because of them), in part their Strategic & economic limitations, but also due to the nature of the fighting at the front.
The Soviets were hardly averse to adopting foreign weapons - if they 'liked' them. They loved the P-39 obviously, they also liked the P-40, they liked Sherman tanks and GMC trucks. But they didn't like everything they got from overseas. I guess it comes down to this, when the Soviets said they didn't like the P-47, I can understand why. I think a Yak-9, or maybe even a P-39N, was better for them on the battlefield where they operated: over the front, often below 5,000 ft, in often chaotic melees. I think a Yak-3 is better in that situation and I'd rather have that than a P-47. If it's a matter of fighting at 30,000 feet I'd much rather have the P-47.
But I do also see your point about culture- that is true too. I would argue that the Japanese started WW2 very strong but declined gradually because they were a little bit more resistant to change in their cultural preferences (down to crazy things like pilots not wearing parachutes), while the Soviets who started out incredibly inefficient and ponderous gradually got better and were a bit more pragmatic, and by the end of the war were much more oriented toward the expedient and effective.
Looks to me like the Yak-3 was just as fast at sea level with it's VK=105PF
Yak-3 performance (572 kph/ 355 mph), P-47D10 performance (333 mph at sea level, 353 at 5,000 ft) - another one said 345 at sea level.
So lets say at least comparable speed, Yak-3 definitely better climb, much better agility, far less drag. All in all again, give a choice I'd damn sure rather be in the Yak-3. About the only real advantage I see for the P-47 is it could carry a lot more ordinance.
Well that explains why your positions on some of these things never evolve lol. At least you are honest. To me I think you can't really assess a military aircraft without knowing the operational history. Relying on pure math is like relying on philosophy to understand life without ever going outside. But trust me you aren't the only one that's why I don't spend a lot of time transcribing stuff any more. Not highly valued...
!??! like I said, it's just the ones I could find so far. I am not assuming ill will, malice or duplicity on your part so please extend me the same courtesy. Shores only gives the TO&E for the Italians once or twice in each book, so it's not like I had dozens of dates to pick from. It's just really hard to find stuff in there unless you put a post-it on it. Sadly I had no luck finding it last night but I'll try again since you keep bringing it up...
We are talking about slightly different time periods, in early 1942 there were still some MC 200 and G.50bis in the game, but by mid-1942 they were basically parked.
Well, this ties in with the Yak and La 5 etc. discussion. I don't think a low altitude plane is a 'bottom' feeder, I don't think only one kind of fighter is effective, in fact the lesson of WW2 is that very different planes were suitable for every Theater or every battlefield. The P-47 is a good example. The Bf 109 would have sucked in the Pacific due to range.
On that at least, we agree!
Earlier I posted tongue and cheek about the DC-8 being the ideal "stretched" aircraft.
What exactly is "stretch"? An increase in size? an increase in capability?
As another posit, how about any aircraft that was in production or advanced development (Pre-production.) at entrance of that country into WWII and was still in service and, or in production four or more years later had sufficient "stretch" to be amenable to the exigencies of war. (And thus successfully stretched.)
Consider that while the external appearance may not have changed, the weight, horsepower and war-load did. Those factors would all stretch beyond what the original designers intended.
Consider the changes to the BF-109, Spitfire, and the Zero. All basically doubled HP over the course of the war while accommodating substantial changes in armament, pilot protection, armor, etc.
Aircraft like the Buffalo or Whirlwind were unable to"stretch".
What exactly is "stretch"? An increase in size? an increase in capability?
As another posit, how about any aircraft that was in production or advanced development (Pre-production.) at entrance of that country into WWII and was still in service and, or in production four or more years later had sufficient "stretch" to be amenable to the exigencies of war. (And thus successfully stretched.)
Consider that while the external appearance may not have changed, the weight, horsepower and war-load did. Those factors would all stretch beyond what the original designers intended.
