In World War II, the Russians had a large number of aircraft that performed various tasks, such as: fighters, bombers, attack aircraft, trainers and trainers, reconnaissance aircraft, seaplanes, transport aircraft and also many prototypes, and now let's move on to the list itself with descriptions and photographs below .
Soviet fighter aircraft from World War II
1. I-5— Single-seat fighter, consists of metal, wood and linen material. Maximum speed 278 km/h; Flight range 560 km; Lifting height 7500 meters; 803 built.
2. I-7— Single-seat Soviet fighter, light and maneuverable sesquiplane. Maximum speed 291 km/h; Flight range 700 km; Ascent height 7200 meters; 131 built.
3. I-14— Single-seat high-speed fighter. Maximum speed 449 km/h; Flight range 600 km; Ascent height 9430 meters; 22 built.
4. I-15— Single-seat maneuverable sesquiplane fighter. Maximum speed 370 km/h; Flight range 750 km; Ascent height 9800 meters; 621 units built; Machine gun with 3000 rounds of ammunition, Bombs up to 40 kg.
5. I-16— A single-seat Soviet single-engine piston fighter-monoplane, simply called “Ishak.” Maximum speed 431 km/h; Flight range 520 km; Lifting height 8240 meters; 10292 units built; Machine gun with 3100 rounds.
6. DI-6— Two-seat Soviet fighter. Maximum speed 372 km/h; Flight range 500 km; Ascent height 7700 meters; 222 built; 2 machine guns with 1500 rounds of ammunition, Bombs up to 50 kg.
7. IP-1— Single-seat fighter with two dynamo-rocket cannons. Maximum speed 410 km/h; Flight range 1000 km; Ascent height 7700 meters; 200 units built; 2 ShKAS-7.62mm machine guns, 2 APK-4-76mm cannons.
8. PE-3— Twin-engine, two-seat, high-altitude heavy fighter. Maximum speed 535 km/h; Flight range 2150 km; Ascent height 8900 meters; 360 units built; 2 UB-12.7 mm machine guns, 3 ShKAS-7.62 mm machine guns; Unguided missiles RS-82 and RS-132; The maximum combat load is 700 kg.
9. MIG-1— Single-seat high-speed fighter. Maximum speed 657 km/h; Flight range 580 km; Lifting height 12000 meters; 100 units built; 1 BS-12.7 mm machine gun - 300 rounds, 2 ShKAS-7.62 mm machine guns - 750 rounds; Bombs - 100kg.
10. MIG-3— Single-seat high-speed high-altitude fighter. Maximum speed 640 km/h; Flight range 857 km; Lifting height 11500 meters; 100 units built; 1 BS-12.7 mm machine gun - 300 rounds, 2 ShKAS-7.62 mm machine guns - 1500 rounds, BK-12.7 mm machine gun under the wing; Bombs - up to 100kg; Unguided missiles RS-82-6 pieces.
11. Yak-1— Single-seat high-speed high-altitude fighter. Maximum speed 569 km/h; Flight range 760 km; Lifting height 10,000 meters; 8734 units built; 1 UBS-12.7 mm machine gun, 2 ShKAS-7.62 mm machine guns, 1 ShVAK-20 mm machine gun; 1 ShVAK gun - 20 mm.
12. Yak-3— Single-seat, single-engine high-speed Soviet fighter. Maximum speed 645 km/h; Flight range 648 km; Ascent height 10700 meters; 4848 units built; 2 UBS-12.7 mm machine guns, 1 ShVAK cannon - 20 mm.
13. Yak-7— Single-seat, single-engine high-speed Soviet fighter of the Great Patriotic War. Maximum speed 570 km/h; Flight range 648 km; Ascent height 9900 meters; 6399 units built; 2 ShKAS-12.7 mm machine guns with 1500 rounds, 1 ShVAK cannon - 20 mm with 120 rounds.
14. Yak-9— Single-seat, single-engine Soviet fighter-bomber. Maximum speed 577 km/h; Flight range 1360 km; Lifting height 10750 meters; 16,769 units built; 1 UBS-12.7 mm machine gun, 1 ShVAK cannon - 20 mm.
15. LaGG-3— Single-seat single-engine Soviet fighter monoplane, bomber, interceptor, reconnaissance aircraft of the Great Patriotic War. Maximum speed 580 km/h; Flight range 1100 km; Lifting height 10,000 meters; 6528 units built.
16. La-5— Single-seat, single-engine Soviet monoplane fighter aircraft made of wood. Maximum speed 630 km/h; Flight range 1190 km; Lifting height 11200 meters; 9920 built
17. La-7— Single-seat single-engine Soviet monoplane fighter aircraft. Maximum speed 672 km/h; Flight range 675 km; Lifting height 11100 meters; 5905 units built.
Soviet bomber aircraft from World War II
1. U-2VS— Double single-engine Soviet multi-purpose biplane. One of the most popular aircraft produced worldwide. Maximum speed 150 km/h; Flight range 430 km; Ascent height 3820 meters; 33,000 built.
2. Su-2— Two-seat, single-engine Soviet light bomber with 360-degree visibility. Maximum speed 486 km/h; Flight range 910 km; Ascent height 8400 meters; 893 built.
3. Yak-2— Two and three-seat twin-engine Soviet heavy reconnaissance bomber. Maximum speed 515 km/h; Flight range 800 km; Ascent height 8900 meters; 111 built.
4. Yak-4— Two-seat, twin-engine Soviet light reconnaissance bomber. Maximum speed 574 km/h; Flight range 1200 km; Lifting height 10,000 meters; 90 built.
5. ANT-40— Three-seat twin-engine Soviet light high-speed bomber. Maximum speed 450 km/h; Flight range 2300 km; Ascent height 7800 meters; 6656 units built.
6. AR-2— Three-seat twin-engine Soviet all-metal dive bomber. Maximum speed 475 km/h; Flight range 1500 km; Lifting height 10,000 meters; 200 built.
7. PE-2— Three-seat, twin-engine Soviet, the most popular dive bomber. Maximum speed 540 km/h; Flight range 1200 km; Ascent height 8700 meters; 11247 units built.
8. Tu-2— Four-seat, twin-engine, Soviet high-speed day bomber. Maximum speed 547 km/h; Flight range 2100 km; Lifting height 9500 meters; 2527 units built.
