This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I was wondering why the bis designation showed up in both Italian and Soviet aircraft designations...
Speaking of which, what sources would people recommend for Soviet WWII aircraft? Not only for specifications, but just getting an overview of what models/variants existed and when they entered service.
I see. Here is a chart from the Medved and Khazanov book " Дальний бомбардировщик Ер-2 - самолет несбывшихся надежд". It says that the bombload was the standard one - 1000kg and the maximal one - 3000kg. However please note the small digit "1" at the DB-240 line. Below the chart there is a note that these are the calculated data. In the text it is stated that the bomb bay was designed for 2000kg load that what was 1000kg more than the DB-3F could take. What is more, the description of the DB-240 trials says that the 1000kg load was used for all tests in flight. Generally the Russian sources state that the 1000kg load was the basic one for all the Yer-2 variants. The 3000kg was the maximal one for them, except of the late variant powered by the ACh-30B engines that is said to be of the 5000kg although the standard load was still the same. Well, according to the book, the bombload depended on the amount of the fuel that was going to be taken. And this determinated the range. I guess that the 4000kg could be attached as the overloading with decreased amount of fuel drasticly. Although the AM-37 engines could give the possibility very likely. But the M-105 engines used for the DB-240 and the first series of 71 Yer-2s ( it was the same like the DB-240 prototypes ) were of too less power to provide the possibility of the larger bombload. Therefore the 2000kg bomb as the maximal bombload for the DB-240 sounds good and the additional 1000kg if overloaded with already decreased range for the initail Yer-2s as well. Of course there is still a problem of the distance for the aircraft starting up. The one for the DB-240/Yer-2 wasn't quite too short for an airfield during the war as memo serves.
View attachment 627337
Here is a diagram of the configuration of the bombload ...
View attachment 627353
and here is the same but showing the fuel amount with the range for the Yer-2 powered by the ACh-30B engines.
View attachment 627354
the source: the mentioned above book.
P.128-129 said:Myasishchev then devised a radical modernisation, the Pe-2I, which promised great advances in performance and combat characteristics, in addition to subtle improvement of the production Pe-2 by a considerable number of minor modifications. There was no connection between this version and the Pe-2I (Istrebitel -fighter, or literally 'destroyer') designed in August 1941. Myasishchev's Pe-2I was clearly a further development of the Pe-2F, and repeated the latter concept in its general features: more powerful engines (VK-107As in 1944) and a bigger bomb load (bombs of up to 220lb/100kg in the internal bays), owing to the adoption of the mid-wing configuration. But other componenets and systems of the Pe-2I were also changed. The aircraft became a two-seater, a mounting for a remote-controlled UBK machine gun (from the VI) was installed in the tail, and the wing structure was changed to that of the last version of the Pe-2B, giving it a significantly higher angle of tattack.
The Pe-2I's performance was impressive. It had a maximum speed of 407mph (656km/h) at altitude and 343mph (552km/h) at sea level, climbed to 16,400ft (5000m) in 7.1 minutes and had a range of 1,317 miles (2120km). It was often described as the 'Soviet Mosquito' or the 'Pe-2I Mosquito', likening its operational versatility to that of the celebrated high speed British fighter/bomber/reconnaissance aircraft. Its poor take-off and landing performance was a drawback, as was the non-completion of the remote-control gun mount, series production of which was achieved only with great difficulty.
Being preoccupied with this significant aircraft, Myashishchev and the leaders of the People's Commissariat of the Aircraft Industry missed the opportunity to introduce the new F3 cockpit canopy into series production. This was a big mistake. More than a year was lost hoping for a quick introduction of the Pe-2I into production. Throughout 1944 and even at the beginning of 1945 the military specialists of the NII VVS insisted on the necessity of the F1 conversion, as well as the adoption fo the cockpit as fitted to aircraft No.7/187, but the People's Commissariat of the Aircraft Industry and the leadership of Plant No.22, as though hypnotized by anticipation of the Pe-2I entering large scale production, deferred this requirement and did not take the necessary measures. But production of the Pe-2I never became a flood; there was only a trickle of five aircraft in a small series completed during February-May 1945. These aircraft did not reach the Front and were never used in combat.