Consider the changes to the BF-109, Spitfire, and the Zero. All basically doubled HP over the course of the war while accommodating substantial changes in armament, pilot protection, armor, etc.
Aircraft like the Buffalo or Whirlwind were unable to"stretch".
P40 RoC improved dramatically when they took the peace time Boost Regulators off of them. The only sitting ducks you speak of is when the P40 was in bomber configuration. Later F/L and M and N models used the better 100/130 octane fuel.
Again range was the deciding difference. Can have all the performance in the world like a Spitfire or P47. You cannot get there you cannot fight you will not fight.
The P40 was a more rugged aircraft. P39 had CG issues and aggressive maneuvering would crack or bend the tail. Only reinforced in the last of the Q series. P39s were parked or lost because of bent tails. So far Never heard of a wing or Tail coming off a P40 unless it was shot off.
Published performance under test conditions are not the same as the combat settings. Performance improvement was discussed but never properly documented. You can always change an engine...replacing a dead pilot was not going to happen. Consider the conversation about the British Mustangs using 70 inches for 20 minutes with no harm to the engine is one example. British noted similar dramatic performance improvement with the P40. Which seems to be done in every theater of war. The Russians wore out the Allison engines faster because they kept boosting the hell out of them on Russian fuel when they ran out of British fuel. Beating the crap out of the Pistons, bending rods, cranks and cracking the blocks. Not to mention the less refined oil and no oil filters on these engines.
Again the P39 never had the range of the P40. To be useful they were reassigned defending bases and shipping lanes where it did fine but rarely met the enemy. It never had the range of the P40 for escort. That is why you read 10 times more combat stories about the P40 than the P39. P40 was used more in every theater as an offensive combat plane. Same issue with the P47 and Spit which had the same pathetic range issues. Despite horrible cold weather performance and lousy maneuverability the P38 had the range to engage the enemy. Which is why it did better in the SWP.
On long range combat missions you did not need the ultimate climb rate. Once at high altitude the P40 it was in a good energy state.
The Me109 was a great and effective plane until the Germans discovered the BOB!
Shortround6
Major General
I have to agree with P-39 Expert.
There were only two tank set-ups on P-39s once you get past the Cs. either 87 gallons or 120 gallons. Some of the confusion comes in because there was a "reserve" of 10 or 16 gallons in one tank (two different height fuel pick ups in the same tank) so the reserve was actually in the same 60 gallon (for a 120 gallon plane) tank. Some confusion may come from a plane in a particular test not using full tanks.
For the P-40 most if not all of the Fs had 147-150 gallons (sometimes the amnual does not agree with itself on different pages) and the Ls had the forward wing tank taken out. I have no idea if any Fs had the forward tank taken out in the field. SOme Ls may have had the forward tank replaced in the Field.
Most P-40s had under 150 gallons internal until the later Ns when they changed the material the fuel tanks were made of. Then they went to 157 gallons, they did build a lot of Ns though. The Early Ns were also "stripped" and that included taking out the forward tank (actually not installed at the factory) but many of the "stripped " planes were equipped with the majority of items left out when in the field.
However many of the later P-40s operated with 75 gallon drop tanks so the P-39 looses that advantage, It may have cruised a bit faster at similar power setting due to lower drag.
Shortround6
Major General
Using the number of stories about one plane vs another is a pretty poor way of evaluating an aircraft.
By Dec 1942 they had built 6883 P-40s compared to 2871 P-39s (an only 1900 F4Fs) of course there were more stories about the P-40, it was doing more of the work in the first year to two years of the war simply due to numbers available.
I do think you really need to look at the manuals. The P-47 may not have had the range needed for escorting bombers in the ETO but it had a very similar range to the P-40 at similar speeds and altitudes. Where the idea that it was short ranged comes from I have no idea. Nobodies fighter planes (except the Japanese) had long range in 1941-42.
A P-47 has double the range of a Spitfire (both without tanks) at similar speeds and altitudes.