9. DB-3— Three-seat twin-engine Soviet long-range bomber. Maximum speed 400 km/h; Flight range 3100 km; Ascent height 8400 meters; 1528 built.
10. IL-4— Four-seat twin-engine Soviet long-range bomber. Maximum speed 430 km/h; Flight range 3800 km; Ascent height 8900 meters; 5256 units built.
11. DB-A— Seven-seat experimental four-engine Soviet heavy long-range bomber. Maximum speed 330 km/h; Flight range 4500 km; Ascent height 7220 meters; 12 built.
12. Er-2— Five-seat twin-engine Soviet long-range monoplane bomber. Maximum speed 445 km/h; Flight range 4100 km; Ascent height 7700 meters; 462 built.
13. TB-3— Eight-seat, four-engine Soviet heavy bomber. Maximum speed 197 km/h; Flight range 3120 km; Ascent height 3800 meters; 818 built.
14. PE-8— 12-seat four-engine Soviet heavy long-range bomber. Maximum speed 443 km/h; Flight range 3600 km; Ascent height 9300 meters; Combat load up to 4000 kg; Years of production 1939-1944; 93 built.
Soviet attack aircraft from World War II
1. IL-2— Double single-engine Soviet attack aircraft. This is the most popular aircraft produced in Soviet times. Maximum speed 414 km/h; Flight range 720 km; Lifting height 5500 meters; Years of production: 1941-1945; 36183 units built.
2. IL-10— Double single-engine Soviet attack aircraft. Maximum speed 551 km/h; Flight range 2460 km; Lifting height 7250 meters; Years of production: 1944-1955; 4966 units built.
Soviet reconnaissance aircraft from World War II
1. R-5— Double single-engine multi-role Soviet reconnaissance aircraft. Maximum speed 235 km/h; Flight range 1000 km; Ascent height 6400 meters; Years of production: 1929-1944; More than 6,000 units built.
2. P-Z— Double single-engine multi-role Soviet lightweight reconnaissance aircraft. Maximum speed 316 km/h; Flight range 1000 km; Ascent height 8700 meters; Years of production: 1935-1945; 1031 built.
3. R-6— Four-seat twin-engine Soviet reconnaissance aircraft. Maximum speed 240 km/h; Flight range 1680 km; Ascent height 5620 meters; Years of production: 1931-1944; 406 built.
4. R-10— Two-seat single-engine Soviet reconnaissance aircraft, attack aircraft and light bomber. Maximum speed 370 km/h; Flight range 1300 km; Lifting height 7000 meters; Years of production: 1937-1944; 493 built.
5. A-7— Double, single-engine, winged Soviet gyroplane with a three-bladed rotor reconnaissance aircraft. Maximum speed 218 km/h; Flight range 4 hours; Years of production: 1938-1941.
1. Sh-2— The first two-seat Soviet serial amphibious aircraft. Maximum speed 139 km/h; Flight range 500 km; Lifting height 3100 meters; Years of production: 1932-1964; 1200 built.
2. MBR-2 Sea Close Reconnaissance - Five-seater Soviet flying boat. Maximum speed 215 km/h; Flight range 2416 km; Years of production: 1934-1946; 1365 built.
3. MTB-2— Soviet heavy naval bomber. It is also designed to transport up to 40 people. Maximum speed 330 km/h; Flight range 4200 km; Lifting height 3100 meters; Years of production: 1937-1939; Built 2 units.
4. GTS— Marine patrol bomber (flying boat). Maximum speed 314 km/h; Flight range 4030 km; Lifting height 4000 meters; Years of production: 1936-1945; 3305 built.
5. KOR-1— Double deck ejection float plane (ship reconnaissance aircraft). Maximum speed 277 km/h; Flight range 1000 km; Ascent height 6600 meters; Years of production: 1939-1941; 13 built.
6. KOR-2— Double deck ejection flying boat (short-range naval reconnaissance aircraft). Maximum speed 356 km/h; Flight range 1150 km; Lifting height 8100 meters; Years of production: 1941-1945; 44 built.
7. Che-2(MDR-6) - Four-seat long-range naval reconnaissance aircraft, twin-engine monoplane. Maximum speed 350 km/h; Flight range 2650 km; Lifting height 9000 meters; Years of production: 1940-1946; 17 units built.
Soviet transport aircraft from World War II
1. Li-2- Soviet military transport aircraft. Maximum speed 320 km/h; Flight range 2560 km; Lifting height 7350 meters; Years of production: 1939-1953; 6157 units built.
2. Shche-2- Soviet military transport aircraft (Pike). Maximum speed 160 km/h; Flight range 850 km; Lifting height 2400 meters; Years of production: 1943-1947; 567 units built.
3. Yak-6- Soviet military transport aircraft (Douglasenok). Maximum speed 230 km/h; Flight range 900 km; Lifting height 3380 meters; Years of production: 1942-1950; 381 built.
4. ANT-20- the largest 8-engine passenger Soviet military transport aircraft. Maximum speed 275 km/h; Flight range 1000 km; Lifting height 7500 meters; Years of production: 1934-1935; Built 2 units.
5. SAM-25- Soviet multi-purpose military transport aircraft. Maximum speed 200 km/h; Flight range 1760 km; Lifting height 4850 meters; Years of production: 1943-1948.
6. K-5- Soviet passenger aircraft. Maximum speed 206 km/h; Flight range 960 km; Lifting height 5040 meters; Years of production: 1930-1934; 260 built.
7. G-11- Soviet landing glider. Maximum speed 150 km/h; Flight range 1500 km; Lifting height 3000 meters; Years of production: 1941-1948; 308 built.
8. KTs-20- Soviet landing glider. This is the largest glider during WWII. It could carry 20 people and 2200 kg of cargo on board. Years of production: 1941-1943; 68 units built.
I hope you liked Russian planes from the Great Patriotic War! Thank you for watching!
World War II was a war in which the air force played a key role in the fighting. Before this, aircraft could influence the results of one battle, but not the course of the entire war. Huge advances in aerospace engineering meant that the air front became an important part of the war effort. Because this was of great importance, opposing nations constantly sought to develop new aircraft to defeat the enemy. Today we will talk about ten unusual aircraft from the Second World War that you may not have even heard of.1. Kokusai Ki-105
In 1942, during the fighting in the Pacific, Japan realized that it needed large aircraft that could carry the provisions and ammunition needed to wage maneuver warfare against the Allied forces. At the request of the government, the Japanese company Kokusai developed the Ku-7 aircraft. This huge double-boom glider was large enough to carry light tanks. The Ku-7 was considered one of the heaviest gliders developed during World War II. When it became clear that the fighting in the Pacific was protracted, Japanese military leaders decided to focus their efforts on producing fighters and bombers instead of transport aircraft. Work on improving the Ku-7 continued, but progressed at a slow pace.
