"Stretch or not strech" of aircraft designs

[Schweik]

Every fighter with a long career in WW2 had many variations but the Spit V was a case apart - there was a huge variation in armament (B wing - two 20mm with 60 rounds plus 4 x .303, C wing - 4 x 20mm or two 20mm with 120 rounds plus 4 x .303, and ultimately E wing two 20mm, and 2 x 12.7mm (though those were mostly on Spit VIII / IX or later)). Then engine boost ranged very widely from +9 to +16 or even +18 as Shortround mentioned, and there were high (extended wing) and medium and low altitude (clipped wing) versions and so on.

Nevertheless I never read of a Spitfire pilot in 1942 claiming that the MC.202 was an easy mark. Not until the Spit IX arrived in force did they have a superior fighter, and even then there were no guarantees.

 

[michael rauls]

I believe he is implying that most of the air strength of the Luftwaffe was Do 17 and Me 110 night fighters...

I took that he was asserting that if you include the 110s and the half dozen Do17s that tipped the balance of the axis fighter force into the inferior oposition category.
Not sure how else to interpret that but maybe there's something I'm missing. Wouldn't be the first time

 

[nuuumannn]

In terms of the original subject, I was reading about the MiG 17 and it sounds like a MiG 15 that was stretched and given a bigger engine and a few other tweaks. Did I get that wrong?

Yes, Schweik, the fuselage was lengthened by a bit, its wing area increased and the wings given greater sweep back - although resembling the '-15, it was an entirely new airframe, construction wise. The '-17 was a formidable fighter and more than a match for its contemporaries. At first glance the principal visual differences are that the '-15 has two wing fences on each wing and a small air brake compared to the '-17, which has three wing fences on each wing and a larger air brake with a fairing on it, the earliest '-17s had small air brakes though.

Both look almost identical from this angle, but note the number of wing fences. MiG-15:

DSC_6184

Chinese licence built MiG-17, Shenyang J-5:

DSC_6201


PLAAF MiG-15 showing small air brake. Contrary to common belief, China did not manufacture the single seat MiG-15, only the two-seat MiG-15UTI, but designated the type the J-2 in service.

DSC_6151

This is a Chinese only variant of the MiG-17, the Shenyang JJ-5, as the original manufacturer never built a two-seat MiG-17. it utilises the same rear fuselage however and shows the air brake, and increase in wing area, giving a kink in the leading edge. The ventral strake was not common to all MiG-17s.

DSC_0818

 

[nuuumannn]

On the subject of stretches, this is what the Chinese did with the MiG-21, the Shenyang J-8 twin engined interceptor.

Shenyang J-8 i

DSC_6080

Info here: Shenyang J-8 - Wikipedia

 

[Graeme]

Air International - December 1972....

 

[Schweik]

Didn't the MiG-21 itself (the single engine, Russian version) also get stretched somewhat? And I think maybe that did have to do with fuel? Or am I remembering wrong...

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Didn't the MiG-21 itself (the single engine, Russian version) also get stretched somewhat? And I think maybe that did have to do with fuel? Or am I remembering wrong...

IIRC, it got a hotter engine and an interceptor radar. This "bulked up" the forward part of the fuselage, making the canopy even smaller and the already poor cockpit visibility even worse.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[Schweik]

Looks like the 21bis was half a meter or about two feet longer, but then the -93 version was back to the original length. The extra fuel was in that saddle tank on the top.

 

[nuuumannn]

Didn't the MiG-21 itself (the single engine, Russian version) also get stretched somewhat?

Sure did. Again, these are pics of Chinese examples, but do illustrate the differences between variants.

Chengdu J-7 based on the MiG-21F-13.

DSC_6229

This is a J-7IIIA, which was based on the MiG-21MF.

DSC_5989

The Chinese did all sorts of things with the basic MiG-21 design, including this light fighter variant, the Nanchang J-12.

DSC_5925

 

[nuuumannn]

...And then there is what the Chinese did to the basic MiG-19, which wasn't produced in that many variants, but the ever resourceful Chinese expanded on the design considerably, offering technology upgrades that were only seen beneath the surface, as well as subtle exterior changes that warranted new designations. The Shenyang J-6 was built in larger numbers, in a greater number of variants for longer than the original product, being in production for an incredible 33 years. Variants of the basic design still serve with the PLAAF and other Third World nations, which means the basic MiG-19 warrants as one of the most long lived combat aircraft designs.

This is an early production Dong Feng 102, one of the earliest built, it's a rarity because they were so badly built that the PLAAF refused to accept them and ordered that they be scrapped. This was because production of the MiG-19 began at the time of the disastrous Great Leap Forward idealogical shift within Chinese communism put in place by Mao Tse Tung. it was more like a terrible drop backward as industry suffered, as did the population; enforced collectivisation in farming communities brought about a famine that killed hundreds of thousands.

Dong Feng 102

A basic MiG-19S copy for export purposes, the F-6.

Shenyang F-6

An improved variant, the J-6II with improved radar and nose auxiliary intake doors.

DSC_0437

The J-6III with wing tip AAMs.

DSC_6433

The Chinese only JJ-6 two-seater, of which again, the parent manufacturer did not produce.

JJ-6s 9922 and 9324

Then, there was the ground attack variant with an internal bomb bay and different avionics, the Nanchang Q-5 Fantan.