The Trouble the P-47 had was that the escort mission in the ETO called for a long hard climb and a high speed cruise, both of which cut into the range/radius but then any other plane would have had it's range/radius reduced trying to fly the same mission.
As an exercise I just calculated the range for a P-40E taking off with a 52 gallon drop tank and cruising at 297mph true at 15,000ft as 567 miles (after using 38 US gallons to warm up-take-off and climb to 15,000ft, I also figured the P-40 as having 100% of it's internal fuel available when the tank was dropped and I did not count the drag of the tank in the first part of the flight. it doesn't get much more favorable than that.
The P-47 on 305 gallons of internal fuel and no drop tank when cruising at 299mph at 15,000ft would have a range of 574 miles after using 60 US gallon to warm up-take-off and climb to 15,000ft.
I am not seeing the huge advantage in range for the P-40.
These are calculated ranges and make no allowances for combat or reserves (or even landing, planes just run out of fuel on the last mile or two of flight and have to glide down
Hello Schweik,
Performance did seem to require a lot more care to manage. The pilot has to be a much better marksman because only the first shot is likely to hit anything. Considering the tests of the Yak-9TK, there is also the problem of loss of control when firing at a low airspeed (300-350 KPH). There were also problems with severe recoil damaging the airframe and causing fluid leaks.
An interesting statistic was that on July 1st 1945, after several months of production and the stated intent to arm an entire fighter regiment with them, there were only 14 Yak-9T in front line service.
I believe the biggest issue the Japanese fighter pilot had early in the war was the lack of ability to communicate with other pilots. Hand signals and flying maneuvers to convey a message are techniques that belonged in the Great War era. What do you do when not in visual range???
As for the Soviets, my impression is that their biggest advantage was shear size and population. If you look at their various military industries, they tried to progress multiple competing designs in just about EVERYTHING. It seems like they had design staff to spare in almost every imaginable field.... except Aero engines.
Their principle seemed to be, "Make a couple thousand of everything and let the Germans sort them out!"
I don't try to get too deep into the operational histories for the simple reason that often the tactical or strategic situation entirely overshadows any differences in weapons quality.
How much of the success of those combat pilots you describe due to the aircraft quality and how much is due to the better training programs on the allied side?
Consider this the equivalent of learning human anatomy and surgical techniques without trying to understand how the political and social situations in Africa and Asia affect life spans of the population. The political and social aspects simply don't interest me.
The narratives I was using as reference were all about late 1941 through early 1943 but the overlap and best statistics were for the year 1942. Unfortunately, there was no breakdown of the sorties by type for each month; there was just one summary for the year.
The numbers for the Macchi C.202 specifically emphasized a very low operational number IN North Africa where the fighting was. Many missions were being flown at much less than squadron strength.
I also tried to find the corresponding numbers in a book of the same series about the Macchi C.200, but there is much less English in that book and I don't read Italian. There also wasn't a breakdown for the number of missions flown by C.200 that I could find in that book.
Basically all but one of the C.200 units was returned to Italy by early 1943
We are actually in pretty good agreement.
- Ivan.
Using the number of stories about one plane vs another is a pretty poor way of evaluating an aircraft.
By Dec 1942 they had built 6883 P-40s compared to 2871 P-39s (an only 1900 F4Fs) of course there were more stories about the P-40, it was doing more of the work in the first year to two years of the war simply due to numbers available.
I do think you really need to look at the manuals. The P-47 may not have had the range needed for escorting bombers in the ETO but it had a very similar range to the P-40 at similar speeds and altitudes. Where the idea that it was short ranged comes from I have no idea. Nobodies fighter planes (except the Japanese) had long range in 1941-42.
A P-47 has double the range of a Spitfire (both without tanks) at similar speeds and altitudes.
The Trouble the P-47 had was that the escort mission in the ETO called for a long hard climb and a high speed cruise, both of which cut into the range/radius but then any other plane would have had it's range/radius reduced trying to fly the same mission.
