The best fighter of the 1930s
- Thread starter INTX7568
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I know the story of ANT-42/TB-7/Pe-8 in details - not from wiki. Thousands of Il-2 (another big mistake of the Soviets) sucked all the resources which possibly could be used more efficiently. The efforts of Mikulin's design office were focused on the improving of M-38, and the execution of other projects (including supercharged high-altitude engines) was not carried out intensively enough.
However, engines were not the primary reason for the reduction of the long-range bomber program. The Air Force was ready to accept TB-7s with M-82s, despite all the shortcomings of the latter. Lack of aluminum, poor technological design, and competition for production lines with front-line aircrafts (primarily, Pe-2) were far more important.
Shortround6
Major General
I use wiki for cut and paste so I don't have to type as much.
"Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War", vol two, by Yefim Gordan and Dmitri Khazanov say just about the same thing.
I also try to double check things in "Russian Piston Aero Engines" by Vladimir Kotelnikov.
There are several monographs and books devoted to the TB-7 history. Unfortunately, all of them are either in Russian or in German - e.g., an outstanding book by Ulrich Unger "Pe-8. Der sowjetische Fernbomber", 1993. I haven't found any mention in the book from Gordon, et al. that engine life time was the reason for the production cancelling. Moreover, you can find the following text: "After the outbreak of war the plant began production of Pe-2s, which drew heavily on the factory's resources, but TB-7 production continued." on the page 134. The book by Kotelnikov gives just a brief description of events or/and technical details.
I'd suggest that the better designs of the 30s would center around the Me109, I-16, P-35, P-36, Hurricane, Spitfire Mk1, Mitsubishi A5M/A6M, and Nakajima Ki27/Ki43. Mainly based on their demonstrated versatility. I tend to disregard the Dewoitine D 520 and Caudron as they emphasized maneuverability and speed to the detriment of other features.
I would note that our light/medium bomber efforts were enhanced by the forward thinking of the North American NA-40, Douglas 7B, and Lockheed Electra 14.
I would note that our light/medium bomber efforts were enhanced by the forward thinking of the North American NA-40, Douglas 7B, and Lockheed Electra 14.
I can agree that the P.7 was superior in 1932-1933. Perhaps, P.11 was the best in 1935. But the serial I-15 outperformed the P.7 in 1934, and the I-16 type 5 outperformed the P.11 in 1936. The evolution of fighters was too fast in 1930s.
The metal construction of Polish monoplanes was certainly a serious advantage.
yes and no - theoretically you are correct but from practical standpoint performance of the I-15/16 from serial production was far from handbook data (something with traditional soviet/russian approach to the product quality especially true in a term of engines), I-16's handling was difficult to the point that pilot's main job was not to be killed by it's own airplane, fighting with possible enemy was somehow secondary task, both soviet airplanes has suffered from totally unreliable armament. I would say in reality in level flight performance of this airplanes was pretty much equal with significant edge for PZL fighters side for dogfight scenarios and possibility combat evading with step diving.
The difference was not so significant - even taking into account some performance degradation in series production, the I-15 was equal to and the I-16 Type 5 was superior to the P.11. After the weight of the I-16 was reduced, the superiority increased.
It is not true. Takeoff, landing and low speed flight were the major difficulties; piloting at medium and high altitudes was not challenging, as reflected in both test reports and pilots' memories.
Could you please cite the source? The armament (2xSchKAS) was insufficient, but equal to P.11 and quite reliable. Moreover, armament was reinforced - either with additional PV-1 (about 100 aircraft in 1937) or with cannons in some later types. P.11c armament was reinforced with two small-bore MGs only in 1938 on about 1/3 of all available aircraft of this type that resulted in a certain deterioration of flight performance.
Undoubtedly, an experienced P.11 pilot could win over a less experienced I-16 Type 5 pilot, but when pilots were equally (and adequately) trained, the I-16 gave an undeniable advantage.
This has all the makings of one of those endless debates, which will never end, and all adherents just go away exhausted and unsatisfied. I'd like to point out yet again, my abhorrence of useless superlatives like first, fastest, and above all, best.
To frame the open-ended proposition, the fighters of the thirties can be grouped in two categories: early open cockpit based on WWI thinking, and closed cockpit, retractable gear, highly streamlined setting the stage for the next decade.