In 1944, the Japanese war effort began to collapse. Not only were they quickly losing ground to the rapidly advancing Allied forces, but they were also faced with a fuel crisis. Most of Japan's oil production facilities were either captured or were experiencing material shortages, so the military was forced to start looking for alternatives. At first they planned to use pine nuts to produce a petroleum substitute. Unfortunately, the process dragged on and led to massive deforestation. When this plan failed miserably, the Japanese decided to supply fuel from Sumatra. The only way to do this was to use the long-forgotten Ku-7 aircraft. Kokusai installed two engines and expansion tanks on the airframe, essentially creating a flying fuel tank for the Ki-105.
The plan initially had a lot of flaws. Firstly, to get to Sumatra, the Ki-105 needed to use up all its fuel reserves. Secondly, the Ki-105 aircraft could not transport unrefined crude oil, so the fuel had to first be extracted and processed at an oil field. (The Ki-105 only ran on purified fuel.) Thirdly, the Ki-105 would have consumed 80% of its fuel during the return flight, leaving nothing left for military needs. Fourth, the Ki-105 was slow and unmaneuverable, making it easy prey for Allied fighters. Fortunately for Japanese pilots, the war ended and the program to use the Ki-105 aircraft was closed.
2. Henschel Hs-132
At the start of World War II, Allied forces were terrorized by the infamous Ju-87 Stuka dive bomber. The Ju-87 Stuka dropped its bombs with incredible accuracy, causing huge losses. However, as Allied aircraft reached higher standards of performance, the Ju-87 Stuka proved unable to compete with the fast and maneuverable enemy fighters. Unwilling to abandon the idea of picket bombers, the German air command ordered the creation of a new jet aircraft.
The design of the bomber proposed by Henschel was quite simple. Henschel engineers managed to create an aircraft that was incredibly fast, especially when diving. Due to its emphasis on speed and dive performance, the Hs-132 had a number of unusual features. The jet engine was located on top of the aircraft. This, along with the narrow fuselage, required the pilot to take a rather strange position while flying the bomber. Hs-132 pilots had to lie on their stomachs and look into the small glass nose to see where to fly.
The prone position helped the pilot counteract the forces that created g-forces, especially when he was rapidly climbing to avoid hitting the ground. Unlike most of the German experimental aircraft produced at the end of the war, the Hs-132 could have caused a lot of problems for the Allies if it had been produced in large numbers. Fortunately for the Allied ground forces, Soviet soldiers captured the Henschel plant before construction of the prototypes was completed.
3. Blohm & Voss Bv 40
The efforts of the US Air Force and British Bomber Command played a key role in the Allied victory. The air forces of these two countries carried out countless raids on German troops, essentially rendering them unable to wage war. By 1944, Allied planes were bombing German factories and cities almost unopposed. Faced with a significant decline in the effectiveness of the Luftwaffe (Hitler's German air force), German aircraft manufacturers began to come up with ways to counter enemy air attacks. One of them was the creation of the Bv 40 aircraft (the creation of the mind of the famous engineer Richard Vogt). The Bv 40 is the only known glider fighter.
Given the declining technical and material capabilities of the German aircraft industry, Vogt designed the airframe as simple as possible. It was made of metal (cabin) and wood (rest). Despite the fact that the Bv 40 could be built even by a person without special skills or education, Vogt wanted to make sure that the glider would not be so easy to shoot down. Since it did not need an engine, its fuselage was very narrow. Due to the recumbent position of the pilot, the front part of the glider was significantly trimmed. Vogt hoped that the high speed and small size of the glider would make it invulnerable.
The Bv 40 was lifted into the air by two Bf 109 fighters. Once at the appropriate altitude, the towing aircraft “released” the glider. After this, the Bf 109 pilots began their attack, which was later joined by the Bv 40. To achieve the speed necessary to carry out an effective attack, the glider had to dive at an angle of 20 degrees. Given this, the pilot had only a few seconds to open fire on the target. The Bv 40 was equipped with two thirty-millimeter cannons. Despite successful tests, for some reason the airframe was not accepted for service. The German command decided to focus its efforts on creating interceptors with a turbojet engine.
4. Rotabuggy by Raoul Hafner
One of the problems facing military commanders during World War II was getting military equipment to the front lines. To address this issue, countries have experimented with different ideas. British aerospace engineer Raoul Hafner came up with the crazy idea of equipping all vehicles with helicopter propellers.
Hafner had many ideas on how to increase the mobility of British troops. One of his first projects was the Rotachute, a small gyroplane (a type of aircraft) that could be dropped from a transport aircraft with one soldier inside. This was an attempt to replace parachutes during an airborne landing. When Hafner's idea didn't take root, he took on two other projects - Rotabuggy and Rotatank. The Rotabuggy gyroplane was eventually built and tested.
Before attaching the rotor to the Jeep, Hafner first decided to test what would be left behind when the vehicle was dropped. To this end, he loaded the jeep with concrete objects and dropped it from a height of 2.4 meters. The test car (it was a Bentley) was successful, after which Hafner developed a rotor and tail to make it look like a gyrocopter.
The British Air Force became interested in Hafner's project and conducted the first test flight of the Rotabuggy, which ended in failure. The gyroplane could theoretically fly, but it was extremely difficult to control. Hafner's project failed.
5. Boeing YB-40
When the German bombing campaigns began, Allied bomber crews faced a fairly strong and well-trained enemy in the form of Luftwaffe pilots. The problem was further aggravated by the fact that neither the British nor the Americans had effective escort fighters for long-range combat. Under such conditions, their bombers suffered defeat after defeat. British Bomber Command ordered night bombing while the Americans continued daylight raids and suffered heavy losses. Finally, a way out of the situation was found. This was the creation of the YB-40 escort fighter, which was a modified B-17 model equipped with an incredible number of machine guns.
To create the YB-40, the US Air Force entered into a contract with the Vega Corporation. The modified B-17s had two additional turrets and dual machine guns, which allowed the YB-40 to defend against frontal attacks.
