Top 3 mistakes per country, in field of military aviation

Shortround6 said:

A lot of Russian aircraft suffered from poor details or finish. The Mig also suffered from a number of handling problems, The Mig 3 being better than the Mig 1 but the Mig was still a handful compared to the other new soviet fighters.
The usual Russian response to trying to improve performance, given the limited power of the engines, was to lighten the load (basically armament). Economics also had something to with it as the Shkak 7.62mm machine gun was expensive to manufacture. The 12.7mm UB was cheaper (fewer man hours) so one 12.7 often replaced two 7.62s. Cost of the 20mm Shvak is unknown but it may be cheaper than western weapons. Russians still needed them in large quantities. 10000 fighters with one 20mm each or 5000 fighters with two 20mm guns each?

Click to expand...

(my emphasis)
Exactly why I've mentioned the AM-38 and M-82, to be installed in fighters as early as possible.
BTW, that extra 5000 fighters, each with single cannon, will still need, say, 10000 of Skash MGs. The Soviets were installing in the I-16 two cannons as early as 1937, along with 2 LMGs, and 4 (four) cannons in 1939, so my proposal means saving, not expense.

Both the M-106 and M-17 were prewar projects, It was the failure of both engines that meant the M-105 had to be retained in production despite low power and less than ideal solutions found to keep performance within competitive limits.

Click to expand...

Typo - you've meant the M-107? The M-17 was predecessor to the Mikulin's engines. The early application of more powerful and available engines means those Klimovs are not dearly needed. Both M-82 and Mikulins have had much more growth potential than Klimov's, where M-107/108 were brand new engines vs. M-105.

The AM-35/38 series were large slow turning engines. They really needed bigger airframes than the existing Russian fighters.
But with the wood construction the airframes were heavy for their size.
Using the weight comparison of the ASh-82 doesn't take into account the physical size of the engines or were the center of gravity of the engine is in relation to the center of gravity of the aircraft.
Please note that the cylinders/crankcase is under the pretty much cylindrical part of the cowl and the tapered/curved part is pretty much empty (long nose case and fan) so the engines real weight is pretty close to the leading edge of the wing.
Sticking in a AM-35/38 engine that is both longer and heavier than the M-105 engine may be a lot harder.

Click to expand...

Indeed, the, say 10% bigger engine for a fighter with such a heavy and powerful engine. Much of the engine weight is compensated by having the cooling system behind the CoG, not applicable for radial engines. The ASh-82 does not have the fan, but a segmented shutter that prevents overcooling of the engine, the idea was a carry-over from I-16.

tomo pauk said:

(my emphasis)
Exactly why I've mentioned the AM-38 and M-82, to be installed in fighters as early as possible.
BTW, that extra 5000 fighters, each with single cannon, will still need, say, 10000 of Skash MGs. The Soviets were installing in the I-16 two cannons as early as 1937, along with 2 LMGs, and 4 (four) cannons in 1939, so my proposal means saving, not expense.

Click to expand...

An I-16 with FOUR cannon? in production? Out of over 9000 I-16s built only a little over 700 had the cannon. And the "last" 650 had two 7.62 and one 12.7mm (there was probably some overlap of production between the last models).
Russians were trying to change to the 12.7mm as it was much cheaper to make than the ShKAS gun. Which is why a lot of Laggs and Yaks had one 20mm and one 12.7mm gun.

Typo - you've meant the M-107? The M-17 was predecessor to the Mikulin's engines. The early application of more powerful and available engines means those Klimovs are not dearly needed. Both M-82 and Mikulins have had much more growth potential than Klimov's, where M-107/108 were brand new engines vs. M-105.

Click to expand...

yes, typo ;(
Trouble is that the M-38, the M-106 and the M-82 are pretty much contemporaries. Work started on the M-106 in 1938 and on the other two in 1939. The M-106 was NOT a new engine and in fact would fit standard M-105 mounting points. two were fitted with 2-speed superchargers in 1939. Apparently development did not go smooth and while some were fitted to production Yak-1 fighters they were removed and the planes fitted with M-105s. The M-106 did not go into service until 1944 and then in modified form.
Work on the M-107 started in March 1940. According to preliminary planning the service interval was to reach 100 hours by May 1st 1941 and 2000 M-107 were to be completed by the end of 1941. Things went badly from there on out.
May 13th 1941 saw the NKAP issue a production decree for the M-82.
The M-38 was in production (small numbers?) in the beginning of 1941 although the engine didn't pass it's state tests until July of 1941.