As an exercise I just calculated the range for a P-40E taking off with a 52 gallon drop tank and cruising at 297mph true at 15,000ft as 567 miles (after using 38 US gallons to warm up-take-off and climb to 15,000ft, I also figured the P-40 as having 100% of it's internal fuel available when the tank was dropped and I did not count the drag of the tank in the first part of the flight. it doesn't get much more favorable than that.
The P-47 on 305 gallons of internal fuel and no drop tank when cruising at 299mph at 15,000ft would have a range of 574 miles after using 60 US gallon to warm up-take-off and climb to 15,000ft.
I am not seeing the huge advantage in range for the P-40.
These are calculated ranges and make no allowances for combat or reserves (or even landing, planes just run out of fuel on the last mile or two of flight and have to glide down
Good points...Russia got the bulk of the P39s and did excellent in that combat arena.
Just too short legged for Pacific and European theaters.
The P39 and P40 performance changed dramatically dumping Civilian Boost levels.
Where they both fought gave a good accounting.
However the P47 used twice the amount of fuel to go same distance.
Looking at the European Map showing range of each plane.
Spit and P47 showed same range arch into Europe and the Mustang a lot farther.
Including Two range arch's using two sized fuel tanks for each plane.
Plus the P47 needed a very long runway to get off the ground loaded.
Full up P40 had a better fuel economy and used unimproved fields.
You use a larger fuel tank going to go a bit farther.
The P40 E was just a more nimble low altitude fighter.
As for running out of fuel...and gliding back...that was a Spitfire feature...!
Individual aces (and eksperten) were at times quite accurate, even over the course ot their career; so it is indeed quite plausible that Pokryshkin's victory claims are reliable. I believe
Rechkalov is credited with a few victories as the top scoring Airacobra ace.
It's been a while since I read BC/RS vol. 2 and I can't remember the details; but I agree that a 3-1 overclaiming rate is not astromical, more like the average imo.
In the Lw 60% and above were write offs, increasing level of % damage was an evaluation of how many parts could be salvaged. Less than 60% was regarded as recoverable, whether that in reality was always feasible would of cause very much depend on the current war situation. A pilot that shoots up an enemy plane and sees it crashland in enemy territory is right to claim a victory; he can't be expected to judge whether it's repairable or not. But what about those damaged aircraft that make it back to base, not observed to crash- or forceland by the claiming pilot and deemed repairable? It's a grey area when it comes to verification of victories, but imo including damaged but repairable planes muddies the waters.
Anyway, I prefer overall claims/ losses to those of individual pilots or specific battles as there is often too much variation in those figures. When it comes to strict verification procedures, the Luftwaffe also had them in place; yet still managed some 'astronomical' overclaiming on numerous occasions.
I read Bergström's Battle of Kursk and iirc he included a table showing the Soviets claiming 870+ against Luftwaffe losses of 97 during first 3-4 days of the battle; 9-1 overclaiming in mid '43. Whether those claims were 'confirmed' or not, I don't know and it is only a 'snapshot' and not to be taken as a general estimate of the rate of overclaiming. Does illustrate how much variation there is in the subject, though.
Shortround6
Major General
This is both not quite true and yet true.
There were 3-4 different major engine design bureaus in Russia. Each was trying to manage multiple programs at the same time. The Bureau that handled the Ash-82 engine for instance was also working an an 18 cylinder engine but was not successful until after the war with the engine that powered the TU-4. It was about the only thing not directly copied from the B-29 and yet, since the Soviets had licenced the R-1820 in the 1930s and developed through a number of models and then tried to make 3 different two row versions before the engine in the TU-4 (4th design) there is not a whole lot of superficial difference between the R-3350 and the russian engine/s.
Few, if any, other countries had more than 3 major companies designing aircraft engines, The US had 3, England had 3 (if you can count Napier) and the Germans had 3.