Unfortunately, all these changes significantly increased the weight of the aircraft, which caused problems during the first test flights. In combat, the YB-40 was much slower than the rest of the B-17 series of bombers. Due to these significant shortcomings, further work on the YB-40 project was completely abandoned.
6. Interstate TDR
The use of unmanned aerial vehicles for various, sometimes highly controversial, purposes is a hallmark of 21st century military conflicts. Although drones are generally considered a new invention, they have been used since World War II. While the Luftwaffe command was investing in the creation of unmanned guided missiles, the United States of America was the first to field remotely piloted aircraft. The US Navy has invested in two drone projects. The second ended with the successful birth of the “flying torpedo” TDR.
The idea to create unmanned aerial vehicles dates back to 1936, but was not realized until the Second World War began. Engineers from the American television company RCA developed a compact device for receiving and transmitting information, which made it possible to control TDR using a television transmitter. US Navy leaders believed that precision weapons would be critical in stopping Japanese shipping, so they ordered the development of an unmanned aerial vehicle. In an effort to reduce the use of strategic materials in the production of the flying bomb, the TDR was built primarily from wood and had a simple design.
The TDR was initially launched from the ground by the control crew. When it reached the required height, it was taken under control of a specially modified TBM-1C Avenger torpedo bomber, which, keeping a certain distance from the TDR, directed it to the target. One Avenger squadron flew 50 missions using the TDR, scoring 30 successful strikes against the enemy. Japanese troops were shocked by the actions of the Americans, as they appeared to resort to kamikaze tactics.
Despite the success of the strikes, the US Navy has become disillusioned with the idea of unmanned aerial vehicles. By 1944, Allied forces had virtually complete air superiority in the Pacific theater, and the need to use complex experimental weapons was no longer necessary.
7. Douglas XB-42 Mixmaster
At the height of World War II, the famous American aircraft manufacturer Douglas decided to begin developing a revolutionary bomber aircraft to bridge the gap between light and high-altitude heavy bombers. Douglas focused its efforts on developing the XB-42, a high-speed bomber capable of outrunning Luftwaffe interceptors. If Douglas engineers had managed to make the plane fast enough, they could have devoted more of the fuselage to bomb load, reducing the significant number of defensive machine guns that were present on almost all heavy bombers.
The XB-42 was equipped with two engines, which were located inside the fuselage rather than on the wings, and a pair of propellers rotating in different directions. Given the fact that speed was a priority, the XB-42 bomber could accommodate a crew of three. The pilot and his assistant were inside separate "bubble" canopies located next to each other. The bombardier was located in the nose of the XB-42. Defensive weapons were reduced to a minimum. The XB-42 had two remotely controlled defensive turrets. All the innovation paid off. The XB-42 was capable of speeds of up to 660 kilometers per hour and could carry bombs weighing a total of 3,600 kilograms.
The XB-42 made an excellent advanced bomber, but by the time it was ready for mass production, the war was already over. The XB-42 project fell victim to the changing desires of the US Air Force command; it was rejected, after which the Douglas company began creating a jet-powered bomber. The XB-43 Jetmaster was successful, but did not attract the attention of the United States Air Force. However, it became the first American jet bomber, paving the way for other aircraft of its kind.
The original XB-42 bomber is stored at the National Air and Space Museum and is currently awaiting its turn for restoration. During transport, his wings mysteriously disappeared and were never seen again.
8. General Aircraft G.A.L. 38 Fleet Shadower
Before the advent of electronics and precision weapons, aircraft were designed in accordance with a specific combat mission. During World War II, this need led to a number of absurdly specialized aircraft, including the General Aircraft G.A.L. 38 Fleet Shadower.
At the outbreak of World War II, Great Britain faced a threat from the enormous German navy (Kriegsmarine). German ships blocked British waterways and interfered with logistics. Because the ocean is large, it was extremely difficult to scout out the positions of enemy ships, especially before the advent of radar. To be able to track the location of Kriegsmarine ships, the Admiralty needed observation aircraft that could fly at night at low speed and high altitude, reconnaissance of enemy fleet positions and reporting on them by radio. Two companies - Airspeed and General Aircraft - simultaneously invented two almost identical aircraft. However, the General Aircraft model turned out to be stranger.
Airplane G.A.L. 38 was formally a biplane, despite the fact that it had four wings, and the length of the lower pair was three times less than the upper one. The crew of G.A.L. 38 consisted of three people - a pilot, an observer, who was located in the glazed nose, and a radio operator, located in the rear fuselage. Since planes move much faster than battleships, G.A.L. The 38 was designed to fly slowly.
Like most dedicated aircraft, the G.A.L. 38 eventually became unnecessary. With the invention of radar, the Admiralty decided to focus on patrol bombers (such as the Liberator and Sunderland).
9. Messerschmitt Me-328
The Me-328 was never accepted into service because the Luftwaffe and Messerschmitt could not decide on the functions it was supposed to perform. The Me-328 was a conventional small fighter. The Messerschmitt company presented three Me-328 models at once. The first was a small, unpowered fighter glider, the second was powered by pulse jet engines, and the third was powered by conventional jet engines. They all had a similar fuselage and a simple wooden structure.
However, as Germany desperately tried to find a way to turn the tide of the air war, Messerschmitt offered several models of the Me-328. Hitler approved the Me-328 bomber, which had four pulse-jet engines, but it was never put into production.
The Caproni Campini N.1 looks and sounds a lot like a jet plane, but in reality it is not one. This experimental aircraft was designed to bring Italy one step closer to the jet age. By 1940, Germany had already developed the world's first jet aircraft, but kept this project a closely guarded secret. For this reason, Italy was mistakenly considered the country that developed the world's first jet turbine engine.
While the Germans and British were experimenting with the gas turbine engine that helped birth the first true jet aircraft, Italian engineer Secondo Campini decided to create a “motorjet” that was mounted in the forward fuselage. According to the principle of operation, it was very different from a real gas turbine engine.
It is curious that the Caproni Campini N.1 aircraft had a small space at the end of the engine (something like an afterburner) where the fuel combustion process took place. The N.1 engine was similar to a jet engine in the front and rear parts, but in other respects it was fundamentally different from it.
Although the engine design of the Caproni Campini N.1 aircraft was innovative, its performance was not particularly impressive. N.1 was huge, bulky and unmaneuverable. The large size of the “motor-compressor air-breathing engine” turned out to be a limiting factor for combat aircraft.