Obviously in preliminary designs and production planning the M-106/107 would have the inside track as so little needed to be changed. Not until they fall on their faces does the need arise for alternative engines and by then the Germans have invaded and pre-invasion production plans are tossed out the window.
Claiming the Russians made a mistake in NOT switching to the M-82 and M-38 sooner doesn't hold up very well as both engines were in development/testing at the time the decision would have to be made. If either one had also run into trouble things would have been really sticky (M-82 was the 3rd 14 cylinder radial engine worked on by Shvetsov and team)

Indeed, the, say 10% bigger engine for a fighter with such a heavy and powerful engine. Much of the engine weight is compensated by having the cooling system behind the CoG, not applicable for radial engines. The ASh-82 does not have the fan, but a segmented shutter that prevents overcooling of the engine, the idea was a carry-over from I-16.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the correction on the fan.

Shortround6 said:

An I-16 with FOUR cannon? in production? Out of over 9000 I-16s built only a little over 700 had the cannon. And the "last" 650 had two 7.62 and one 12.7mm (there was probably some overlap of production between the last models)...

Click to expand...

The I-16 Type 18 was supposed to have 4 cannons aboard, per table in Yefimov & Khazanov book on Soviet fighters.

Trouble is that the M-38, the M-106 and the M-82 are pretty much contemporaries. Work started on the M-106 in 1938 and on the other two in 1939. The M-106 was NOT a new engine and in fact would fit standard M-105 mounting points. two were fitted with 2-speed superchargers in 1939. Apparently development did not go smooth and while some were fitted to production Yak-1 fighters they were removed and the planes fitted with M-105s. The M-106 did not go into service until 1944 and then in modified form.
Work on the M-107 started in March 1940. According to preliminary planning the service interval was to reach 100 hours by May 1st 1941 and 2000 M-107 were to be completed by the end of 1941. Things went badly from there on out.
May 13th 1941 saw the NKAP issue a production decree for the M-82.
The M-38 was in production (small numbers?) in the beginning of 1941 although the engine didn't pass it's state tests until July of 1941.

Click to expand...

The AM-38 also fits on mounts for the AM-35A, or at least the installation on the MiG-3 didn't make problems to that end. The Mikulin was also not to be undone, they were testing AM-37 (a bit bigger S/C, intercooled; with problems) and AM-39 (2-speed supercharged; problem free?) with 1500 HP at 5.8 km (~18700 ft) and 1650 HP at 1 km. Pretty much out of scope for Klimov's engines.
There is also nothing that prevents Mikulin to install 'mid altitude' S/C drive on the AM-38, to gain a bit at altitude and loose a bit at SL.
The VK-106 offers mere 50 HP more than M-105, nothing to gain there. A reason why Klimov's team moved on M-107 and M-108?

Obviously in preliminary designs and production planning the M-106/107 would have the inside track as so little needed to be changed. Not until they fall on their faces does the need arise for alternative engines and by then the Germans have invaded and pre-invasion production plans are tossed out the window.
Claiming the Russians made a mistake in NOT switching to the M-82 and M-38 sooner doesn't hold up very well as both engines were in development/testing at the time the decision would have to be made. If either one had also run into trouble things would have been really sticky (M-82 was the 3rd 14 cylinder radial engine worked on by Shvetsov and team)

Click to expand...

Russians tested many of their aircraft with different engines that were in pipeline. So I'm not that convinced that testing fighters with the two engines I've suggested would've interfered with then current practice, and allows for reasonably fast switch to the engines that are in actual production while offering power at desired altitude.
It does not take that much of hindsight to reckon that there is far more stretch in Mikulin's engines than it is in Klimov's.

tomo pauk said:

The I-16 Type 18 was supposed to have 4 cannons aboard, per table in Yefimov & Khazanov book on Soviet fighters.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately that is not backed up by the text or other sources. Even the table itself has a contradiction in the fact that the type 18 with a heavier engine was lighter than the type 17 with two cannon and 2 machineguns.