The next intended production version became the simplified Pe-2M, which had significantly more powerful defensive armament (in response to the requirements of the military) combrpising one fixed UB-20 cannon and two of the same weapons in the navigator's turret and in the newly introduced gunner/radio operator's position. This variant was short-lived; an edict requiring that work on combat version of the Pe-2 should cease sealed it's fate in June 1945.
P.119 said:The peculiarities of the VISh-61B control system caused overspeeding of the propellers on entry into a dive, giving rise to unpleasant experiences for pilots. The slowness of the emergency undercarriage extension was also frustrating, but the badly designed air brake flap emergency retraction mechanism turned out to be the most dangerous fault. Although this deficiency might have been quite tolerable in peacetime, it assumed sudden importance with the beginning of war, and was one of the reasons why Pe-2 crew stopped using the aircraft as a dive bomber. If the air brake flaps could not be retracted using the main system after recovery from a dive, the aircraft became easy prey to fighters and flak, being unable to exceed 260-280km/h.
P.122 said:Together with three employees from of the bureau, Selyakov designed a new mounting with a 12.7mm UBT machine gun, using components of the MV-2 hatch mounting. The design was given the official marking 'FT' (Frontovoye Trabovaniye, or 'front requires'. The Pe-2 with the FT or 'Front Task' gun mounting (see the later section on the experimental versions of the Pe-2) differed in shape owing to the absence of the navigator's retractable screen, or 'tortoise.' The turret with its large calibre machine gun replaced the TSS-1 mounting, and fuselage station F2 above the fuel tank was covered by a door.
Although the wind blew strongly into the permanently opened navigator's cockpit, especially in winter, this had to be tolerated. But the UBT quickly taught German fighter pilots not to approach the Pe-2 too closely from behind. The FT allowed the same firing angles as the TSS-1: elevation 45°, right to left movement of 45°, and downward to 6°. The ammunition load of 200 rounds was contained in two removable boxes.
The main advantage of the FT mounting was the ease with which it could be installed in aircraft on site, requiring onl four to six working hours by two specialists. Aircraft built at Plant No.22 began to come of the assembly line with the FT mounting from the 87th series batch.
Everybody realised that the FT mounting was far from ideal, and could be considered only as a temporary measure. By the spring of 1942, Special Plant No.22 had devised its own version of the upper movable mount for the Pe-2, with the UBT machine gun and a constant belt feed; the so called 'Torov mounting' (also designated VUB-1 or B-270). The UBK machine gun with pneumatic recharging was installed on the production VUB-1 instead of the UBT, because the long belt of 200 cartridges often broke during the first shots owing to the increased drag in the feed tube. THe mounting rested upon a cast iron gear wheel and was covered with a movable tower like screen, and theoretically offered significantly greater angles of fire compared with the FT; 110° to the left, 88° to the right and up to 55° upwards. Later it became clear that even physically strong gunners were unable to deflect the machine gun more than 45 to 50° to either side because of the pressure of the airflow on the barrel. Some time later an aerodynamic balance comprising two and later one 'petal' positioned above the screen was installed in the turret. The prototype turret was installed for the first time in the Pe-2F, and a similar firing position was then fitted to a Pe-3bis from Plant No.39. During the test programme of the Pe-3bis it became evident that the VUB-2 mounting reduced the 'Pawn's' maximum speed by 4.9 to 7.4mph (8 to 12km/h) compared with the TSS-1 mounting installed in earlier production aircraft.
Wurger I tried running a few pages from that Russian online aviation museum you linked to through google translate. According to the translations the Pe-2F could carry 1xFAB-500, 2xFAB-250, or six "hundred parts" (I presume that means a 100kg bomb) while the Pe-2I has a lengthened bomb bay that could accommodate 9xFAB-100, 2xFAB-250 or 1x FAB-500M43 or FAB-1000M43 (the FAB-500M43 and FAB-1000M43 apparently required clipped stabilizers to fit -the Pe-2M had a further enlarged bomb bay that could accommodate an "uncut" FAB-1000M43). Perhaps that illustration of the Pe-2I with two bombs in the bomb bay is for FAB-250s?
The site also suggests that the Pe-2FT designation was never actually official. Maybe that's why some sources seem to indicate it referred to the improvised dorsal 12.7mm mount and others to the VUB-1 turret?
The pages on that online air museum you linked to actually look like they could be very useful, especially when I start getting to aircraft that the Yefim and Khazanov book I've been using doesn't cover (the book is actually the second part of a two volume set but I don't have the first volume which covers single engine fighters).