Due to its massiveness and the shortcomings of the “motor-compressor air-breathing engine,” the N.1 aircraft developed a speed of no more than 375 kilometers per hour, much less than modern fighters and bombers. During the first long-range test flight, the N.1 afterburner “ate” too much fuel. For this reason, the project was closed.
All these failures did not instill confidence in the Italian commanders, who by 1942 had more serious problems (such as the need to defend their homeland) than useless investments in dubious concepts. With the outbreak of World War II, testing of the Caproni Campini N.1 ceased completely and the aircraft was put into storage.
The Soviet Union also experimented with a similar concept, but jet-powered aircraft were never put into mass production.
Either way, the N.1 prototype survived World War II and is now a museum piece showcasing an interesting technology that unfortunately turned out to be a dead end.
The material was prepared by Rosemarina - based on an article from listverse.com
Copyright site © - This news belongs to the site, and is the intellectual property of the blog, is protected by copyright law and cannot be used anywhere without an active link to the source. Read more - "about Authorship"
Is this what you were looking for? Perhaps this is something you couldn’t find for so long?
In the Great Patriotic War, we defeated an experienced, organized, cruel and well-armed enemy. However, throughout the post-war years, our literature practically did not provide an objective analysis of German military equipment, including aviation. When preparing material about the La-5 and FW 190 fighters, I could not stop at just a brief description of the German aircraft, because it was one of our main opponents in the skies of war, truly strong and dangerous.
But it seems to me that a whole generation of people who are more or less interested in aviation are accustomed to thinking in certain stereotypes. Thus, without any doubt, we call the Spitfire the best English fighter of the Second World War and disparage the Hurricane. The American Airacobra has become almost our favorite aircraft, and at the same time we know almost nothing about the Hellcat. We are accustomed to respecting the Mustang and look at the fat, ugly Thunderbolt with obvious misunderstanding, without even thinking about why this particular fighter was the most popular aircraft in the US Air Force during the war.
There is nothing surprising in the fact that we consider the Yak-3 the best fighter in the world. An equally stereotypical opinion exists regarding German aircraft, because in almost all books we read the same words. Let us open, for example, the famous book by aircraft designer A. Yakovlev “Soviet Aircraft”. He writes: “Our main fighter aircraft “Yak” and “La” in their combat qualities throughout the war had an advantage over German machines of similar purpose - Me 109 and FW 190.”
In addition, the FW 190 fighter is often shown as a clumsy, overweight aircraft that cannot be compared with Soviet and foreign aircraft. Well, how can you doubt this? And suddenly, a quote from the book of English researchers D. Richards and H. Sanders “The British Air Force in the Second World War 1939-1945” sounds dissonant.
“The Spitfire fighter in all its variants was little superior (if it had any superiority at all) in its flight-tactical characteristics to the best German fighter Focke-Wulf 190.”
Quite an interesting statement, isn't it? So, in order to understand the issue more clearly, let's take a closer look at the flight performance characteristics of the Fokker in comparison with other aircraft, and above all with the La-5 fighter. Moreover, these aircraft not only constantly engaged in air battles with each other, but were also more or less close in size, flight weight and power plant power.
As you know, the main criterion characterizing the perfection of any aircraft is its maximum flight speed. Let's see who had the advantage. Let's start with 1942 (from the moment these aircraft appeared at the front). At this time, the maximum flight speed of the La-5 was 509 km/h at the ground and 580 km/h at an altitude of 6000 m. For the German aircraft, these figures were 510 and 610 km/h, respectively (data from the results of flight tests of the captured FW 190A fighter -4 at nominal engine operating mode). A year later, improved La-5FN and FW 190 aircraft of the A-5, A-8 and A-4 series appeared in the battles on the Kursk Bulge, many of which were equipped with the MW-50 system for injecting a water-methanol mixture into the engine cylinders. The maximum flight speeds of these machines were: for the FW 190 - 571 km/h at the ground and 654 km/h at an altitude of 6000 m. Without the use of the MW-50 system, the maximum speed was 10 km/h less. Thus, Soviet fighters had some advantage in speed at altitudes below 4000 m, where, as a rule, air battles were fought. However, there are certain subtleties here too. Thus, in the book “Wings of Victory” by A. Shakhurin (who was at that time the People’s Commissar of the aviation industry), pilots’ statements are given about the comparison of the La-5 and FW 190 fighters. “Horizontally, the La-5FN is slow, but it catches up with the FW 190, then the candles give up and The FW 190 is slowly going away.”
In this regard, the pilots repeatedly turned to the designers with a request to add another 20-30 km/h to the aircraft. In 1944, improved La-7 fighters began to arrive at the front, with a maximum flight speed of 680 km/h. However, here too, for the sake of objectivity, it must be compared with the new version of the Focke-Wulf - the FW 190D fighter, also released in 1944 and which appeared at the front. The flight speed of this aircraft reached 685 km/h. Speaking about the value of the maximum flight speed, it should be noted that in air battles they were never achieved, since the aircraft were constantly maneuvering, many of them had externally mounted weapons, worn-out engines, patches on damaged areas, removed or torn landing gear doors, which greatly reduced flight speed.
From the history of air combat it is known that pilots, in order to increase flight speed, tried to attack the enemy from above, gaining it in a dive. In this regard, the Focke-Wulf-Fam had no equal (at least on the Soviet-German front). Our pilots constantly noted the fact that the Germans often evaded pursuit by diving towards the ground (if altitude allowed). Moreover, even in a fairly flat dive with an angle of thirty degrees, the FW 190 accelerated to a speed of 1045 km/h (one of the evidence of its good aerodynamics). Of all the Allied aircraft, only the Mustang and Thunderbolt could catch up with the Fokker while descending. But in terms of maneuverability characteristics in close air combat, the FW 190 was somewhat inferior to our fighters.
As is known, horizontal maneuverability (turn radius and turn time) is directly proportional to the specific wing load. For FW 190 it was quite high and amounted, depending on the modification, 210-240 kg/m2. At the same time, for all Lavochkin fighters it did not exceed 190 kg/m2. It is not surprising that the turn time of the La-5 and La-7 was 3-4 seconds less than that of the Focke-Wulf (19 instead of 22 seconds). Yakovlev's fighters had even better horizontal maneuverability.