The AM-38 also fits on mounts for the AM-35A, or at least the installation on the MiG-3 didn't make problems to that end. The Mikulin was also not to be undone, they were testing AM-37 (a bit bigger S/C, intercooled; with problems) and AM-39 (2-speed supercharged; problem free?) with 1500 HP at 5.8 km (~18700 ft) and 1650 HP at 1 km. Pretty much out of scope for Klimov's engines.
There is also nothing that prevents Mikulin to install 'mid altitude' S/C drive on the AM-38, to gain a bit at altitude and loose a bit at SL.
The VK-106 offers mere 50 HP more than M-105, nothing to gain there. A reason why Klimov's team moved on M-107 and M-108?

Click to expand...

Actually what we have here is a fair amount of confusion as to what was promised and when. I haven't seen any power figures for the M-106 for the early stages of the project (1938-39) when the M-105 was offering 1000/1100hp. it was 1943 before they stuck any in production planes (and didn't fly them) and by that time much modified M-105PF had been in production for months and the M-105PF2 was being tested in July of 1943. At this point the M-105PF-2 is 50-60hp behind the V-106 but we don't know the power difference in 1940. The book on Russian engines doesn't mention altitudes (at least not often) so comparisons are also hard to make on that score.
The M-107 was a sort of parallel development started in 1940 with a lot of modifications (including 4 valve cylinder heads) and supposedly 29 were built in 1941 and 686 total by the end of 1942. What they went in (if anything?) I have no idea at the moment, power was supposed to be 1200/1400hp for a weight of 765Kg but again, altitude information is lacking. The 1942 test version (M-107A) was rated at 1500/1600hp for 769kg and used Ploikoviskiy's blades on the inlet to the supercharger, this engine got into Yak-9s in 1944.

Russians tested many of their aircraft with different engines that were in pipeline. So I'm not that convinced that testing fighters with the two engines I've suggested would've interfered with then current practice, and allows for reasonably fast switch to the engines that are in actual production while offering power at desired altitude.
It does not take that much of hindsight to reckon that there is far more stretch in Mikulin's engines than it is in Klimov's.

Click to expand...

It is one thing to test an engine in an airframe, it is another thing to actually make a usable fighter out of the combination.
Switching engines is a lot easier on bombers where there is more room to play with equipment to get the CG correct. It has been done on fighters but sometimes we are not aware of some the changes done to get things right. On a P-36 the fuel tank behind the seat was the overload ferry tank. On the P-40 (early) the behind the seat tank was a "normal" tank to be used in combat and one of the in wing under cockpit tanks became the overload tank. P-40s shifted oil tanks around as the engines changed (from behind seat to behind engine?)
Again it is easier to play with large fighters (Hawker Tempest) than small fighters.

Shortround6 said:

...It is one thing to test an engine in an airframe, it is another thing to actually make a usable fighter out of the combination.
Switching engines is a lot easier on bombers where there is more room to play with equipment to get the CG correct. It has been done on fighters but sometimes we are not aware of some the changes done to get things right. On a P-36 the fuel tank behind the seat was the overload ferry tank. On the P-40 (early) the behind the seat tank was a "normal" tank to be used in combat and one of the in wing under cockpit tanks became the overload tank. P-40s shifted oil tanks around as the engines changed (from behind seat to behind engine?)
Again it is easier to play with large fighters (Hawker Tempest) than small fighters.

Click to expand...

Although Lavochkin had a great deal of success when he swapped the M-105 out for the ASh-82, transforming the LaGG-3 into the La-5

Shortround6 said:

...
Actually what we have here is a fair amount of confusion as to what was promised and when. I haven't seen any power figures for the M-106 for the early stages of the project (1938-39) when the M-105 was offering 1000/1100hp. it was 1943 before they stuck any in production planes (and didn't fly them) and by that time much modified M-105PF had been in production for months and the M-105PF2 was being tested in July of 1943. At this point the M-105PF-2 is 50-60hp behind the V-106 but we don't know the power difference in 1940. The book on Russian engines doesn't mention altitudes (at least not often) so comparisons are also hard to make on that score.
The M-107 was a sort of parallel development started in 1940 with a lot of modifications (including 4 valve cylinder heads) and supposedly 29 were built in 1941 and 686 total by the end of 1942. What they went in (if anything?) I have no idea at the moment, power was supposed to be 1200/1400hp for a weight of 765Kg but again, altitude information is lacking. The 1942 test version (M-107A) was rated at 1500/1600hp for 769kg and used Ploikoviskiy's blades on the inlet to the supercharger, this engine got into Yak-9s in 1944.

Click to expand...