Nanchang Q-5 Fantan iiii

Several different variants of the Q-5 were built, including this radar nosed variant.

DSC_6222

And, believe it or not, this torpedo dropper variant - yup, that's right, a jet torpedo bomber, the Q-5B. Note the unusual nose contour. I don't think these went into service.

DSC_6226

The Nanchang Q-5 is still in service with the PLAAF, despite the advent of more advanced indigenous types.

DSC_7361

Deciphering all the different Chinese variants of the basic MiG-19 is difficult to say the least, as even Chinese based texts contradict themselves. What is available in English has come about through interpreting scraps of what the Chinese manufacturers themselves have revealed over the years. Several English language books have attempted to do so, but these still contradict each other. I got the information presented here from display boards at the various museums and the few books on the subject matter. Having just looked over the Wiki page on the J-6 variants, I wouldn't be so trusting of the accuracy of that, even compared to the different books I have on Chinese aircraft written in English, there are discrepancies. The Nanchang Q-5 page is detailed, but again, accuracy cannot be verified. Getting accurate performance specs is also fraught with issue as the PLAAF are notoriously cagey about such information. Using the basic MiG-19 data is a good guide, but doesn't really represent the advanced Chinese variants accurately enough. You won't find mention of the Great Leap Forward and its impact on production on the museum display boards.

 

[Stig1207]

I took that he was asserting that if you include the 110s and the half dozen Do17s that tipped the balance of the axis fighter force into the inferior oposition category.
Not sure how else to interpret that but maybe there's something I'm missing. Wouldn't be the first time

This is what you are missing:

Schweik lists the German fighter units operational with Bf 109's , and these units have a total of 112 aircraft on hand and he then writes that of these 97 were serviceable. However, this a misrepresentation of what Shores writes; so in my reply to Schweik I added what he had left out and highlighted this in red. There were 112 109's + 46 110's +7 Do17's for a total of 165, of which 97 were seviceable .

If we take the c. 60% overall serviceability rate, then there were more likely about 70 serviceable 109's.

 

[Stig1207]

So are you making the claim that fighter aircraft based in the Mediterranean Islands weren't engaging with DAF fighters in 1942? Because you have the book, you really ought to know better.

No, I'd say they probably were; from Pantelleria specifically though it seems more likely that they would be engaging RAF fighters from Malta, which is about 240 km away, compared to say Tobruk which is 1200 km away.

So what? What is your point? Servicability waxed and waned for both sides throughout 1942 and 1943.
Which if any Axis fighters are you alleging are sub-par, Bf 109 or MC202 or both?

Be clear what you are asserting.

I haven't alleged that either of them were sub-par; I just pointed out that your list of Mc. 202 claims and losses doesn't tell us how many Macchi's were on hand in North Africa. or in the Med as a whole for that matter.

However, with 182 claims for 18 losses, I guess the Italians were pretty happy with them

 

[Stig1207]

I believe he is implying that most of the air strength of the Luftwaffe was Do 17 and Me 110 night fighters...

No, but see my reply to Michael.

 

[michael rauls]

This is what you are missing:

Schweik lists the German fighter units operational with Bf 109's , and these units have a total of 112 aircraft on hand and he then writes that of these 97 were serviceable. However, this a misrepresentation of what Shores writes; so in my reply to Schweik I added what he had left out and highlighted this in red. There were 112 109's + 46 110's +7 Do17's for a total of 165, of which 97 were seviceable .

If we take the c. 60% overall serviceability rate, then there were more likely about 70 serviceable 109's.

Ok cool but.........that changes the overall landscape as far as percentage of total planes that are 1st line fighters by even less. Youd be better off going with what I thought you were asserting.

 

[Schweik]

On the subject of stretches, this is what the Chinese did with the MiG-21, the Shenyang J-8 twin engined interceptor.

View attachment 555863Shenyang J-8 i

View attachment 555864DSC_6080

Info here: Shenyang J-8 - Wikipedia

Looks like they made a pointy nosed version of this one

 

[Stig1207]

Ok cool but.........that changes the overall landscape as far as percentage of total planes that are 1st line fighters by even less. Youd be better off going with what I thought you were asserting.

You've lost me now ?

 

[Schweik]

You've lost me now ?

It's a confusion between the argument or point you were making (if you were making one - it still isn't entirely clear) and the one Ivan was making that the Axis opposition in the MTO was sub-par.

 

[Stig1207]

It's a confusion between the argument or point you were making (if you were making one - it still isn't entirely clear) and the one Ivan was making that the Axis opposition in the MTO was sub-par.

You are kidding me.

 

[Schweik]

You are kidding me.

I never kid about Axis fighter strength.

(sorry, kidding)

 

[Ivan1GFP]

No, I'd say they probably were; from Pantelleria specifically though it seems more likely that they would be engaging RAF fighters from Malta, which is about 240 km away, compared to say Tobruk which is 1200 km away.

Hello Stig1207,

That is actually pretty consistent with the initial operations of the Macchi C.202 in late 1941.
Now keep in mind for distances that for the most of the early versions of the Macchi Folgore were not equipped with racks for carrying drop tanks and internal fuel for these aircraft is 430 liters or 113 Gallons.

- Ivan.