The British Spitfire V and Spitfire IX fighters had the highest horizontal maneuverability among all Allied aircraft, since their specific wing load did not exceed 150 kg/m2. It would seem that these highly maneuverable high-speed fighters, which had proven their complete superiority over the German Messerschmitt Bf 109 fighters, should have had even greater advantages over the heavy Focke-Wulfs. However, this just did not happen. It was quite difficult for the Spitfire pilots to shoot down the FW 190.
The thing is that before making a turn, any aircraft must make a roll, that is, make a turn around the longitudinal axis. The roll rate of all aircraft was different. It depends on the efficiency of the ailerons, the moment of inertia of the aircraft and the wing span. Moreover, as the span increases, the roll speed sharply decreases. In this regard, the larger Spitfire was inferior to the Focke-Wulf. The German fighter took a turn faster, and when the pursuing Spitfire began to overtake it, the Focke-Wulf pilot quickly moved the car from the right turn to the left or vice versa and again escaped from the attack. True, the above does not mean that the FW 190 turned out to be more maneuverable. In the same way, the German pilots could not do anything with the Spitfire, which was escaping fire in a steep turn. In a word, for the British the German fighter turned out to be a “tough nut to crack.” It is enough to quote the words of F. Lloyd, one of the famous English specialists in the field of aviation, which he said at the end of 1943.
“If the British aircraft do not match the FW 190 in this respect (meaning the high roll rate), then it will always be able to elude attack.”
By the way, the cut ends of the wings on some modifications of the Spitfires can apparently be explained by the desire to increase the roll rate. As for the Soviet fighters, they were much better in this regard, since they had a smaller wing span, as well as a small moment of inertia - after all, the guns on Soviet aircraft were located in the fuselage, and not in the wing, like all British aircraft.
A few words about vertical maneuverability. Of course, the rate of climb of the FW 190 was not very high - 12-14 m/sec, while for other fighters it was 15-20 m/sec, and naturally, in maneuverable air combat, the La-5 fighters had complete superiority. However, the following point must be taken into account. It turns out that the rate of climb when performing a vertical maneuver depends not only on the specific power load (the ratio of the mass of the aircraft to the power of its power plant - for the La-5 this value was approximately 2.3 kg/hp, and for the FW 190 - 2, 5 kg/hp), but also on the ratio of the flight mass to the total aerodynamic resistance of the aircraft. When an airplane begins to climb steeply after a dive or after flying at high speed, the first part of the climb occurs due to its inertia. In other words, the greater the mass of the aircraft and the flight speed and the lower its resistance, the faster the aircraft will gain altitude at the first moment. And in this regard, the German pilots had a certain advantage over the enemy. In any case, their first attack and exit from it were always swift.
Getting involved in a close maneuverable air battle was considered inappropriate, since during sharp maneuvering the heavy Focke-Wulf quickly lost speed and its rate of climb dropped sharply. In addition, the practice of combat operations showed that in group air battles the advantages of some aircraft over others could not be fully demonstrated, since the pursuers were often themselves subject to enemy attacks. By the way, in memoir-type literature, German pilots who evaded air combat are called cowardly. However, they had their own calculations in this. The FW 190 could not conduct a maneuverable battle with our fighters at low speed, and the Germans, naturally, did not get involved in such battles, especially since a maneuverable battle is, in general, defensive, not offensive. During the war, the Germans, on the contrary, preferred the “hunter” tactics. And here we come to the most interesting...
It turns out that we and the Germans had a different approach to the actions of fighter aircraft. The main task facing Soviet pilots was to cover ground forces from enemy aircraft and escort their bombers. This alone forced them to conduct mainly defensive battles with German fighters. At the same time, German fighter pilots had another primary task - the destruction of enemy aircraft, and the ground forces had to rely more on their own air defense systems, which they had in abundance. With this approach, German pilots more often used free-hunting tactics and chose bomber and attack aircraft as targets. It is not surprising that many of them had 100, 200 and even 300 or more air victories.
As for the FW 190 fighter, it was quite well suited for such purposes. The FW 190 was reliably protected from the fire of defensive weapons of bombers (and these were, as a rule, machine guns). And the powerful 20-mm MG151/20 cannons made it possible to hit targets at a slightly greater range than the machine guns on bomb carriers.
Special mention must be made about the armament of the FW 190 aircraft. According to such a criterion as the weight of a minute salvo, vehicles even of the first modifications - A-3 or A-4 - were almost twice as large as the La-5. Judge for yourself: this value was 275 kg/min for the FW 190, 150 kg/min for the La-5, 202 kg/min for the Spitfire IX and 160 for the Airacobra (version with a 37 mm cannon). kg/min. After replacing machine guns and wing cannons on the Focke-Wulf with more advanced ones, the weight of a minute salvo increased to 350 kg/min, and the FW 190 became the most powerful single-engine fighter in the world. True, the American Thunderbolt had the same weight per minute salvo, but it was armed only with machine guns, and the destructive effect of the bullets was lower than that of an exploding shell. When, at the end of the war, the latest 30-mm MK108 cannons, whose projectile mass was three times greater than that of the 20-mm MG 151 cannons, began to be installed on FW 190 fighters, the weight of a minute salvo increased to almost 600 kg/min. For comparison, for the heavy twin-engine Mosquito fighter, equipped with four cannons and four machine guns, this value was 345 kg/min. Thus, even without taking into account the use of missile weapons, FW 190 fighters posed a serious danger not only to front-line, but also heavy strategic bombers.
Summarizing the results of the analysis, it should be noted that, on the one hand, the FW 190, of course, is not the best fighter in the world (as Hitler’s propaganda imagined it), since it did not have any advantage in air battles with Soviet fighters, but on the other On the other hand, the strengths of this truly formidable fighting machine should not be underestimated.
And finally the last thing. At the end of the war, German aviation, although it posed a certain danger, did not conduct active combat operations. The latest modifications of the FW 190 aircraft that appeared in the air were successfully shot down by Soviet, British and American fighter pilots. This did not mean that German aircraft were worse than enemy aircraft. On the contrary, at this time the Germans had really good cars. By the way, when at the beginning of April 1945, advanced British units captured Professor K. Tank himself, it was clear from his testimony that German designers had made significant progress.