The comparison between VK-106 and -107/-108 is telling. The later engines were not just M-105s with a handful of minor changes (that was more the case with the -106), they were featuring new heads & valvetrain, new crankshaft and prossibly crankcase (due to higher RPM and manifold pressure), addition of swirl throttle, new intake manifold, exhausts, possibly also the compressor with new drive. New carbs? New cooling system, new oil system. New pistons, con rods? Basically, a brand new engine.

edit: yes, new compressor was installed on the VK-107, in comparison with M-105

It is one thing to test an engine in an airframe, it is another thing to actually make a usable fighter out of the combination.
Switching engines is a lot easier on bombers where there is more room to play with equipment to get the CG correct. It has been done on fighters but sometimes we are not aware of some the changes done to get things right. On a P-36 the fuel tank behind the seat was the overload ferry tank. On the P-40 (early) the behind the seat tank was a "normal" tank to be used in combat and one of the in wing under cockpit tanks became the overload tank. P-40s shifted oil tanks around as the engines changed (from behind seat to behind engine?)
Again it is easier to play with large fighters (Hawker Tempest) than small fighters.

Click to expand...

Soviets were bad in some things, but sticking a big engine on a smallish fighter was what they were good at. The AM-35A and -38 were both installed and flew in a small fighter, so was the M-82. Both La-5 and La-7 were tested with whacking big M-71, the 18 cyl engine. They even installed the ASh-82 on the Yak-3.
So I'm not expecting from them something requiring rocket science.

The VK-108 was a bit late,Prototypes built in 1943-44. The 106 and 107 were both running and being considered for production before the Germans attacked making them "contenders" for the higher powered engine you desire. It is their existence (flawed as they were) that may have delayed or help decide against building new fighters with other engines. The M-82 didn't really enter production (large numbers) until after the invasion which also means that a lot of it's use was in "lash-ups" rather than aircraft that could take full advantage of it. Granted some of the lash-ups were very successful but perhaps a fighter designed from the start for the M-82 (and using all metal construction?) would have done even better? The LA-7 prototype was supposed to be about 180KG lighter than a test LA-5, due in large part (but not entirely?) to the wing spars being metal instead of wood.

Rocket science back then wasn't quite what it is today.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuCRVx9CYRw

While the La-7 was a definite improvement over the La-5, the La-5 was a huge difference over the LaGG-3 and most likely saved Lavochkin's life - because Uncle Joe wasn't happy with Lavochkin due to the LaGG-3's shortcomings...

That is certainly true. The production versions of the 3 main fighters being generally overweight. The wood construction needed good workmanship in order to get even close to the designed weight.
We have to remember that all three of these fighters were designed and developed in a great hurry. The I-26(Yak prototype) first flying in Jan 1940. The Lagg prototype fling March 30th 1940 and the Mig prototype flying April 5th 1940. While Russia wasn't at war with Germany it was fighting Finland and with the rest of Europe at war continued reliance on the I-15s and I-16s while a more leisurely development took place was not going to happen. Short comings were going to have to be tolerated in order to get some sort of modern aircraft into service.
also please note the the I-200 (Mig prototype) was originally supposed to have the M-37 engine and had to make do with the M-35A. Likewise the I-26 (Yak) was supposed to use the M-106 engine and was making do with the M-105 engine.
The government didn't help in October of 1940 when it issued and edict calling for all new fighters to have a range of 1000KM. Extra tankage/weight being added to all the fighters, some easier than others.

A Lagg-3 was built with a M-107 engine rated at 1400hp for take off and 1300hp at 5000 meters but the test pilot stated that the plane made 33 emergency landings in 33 flights, mainly due to overheating.

It is easy now to pick the 'winners' out of the engines and airframes available, it was not so easy in 1940-41. Especially considering that while the Gu-82, Mig-9 (Mig 3 with M-82) and a Yak 7 with M-82 had all flown before the LA-5 prototype none had really shown a marked improvement in performance or at least the sort of improvement shown by the La-5 prototype and as a consequence development on those stopped. The Russians needing aircraft by the hundreds if not thousands after the German attack and not somewhat better ones in the future at the expense of production at the present.

I find it interesting that the Soviets really didn't press forward with fighter development in the late 30's as stormclouds were gathering. It seems that after things starting heating up, did they make it a priority.

As late as summer 1939, during the battle of Khalkhin Gol, the VVS was pitting biplanes against older IJA aircraft...perhaps one of the last battles that saw biplane against biplane (I-152/I-153 vs KI-10). Of course, there were monoplanes, the VVS had the I-16 but the IJA had the KI-27.