The first group has adherents for the P-26, PZL, I-15/16, and Claude ... each has appeal with attention to speed, maneuverability, firepower, and appearance ... besides the parochial interests. In a lot of ways, it comes down to an argument as to which is the most important feature. Few competed more than occasionally head to head.
The mid to late 30s saw Curtiss, Caudron, Seversky, Messerschmidt, Hawker, MiG, Supermarine, Mitsubisihi, Dewotaine, Nakajima, etc., etc. come along, all in various levels and pressures of development. Again, quibbles will arise as to the date of first flight, and which version to compare to another. (It should be noted that as a group, these fighters gained up to 100 mph, 10,000' ceiling, much more firepower, and up to double the range compared to the early group.)
Again, it will become a contest full of adjectives, adverbs ... modifiers and qualifiers!
How about we just list the wide variety of wild and wonderful products from so many inspired, talented yet also limited engineers and designers?
We can then expound on the features and lore of those we've studied, sharing our knowledge, and not wasting energy on useless wrangling.
To frame the open-ended proposition, the fighters of the thirties can be grouped in two categories: early open cockpit based on WWI thinking, and closed cockpit, retractable gear, highly streamlined setting the stage for the next decade.
The first group has adherents for the P-26, PZL, I-15/16, and Claude ... each has appeal with attention to speed, maneuverability, firepower, and appearance ... besides the parochial interests. In a lot of ways, it comes down to an argument as to which is the most important feature. Few competed more than occasionally head to head.
The mid to late 30s saw Curtiss, Caudron, Seversky, Messerschmidt, Hawker, MiG, Supermarine, Mitsubisihi, Dewotaine, Nakajima, etc., etc. come along, all in various levels and pressures of development. Again, quibbles will arise as to the date of first flight, and which version to compare to another. (It should be noted that as a group, these fighters gained up to 100 mph, 10,000' ceiling, much more firepower, and up to double the range compared to the early group.)
Again, it will become a contest full of adjectives, adverbs ... modifiers and qualifiers!
How about we just list the wide variety of wild and wonderful products from so many inspired, talented yet also limited engineers and designers?
We can then expound on the features and lore of those we've studied, sharing our knowledge, and not wasting energy on useless wrangling.
Last edited:
The discussion prompted me to read some excellent Polish books on the PZL P.7/P.11 fighters.
In fact, we attempt - very implicitly! - to estimate the real parameters as well as their "weighting coefficients" necessary for correct evaluation of the qualities of the airplane in order to find out how optimal the design decisions were at different time points.The problem is that there were many exceptions at that time that do not allow a clear classification with two "clusters" only. I guess, the examples are well-known for the audience, but I can go in details if necessary.
about Shkas following Wikipedia :
Soviet machine-gun technician Viktor M. Sinaisky recalled:
or from other russian source we have clear statement that basically I-16 type 5 armament wasn't really working at least up to around 1937.
Interesting thing was that Shkas gun have been presented to Stalin as a superweapon of red aviation - dictator was impressed enough that all existing design flaws have been carefully "swept under the carpet" and until next breath taking weapon haven't appeared in a form of Shvak cannon (surprise - this one had the same father - if you become favorite engineer of the hegemon you may be just source of masterpieces or be gone in the wilderness of Siberia - in the best case) soviet designers have been sentenced for using the best one - only a one which was acceptable
And im totally agree with "fannum", PZL fighters and I-16 wasn't the same era airplanes, this 5 years in development starting point was one of most significant in whole aviation technology history.
Note that i said "can be," and you perfectly make my point about how these open ended questions often degenerate into mind numbing quibbles.
btw: What's my favorite? I like airplanes!
Thumpalumpacus
Captain
Look at it as a discussion and not a debate; it becomes more informative and less vexing.
The clear statement sounds somewhat different. Namely: the main defects were eliminated during 1935. Since 1936, no serious problems with the I-16 ShKAS have been noted. You can find it in the same source - the army tests of the Type 5 in May-November 1936 revealed no any significant reliability problems of ShKAS.
Why?
Shortround6
Major General
What is somewhat interesting is how long it took the military to figure out that such things like monoplanes, retracting landing gear and enclosed cockpits were actually good ideas.