The big problem the soviets had was not enough engineers and draftsmen as opposed to "idea" men. The Russians are just as inventive as anybody else, but you need the lower levels of engineers, draftsmen and skilled prototype makers to turn the "ideas" in reality. You also need the supporting industry/infrastructure.
Thanks Shortround6,
I actually knew there were a bunch of different engine projects going though I didn't go back to find the detail. This was really intended more as a bit of humor as was letting the Germans sort out the design variations.
As I see it, the Soviets showed an incredible amount of flexibility in adjusting their production lines WITHOUT loss of quantity production.
Note that with the IL-2 and an additional crew member added, they managed to address the CoG shift pretty easily with new outer wing panels.
This is why I have suggested several times that the outer wing panels of the Airacobra should have been redesigned but perhaps not quite as radically as in the P-39E.
With the Yak fighters, Wings get adjusted in location and size, Oil coolers get moved around, cockpits get moved around as needed to suit whatever particular project is going on. The basically sound Yak-1 design evolved into so many different lines that it is amazing to see.
You need a bomber? How about we put a bomb bay behind the cockpit of a heavy Yak fighter?
One has to wonder what might have happened if the Soviets had been manufacturing the Airacobra themselves? How quickly could they have addressed its shortcomings for CoG and lack of fuel (if they had needed extra fuel)? If they had the auxiliary supercharger, a stretch of the fuselage would gotten them the extra room needed.
- Ivan.
I actually knew there were a bunch of different engine projects going though I didn't go back to find the detail. This was really intended more as a bit of humor as was letting the Germans sort out the design variations.
As I see it, the Soviets showed an incredible amount of flexibility in adjusting their production lines WITHOUT loss of quantity production.
Note that with the IL-2 and an additional crew member added, they managed to address the CoG shift pretty easily with new outer wing panels.
This is why I have suggested several times that the outer wing panels of the Airacobra should have been redesigned but perhaps not quite as radically as in the P-39E.
With the Yak fighters, Wings get adjusted in location and size, Oil coolers get moved around, cockpits get moved around as needed to suit whatever particular project is going on. The basically sound Yak-1 design evolved into so many different lines that it is amazing to see.
You need a bomber? How about we put a bomb bay behind the cockpit of a heavy Yak fighter?
One has to wonder what might have happened if the Soviets had been manufacturing the Airacobra themselves? How quickly could they have addressed its shortcomings for CoG and lack of fuel (if they had needed extra fuel)? If they had the auxiliary supercharger, a stretch of the fuselage would gotten them the extra room needed.
- Ivan.
Hello Dan Fahey,
I seem to remember that was a "Saburo Sakai flying the A6M" feature.
He decided to fly until he ran the tanks dry and glide in for a landing just to see what the actual endurance was.
- Ivan.
Well in the US you had Allison, Curtiss-Wright, Pratt and Whitney and Packard all making piston engines, then Westinghouse and G.E. making jet engines, plus G.E. also making turbochargers. So that's more like 5 or 6 companies.
That said, I don't think the Soviets were slacking on engine development, I just think they could have, if they'd really felt the need, put more into engine development vs. manufacture or design of fighters, or bombers, or trucks or tanks or small arms or submarines or whatever. I don't think they felt the deficiencies of the Klimov etc. engines as sorely as it may appear they should have to some.
This was both a strength and a weakness of their system. Many factories made their own modifications to the same type of aircraft to the point that defied standardization, quite often whole assemblies (like landing gear) were basically customized or one-offs and didn't always even use interchangable parts. The challenge to mechanics must have been enormous, and they were under immense pressure / threat from their bosses to keep planes flying. Still better than being in the infantry probably.
On the other hand as you say the direct link between factories and front line units allowed them to rapidly make changes and minor improvements that make a big difference on the front line. An interesting contrast to the American system which was sometimes a lot more slow to react (see P-38, Mk 14 torpedo etc.)