HOI4 is quite a moving target. You are ambitious to put the effort into a mod. I play it about once a year and my mods are almost all non-compatible every time I play. It is even worse if you layer it with Black Ice. Good luck though. Guys like you make the game better even if only temporarily.Hello All,
I'd recently started helping to do some aircraft research for a Hearts of Iron IV (video game) mod called Ultra. Ultra's raison d'etre is providing a more historically accurate industry model, but it also aims to replace the base game's generic air units with nationally unique, more historically accurate ones. Since I'm likely to have to seek information on a lot of different aircraft over the course of my research I thought it would be best to make a single general thread rather then one for each specific type of plane.
HOI4 is quite a moving target. You are ambitious to put the effort into a mod. I play it about once a year and my mods are almost all non-compatible every time I play. It is even worse if you layer it with Black Ice. Good luck though. Guys like you make the game better even if only temporarily.
Regarding the FT variant... as memo serves the abbreviation has meant either the "фронтовой тяжелый" - front-line heavy or "фронтовое требование" - front-line demand. IMHO the second translation is more relevant to the idea of the modification of the Pe-2. It wasn't any new plane but just a modification of existed weapon mount with changing of the armamaent. Below an extract from the Medved/Khazanov's book (Armada 13) vol1 for the Pe-2. According to them the FT mount was started to be attached in limited number with the 83 serie by the factory no.22. With the 87 series it was attached for all planes. But the factory no.39 didn't start mounting them because in the Spring 1942 they , earlier than the no.22, started attaching of the VUB-1. Because the factory no.22 made about 1000 FT mounts and another factory made 1010 of them , the part of FT mounts was attached to the Pe-2s of early series. Also they prepared a number of the FT sets for attaching in the field workshops of all VVS units. Therefore the 110 series of the Pe-2FT seems to be correct although the 87th one sounds good too. I would say it may depend on the factory.
View attachment 629190
Regarding the air brakers ... as memo serves the Tu-2 prototypes , I mean the 103, 103U, 103V, 103VS had them for sure. The 103VS became the serial made Tu-2. The initail assembled planes by the factory no.166 in Omsk had them too. They made about 80 planes in 1942/1943 only. See the pic below...
View attachment 629974
the pic source: the Internet.
However here is a shot of the 103V during the state trials in June 1942. It can be clearly noticed that the air braker was remove and its slot was covered with a rectangular plate. According to my notes in a notebook I made years ago, the OKB found them unnecessary. What is more they considered them harmful ( deterioration of the aircraft maneuverability, increased drag, weight, cost, maintenance complexity ). As a result the air brakers were removed from the next Tu-2 versions.
View attachment 629976
the pic source: the Internet.
The Tu-2 employed torpedoes during WWII ... to be honest I haven't heard or found any info about the using. The Tu-2 was introduced in a small number initially and all the new bombers were sent to Army or VVS regiments firstly. If I remind myself correctly , at the beginning of the war , the Soviet Navy used SB, DB-3F(IL-4), DB-3, AR-2. From 1942 the DB-3T and Il-4T as the torpedo planes. But the Tu-2 was used as a bomber. At the end of war the Aviation of the Soviet Navy consisted of 10% torpedo planes, 8% bombers, 17% sturmoviks, 50% fighters ,15% scaut planes.
Google Translate said:The order forced the OKB to start urgently designing a new propeller-driven group and a number of associated units. The work of about 1,500 drawings was completed by January 1942. By December 1, the Design Bureau sent to the plant to take the necessary measures "Considerations for the construction of production aircraft" 103 "with M-82A engines". They gave a detailed list of changes for individual units. Here are some of them in general:
- engine mounts and engine nacelles are radically changing;
- the cannon compartment is separated by a bulkhead from the rest of the caisson, due to the placement of a gas tank there;
- due to the broadening of the engine nacelle, the hinged panel and landing flaps are shortened;
- the landing gear lift cylinder increases in diameter due to ski positioning;
- brake grilles are lost from the 6th car;
- the scheme of the gas line and drainage is being changed in connection with the installation of new tanks;
- the system of water cooling and air cooling is removed.
The following units remain unchanged: the central and tail parts of the fuselage, empennage, lights, tail wheel.