1927 Lockheed 5A
OK, 2 out of 3
Cantilever monoplane and enclosed cockpit. Even that wuss Lindbergh used an enclosed cockpit when he flew to Paris.
It took Lockheed about 3 years (1930) to put the wing on the bottom and put retracting landing gear on it.
At this time at Lockheed you had Jack Northrop and Gerard Vultee and a few others, these guys bounced around like ping pong balls from company to company.
By 1931 the designer Richard A. von Hake had come up with the Orion, a rather derivative airplane of the older Vega.
Same fat fuselage, that would hold up to six passengers + the pilot, the already mentioned cantilever wing, the enclose cockpit. The NACA cowling, the retracts, I am not sure when they got the two pitch prop. This airframe has a long and colorful History.
The standard airliners would outrun any US Military plane of 1930-31.
This airplane was outlawed from US Air line service in 1935 due to both the wooden construction and the requirement for a 2 person aircrew for planes of certain size or type of route.
The Military planes actually have very few bragging rights no matter what country. It was more a matter of designers getting the military to adopt things that were in commercial service rather than the Military leading the way.
1927 Lockheed 5A
OK, 2 out of 3
Cantilever monoplane and enclosed cockpit. Even that wuss Lindbergh used an enclosed cockpit when he flew to Paris.
It took Lockheed about 3 years (1930) to put the wing on the bottom and put retracting landing gear on it.
At this time at Lockheed you had Jack Northrop and Gerard Vultee and a few others, these guys bounced around like ping pong balls from company to company.
By 1931 the designer Richard A. von Hake had come up with the Orion, a rather derivative airplane of the older Vega.
Same fat fuselage, that would hold up to six passengers + the pilot, the already mentioned cantilever wing, the enclose cockpit. The NACA cowling, the retracts, I am not sure when they got the two pitch prop. This airframe has a long and colorful History.
The standard airliners would outrun any US Military plane of 1930-31.
This airplane was outlawed from US Air line service in 1935 due to both the wooden construction and the requirement for a 2 person aircrew for planes of certain size or type of route.
The Military planes actually have very few bragging rights no matter what country. It was more a matter of designers getting the military to adopt things that were in commercial service rather than the Military leading the way.
The problem was that often the practical implementation of a good idea was rather mediocre. Both technical and technological levels were frequently insufficient to recognize all the advantages of good ideas - and the I-16 is a prime example of this. The poor quality of materials and design flaws could drastically reduce the real value of innovations. Thus, the I-16 originally had a closed cockpit, but the low quality of Soviet plexiglas, poorly designed sliding canopy mechanics and heavy splashing with engine oil led the military to demand an open cockpit. It should be noted that the windscreen for the open cockpit of the I-16 was designed at the factory, not in the design bureau. So, the military's desire to have an open cockpit was quite reasonable at that time. It is approximately the same with the retractable chassis. It increased weight of the airplane, required more effort from the pilot, and the contribution to aerodynamic drag at speeds up to 450 km/h was not so great, poor nosing was much more important. There were proposals of the serial plant to build I-16 with non-retractable landing gear - this version was successfully tested in October 1935.
The military needed reliability, and their conservatism was frequently justified.
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
Like
Thumpalumpacus
says, look at it as a discussion not a debate.Who says the adherents must go away exhausted and unsatisfied? This forum is built on discussion and debate, that's why the majority of us come here.
I think it's a great idea to discuss fighters of a certain era, in this case the decade 1930-1939, it's a great exchange of ideas and knowledge. Sure many of us have favorites but universally we're here to learn and discuss issues of our interest. In an earlier post I posited that speed, range, climb etc. i.e. performance numbers were perhaps not the way to go to determine a successful aircraft of the decade. More along the lines of what got purchased in the largest lot or length of service.
Unless I missed it, I don't see a lot of "THIS IS THE BEST PLANE" rhetoric, I see a lot of information being exchanged between enthusiasts with vast amounts of knowledge on the subject.
Again, just my two cents worth, but if a topic like this bothers you so much, there's a simple answer, give this thread a pass.
I looked at the forum guidelines and nowhere do said guidelines say you absolutely must read any given thread.