However, in conditions of complete air supremacy of Allied aviation, no most advanced aircraft could change the nature of the war. German fighters only defended themselves in extremely unfavorable conditions. In addition, there was practically no one to fly them, since the entire flower of German fighter aviation was “laid to the bone” on the Eastern Front in fierce battles with Soviet pilots. And this, of course, is precisely what should be considered the main and decisive reason for the complete defeat of the Luftwaffe.
“Wings of the Motherland” No. 5 1991
The debate before World War II about what was more important, greater speed or better maneuverability*, was finally resolved in favor of greater speed. Combat experience has convincingly shown that speed is ultimately the determining factor for victory in air combat. The pilot of a more maneuverable but slower aircraft was simply forced to defend himself, ceding the initiative to the enemy. However, when conducting an air battle, such a fighter, having an advantage in horizontal and vertical maneuverability, will be able to decide the outcome of the battle in its favor by taking an advantageous firing position.
Before the war, it was believed for a long time that in order to increase maneuverability, an aircraft must be unstable; the insufficient stability of the I-16 aircraft cost the lives of more than one pilot. Having studied German aircraft before the war, the report of the Air Force Research Institute noted:
“...all German aircraft differ sharply from domestic ones in their large margins of stability, which also significantly increases flight safety, aircraft survivability and simplifies piloting techniques and mastery by low-skilled combat pilots.”
By the way, the difference between German aircraft and the latest domestic ones, which were tested almost simultaneously at the Air Force Research Institute, was so striking that it forced the head of the institute, Major General A.I. Filin, to draw the attention of I.V. Stalin to this. The consequences were dramatic for Filin: he was arrested on May 23, 1941.
(Source 5 Alexander Pavlov) As you know, aircraft maneuverability depends primarily on two quantities. The first - specific load on engine power - determines the vertical maneuverability of the machine; the second is the specific load on the wing - horizontal. Let's look at these indicators for the Bf 109 in more detail (see table).
| Comparison of Bf 109 aircraft | |||||||||||
| Airplane | Bf 109E-4 | Bf 109F-2 | Bf 109F-4 | Bf 109G-2 | Bf 109G-4 | Bf 109G-6 | Bf 109G-14 | Bf 109G-14/U5 /MW-50 |
Bf 109G-14 | Bf 109G-10/U4 /MW-50 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year of application 19 | 40/42 | 41/42 | 41/42 | 42/43 | 42/43 | 43/44 | 43/44 | 44/45 | 44/45 | 44/45 | |
| Take-off weight, kg | 2608 | 2615 | 2860 | 2935 | 3027 | 2980 | 3196 | 2970 | 3090 | 3343 | |
| Wing area m² | 16,35 | 16,05 | 16,05 | 16,05 | 16,05 | 16,05 | 16,05 | 16,05 | 16,05 | 16,05 | |
| SU power, hp | 1175 | 1175 | 1350 | 1550 | 1550 | 1550 | 1550 | 1550 | 1800 | 2030 | |
| 2,22 | 228 | 2,12 | 1,89 | 1,95 | 1,92 | 2,06 | 1,92 | 1,72 | 1,65 | ||
| 159,5 | 163,1 | 178,2 | 182,9 | 188,6 | 185,7 | 199,1 | 185,1 | 192,5 | 208,3 | ||
| Maximum speed | km/h | 561 | 595 | 635 | 666 | 650 | 660 | 630 | 666 | 680 | 690 |
| H m | 5000 | 5200 | 6500 | 7000 | 7000 | 6600 | 6600 | 7000 | 6500 | 7500 | |
| Rate of climb m/sec | 16,6 | 20,5 | 19,6 | 18,9 | 17,3 | 19,3 | 17,0 | 19,6 | 17,5/ 15,4 | 24,6/ 14,0 | |
| Turn time, sec | 20,5 | 19,6 | 20,0 | 20,5 | 20,2 | 21,0 | 21,0 | 20,0 | 21,0 | 22,0 | |
* Notes to the table: 1. Bf 109G-6/U2 with the GM-1 system, the weight of which when filled was 160 kg plus 13 kg of additional engine oil.
2.Bf 109G-4/U5 with the MW-50 system, the weight of which when loaded was 120 kg.
The 3.Bf 109G-10/U4 was armed with one 30 mm MK-108 cannon and two 13 mm MG-131 machine guns, as well as the MW-50 system.
Theoretically, the 199th, compared to its main opponents, had better vertical maneuverability throughout the Second World War. But in practice this was not always true. Much in combat depended on the experience and abilities of the pilot.
Eric Brown (an Englishman who tested the Bf 109G-6/U2/R3/R6 in 1944 at Farnborough) recalled: “We conducted comparative tests of the captured Bf 109G-6 with Spitfire fighters of the LF.IX, XV and XIV series, as well as with the P-51C Mustang. In terms of climb rate, the Gustav was superior to all these aircraft at all altitude levels.”
D. A. Alekseev, who fought on the Lavochkin in 1944, compares the Soviet machine with the main enemy at that time - the Bf 109G-6. “In terms of climb rate, the La-5FN was superior to the Messerschmitt. If the “mess” tried to move up from us, we caught up. And the steeper the Messer went upward, the easier it was to catch up with it.
In terms of horizontal speed, the La-5FN was slightly faster than the Messer, and the advantage of the La in speed over the Fokker was even greater. In horizontal flight, neither the Messer nor the Fokker could escape the La-5FN. If the German pilots did not have the opportunity to dive, then we, sooner or later, caught up with them.
It must be said that the Germans constantly improved their fighters. The Germans had a modification of the Messer, which even surpassed the La-5FN in speed. It also appeared towards the end of the war, around the end of 1944. I never met these “Messers,” but Lobanov did. I remember well how Lobanov was very surprised that he came across such “Messers” who got away from his La-5FN in pitching, but he could not catch up with them.”
Only at the final stage of the war, from the autumn of 1944 to May 1945, did the leadership gradually pass to allied aviation. With the advent of such vehicles as the P-51D and P-47D on the Western Front, the “classic” exit from a dive attack became quite problematic for the Bf 109G.
American fighters caught up with him and shot him down on the way out. On the “hill” they also left no chance for the “one hundred and ninth”. The newest Bf 109K-4 could break away from them both in a dive and vertically, but the quantitative superiority of the Americans and their tactical techniques negated these advantages of the German fighter.