So it seems that if the Soviets had been ahead of the curve a little bit and pressed for fighter developmentearlier, then the airwar against Finland and Japan may have produced different results. This in turn, may have helped a great deal when Germany turned on the Soviet Union.

What about Germany? Some of major mistakes, at random order:
- questionable (an understatement) treatment of pilots, both trainees and veterans
- requirement for all bombers to dive bomb
- too much of engine projects in design phase, with no two stage supercharged engine before too late
- not enough of emphasis for long range fighters (backfired not just for battles in W. Europe, but also for Eastern fromt and MTO)

Yes, 4/5 mistakes are listed, after the pilot's 'problem' other seem a bit lower on the list of mistakes.

The bad management and incompetent planning of many RLM/Luftwaffe projects are based in politics. Both organisations were creations of the Nazi regime and both suffered from the crippling Nazi notion that just ordering something to be would make it so. This dates back to the ludicrous production plans proposed from 1933 on, more or less as soon as the party had consolidated power, and continued until the last days of the war.
The list of mistakes would fill a book, the list of avoidable and foreseeable mistakes at least a chapter of that book
Cheers
Steve

tomo pauk said:

- too much of engine projects in design phase, with no two stage supercharged engine before too late
- not enough of emphasis for long range fighters (backfired not just for battles in W. Europe, but also for Eastern fromt and MTO)

Click to expand...

The Germans certainly had too many engine proposals on paper. How many advanced to even single cylinder models might be a different story.
Many nations had been working on either very large engines or compact high power engines or both. "Keeping up with the Jones's"
in peace time is understandable. Cutting back to the minimum in wartime is harder. P & W requested to be let out of contracts for at least 3 different liquid cooled engines (including sleeve valves) in order to concentrate on air-cooled engines. The Government agreed to this and work started on the R-4360 28 cylinder engine in 1940, within weeks if not days of the R-2800 C model. It took the R-2800 C until 1944 to become a production model and the R-4360 just missed the war.
Many countries and companies underestimated how difficult it was to get to the next levels of engine performance. Especially if durability and reliability were being increased at the same time.

Germans thought they had the long range fighter question answered with the 110.
Long range fighter is also a rather squishy concept. Drop tanks under 109Es would have done wonders in the BoB. Doubling the internal fuel of a 109 + drop tank/s and having decent armament + ammo for Mustang like range was probably not possible until the DB 605 was sorted out with 1.42 boost. Granted they could have been working on it while the engine was being sorted out.

Shortround6 said:

Drop tanks under 109Es would have done wonders in the BoB.

Click to expand...

I see this a lot, but there are problems with the idea.

First and foremost the RAF fighters intercepted incoming formations over the southern counties, within 20-30 miles of London, at which point they would be forced to drop those tanks. The RAF intercepted the bombers at the same point. Fighter Command used the single squadron as the principle tactical unit and effectively adopted a policy of harassing the Germans to and from the target. As soon as that first squadron attacks, the Bf 109s drop their tanks.

The Germans never made advanced interceptions of allied escort fighters forcing them to drop their tanks, remembering that they had much further to fly, because by doing so the escorts would have served their purpose of preventing the intercepting Luftwaffe fighters engaging the bombers en masse. They preferred to ascertain where the bombers were heading and concentrate their forces against the bombers in a different way. They could trade space for time to allow them to do this in a way the British could not, as Leigh-Mallory/Bader and their Big Wing demonstrated on numerous occasions. Over Britain the targets for the Luftwaffe started at the Channel coast.

It all comes down to distances. Allied formations had hundreds of miles to fly to their targets, the Luftwaffe heading for London had tens. Had they tried for Birmingham (possible with drop tanks) it was only about one hundred more. I'm sure Leigh-Mallory and 12 Group would have liked them to try.

Cheers

Steve

You may be right.
The drop tanks might have only allowed for 20-30 more miles (take-off on the main tank) of radius or saved a some pilots from ditching in the channel after spending a few too many minutes in combat.
Americans often operated in relays. 3 or more sets of escorts needed for the round trip of the bombers. Getting the first set of escorts to drop tanks over the French coast doesn't stop the 2nd set of escorts from meeting up with the bombers near German Border.
Germans were short of fighters as it was and probably couldn't do the escort relay tactic.