Shortround6
Major General
Granted the implementation was often rather poor. However the retreat from implementation sometimes just delays things for years.
I use the Lockheed saga because it was rather well documented and because the wing and fuselage changed only very little which allows for easy comparison for different changes. Like the effect of streamline wheel spats or the effect of the cowling. The effect of the retracting landing gear was a major aspect of the close to 30mph (increase top speed from 180mph to 210mph) change.
Many airliners in France, Britain, US and Italy (Germany wasn't building much in the late 20s or very early 30s) were using enclosed cockpits while their bomber aircraft often lagged behind. Apparently Airline pilots didn't need to see in order to land a plane with passengers? Some people used tri-motors so they would have had oil splashing on the windshields.
Britain didn't go to enclosed cockpits on bombers until 1934-35.
I always wonder about how well the old pilots could feel the wind in their face (to detect side slipping? ) after several hours of flight and being on the verge of frostbite?
Granted there were a lot of weird ideas at the time. Going back to the Lockheed.
Pilot, in the open cockpit, was "supposed to have a better feel" for flying with the rear pilot position. He better have good "feel" because he couldn't see crap out the front of the plane.
Note that they made 8 of these things for customers that didn't like the Vega with the enclosed cockpit at the leading edge of the wing. Initial order was for passenger/cargo service flying over the Sierra Nevada mountains. But this was in 1928, not 1934-35.
Pilots sometimes flew with knee-length heavy fur coats, how much was fashion of the 20's I don't know
Speeds are given for bare engine and wheels and for the more streamline version (about 18mph).
We know that the cult of maneuverability held sway in some countries until 1942 or so and light weight was prized more than speed. Although a faster plane could often climb better.
Having wet and/or frozen crewmen didn't help combat readiness/efficiency although that took a long time to sink in. More than a few navies took a long time to come around on that one. Many armies got rid of their horse cavalry before the navies figured out that cold semi-frozen look-outs really weren't seeing very much. Tradition often trumped efficiency.
Edit. I would note that the series of Lockheed planes were setting records all over the world (Amelia Earhart used a Vega for the first trans Atlantic flight by a woman for just one instance) so they were very well known all over the world.
I use the Lockheed saga because it was rather well documented and because the wing and fuselage changed only very little which allows for easy comparison for different changes. Like the effect of streamline wheel spats or the effect of the cowling. The effect of the retracting landing gear was a major aspect of the close to 30mph (increase top speed from 180mph to 210mph) change.
Many airliners in France, Britain, US and Italy (Germany wasn't building much in the late 20s or very early 30s) were using enclosed cockpits while their bomber aircraft often lagged behind. Apparently Airline pilots didn't need to see in order to land a plane with passengers? Some people used tri-motors so they would have had oil splashing on the windshields.
Britain didn't go to enclosed cockpits on bombers until 1934-35.
I always wonder about how well the old pilots could feel the wind in their face (to detect side slipping? ) after several hours of flight and being on the verge of frostbite?
Granted there were a lot of weird ideas at the time. Going back to the Lockheed.
Pilot, in the open cockpit, was "supposed to have a better feel" for flying with the rear pilot position. He better have good "feel" because he couldn't see crap out the front of the plane.
Note that they made 8 of these things for customers that didn't like the Vega with the enclosed cockpit at the leading edge of the wing. Initial order was for passenger/cargo service flying over the Sierra Nevada mountains. But this was in 1928, not 1934-35.
Pilots sometimes flew with knee-length heavy fur coats, how much was fashion of the 20's I don't know
Speeds are given for bare engine and wheels and for the more streamline version (about 18mph).
We know that the cult of maneuverability held sway in some countries until 1942 or so and light weight was prized more than speed. Although a faster plane could often climb better.
Having wet and/or frozen crewmen didn't help combat readiness/efficiency although that took a long time to sink in. More than a few navies took a long time to come around on that one. Many armies got rid of their horse cavalry before the navies figured out that cold semi-frozen look-outs really weren't seeing very much. Tradition often trumped efficiency.
Edit. I would note that the series of Lockheed planes were setting records all over the world (Amelia Earhart used a Vega for the first trans Atlantic flight by a woman for just one instance) so they were very well known all over the world.
Last edited:
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