On the Eastern Front the situation was somewhat different. More than half of the Bf 109G-6 and G-14 delivered to air units since 1944 were equipped with the MW50 engine boost system. The injection of a water-methanol mixture significantly increased the power supply of the vehicle at altitudes up to approximately 6500 meters. The increase in horizontal speed and during a dive was very significant. F. de Joffre remembers.
“On March 20, 1945 (...) six of our Yak-3s were attacked by twelve Messers, including six Me-109/G. They were piloted exclusively by experienced pilots. The Germans’ maneuvers were distinguished by such precision, as if they were on a training exercise. Messerschmitt-109/G, thanks to a special fuel mixture enrichment system, calmly enters a steep dive, which pilots call “deadly.” Here they break away from the rest of the “Messers”, and we don’t have time to open fire before they unexpectedly attack us from behind. Bleton is forced to bail out."
The main problem with using the MW50 was that the system could not operate during the entire flight. The injection could be used for a maximum of ten minutes, then the engine overheated and threatened to jam. Next, a five-minute break was required, after which the system could be restarted. These ten minutes were usually enough to carry out two or three dive attacks, but if the Bf 109 was drawn into a maneuverable battle at low altitudes, then it could well lose.
Hauptmann Hans-Werner Lerche, who tested the captured La-5FN in Rechlin in September 1944, wrote in the report. “Due to the merits of its engine, the La-5FN was better suited for low-altitude combat. Its maximum ground speed is only slightly less than that of the FW190A-8 and Bf 109 in afterburner. Overclocking characteristics are comparable. The La-5FN is inferior to the Bf 109 and MW50 in speed and climb rate at all altitudes. The efficiency of the La-5FN’s ailerons is higher than that of the One Hundred and Ninth, and the turn time at the ground is shorter.”
In this regard, let's consider horizontal maneuverability. As I already said, horizontal maneuverability depends, first of all, on the specific load on the aircraft wing. And the smaller this value is for a fighter, the faster it can perform turns, rolls and other aerobatic maneuvers in the horizontal plane. But this is only in theory; in practice, things were often not so simple. During the Spanish Civil War, the Bf 109B-1 met in the air with the I-16 type 10. The specific wing load of the German fighter was slightly lower than that of the Soviet one, but the republican pilot, as a rule, won the battle on turns.
The problem for the “German” was that after one or two turns in one direction, the pilot “shifted” his plane to the other side and here the “one hundred and nineth” lost. The smaller I-16, which literally “walked” behind the control stick, had a higher roll rate and therefore performed this maneuver more energetically compared to the more inert Bf 109B. As a result, the German fighter lost precious fractions of seconds, and the time it took to complete the maneuver became slightly longer.
The battles on turns during the so-called “Battle of England” turned out somewhat differently. Here the enemy of the Bf 109E was the more maneuverable Spitfire. Its specific wing load was significantly lower than that of the Messerschmitt.
Lieutenant Max-Helmut Ostermann, who later became commander of 7./JG54, an expert with 102 victories, recalled: The Spitfires proved to be surprisingly maneuverable aircraft. Their demonstration of aerial acrobatics - loops, rolls, shooting on turns - all this could not help but delight.”
And here is what the English historian Mike Speke wrote in general comments about the characteristics of aircraft.
“The ability to turn depends on two factors - the specific wing load and the speed of the aircraft. If two fighters are flying at the same speed, then the fighter with less wing load will turn around its opponent. However, if it flies significantly faster, the opposite often happens.” It was the second part of this conclusion that German pilots used in battles with the British. To reduce the speed on a turn, the Germans extended the flaps by 30°, placing them in the take-off position, and with a further decrease in speed, the slats were automatically extended.
The final conclusion of the British about the maneuverability of the Bf 109E can be taken from the report on tests of the captured vehicle at the Flight Research Center in Farnborough:
“In terms of maneuverability, the pilots noted a small difference between the Emil and the Spitfire Mk.I and Mk.II at altitudes of 3500-5000 m - one is slightly better in one mode, the other in “its own” maneuver. Above 6100 meters the Bf 109E was slightly better. The Hurricane had higher drag, which put it behind the Spitfire and Bf 109 in acceleration."
In 1941, new aircraft of the Bf109 F modification appeared at the front. And although their wing area was somewhat smaller and their take-off weight greater than that of their predecessors, they became faster and more maneuverable due to the use of a new, aerodynamically improved wing . The turn time was reduced, and with the flaps extended, it was possible to “win back” one more second, which was confirmed by tests of captured “one hundred and nineths” at the Research Institute of the Red Army Air Force. However, the German pilots tried not to get involved in battles on turns, since this meant they had to reduce their speed and, as a result, lose the initiative.
Later versions of the Bf 109 produced after 1943 noticeably “gained weight” and actually slightly deteriorated horizontal maneuverability. This was due to the fact that as a result of massive raids by American bombers on German territory, the Germans gave priority to air defense tasks. But in the fight against heavy bombers, horizontal maneuverability is not so important. Therefore, they relied on strengthening the on-board weapons, which entailed an increase in the take-off weight of the fighter.
The only exception was the Bf 109 G-14, which was the lightest and most maneuverable aircraft of the “G” modification. Most of these vehicles were delivered to the Eastern Front, where maneuver battles were fought much more often. And those that got to the west, as a rule, were used to fight enemy escort fighters.
He recalls I.I. Kozhemyako, who fought a duel on a Yak-1B with a Bf 109G-14. “It turned out like this: as soon as we took off with the attack aircraft, we didn’t even approach the front line, and the “Messers” fell on us. I was the leader of the “top” pair. We saw the Germans from afar, my commander Sokolov managed to give me the command: “Ivan! A pair of "skinny" ones on top! Fight back!” It was then that my couple got along with this pair of “one hundred and nine.” The Germans started a maneuverable battle, the Germans turned out to be persistent. During the battle, both I and the leader of the German pair broke away from our wingmen. The two of us spun for about twenty minutes. They converged - they diverged, they converged - they diverged! Nobody wanted to give in! Whatever I did to get behind the Germans - I literally put the Yak on its wing, it didn’t work! While we were spinning, we lost speed to a minimum, and as soon as none of us went into a tailspin?.. Then we’ll disperse, make a larger circle, catch our breath, and again - full throttle, turn as steeply as possible!
It all ended with the fact that at the exit from the bend, we stood up “wing to wing” and were flying in one direction. The German looks at me, I look at the German. The situation is stalemate. I examined the German pilot in every detail: a young guy was sitting in the cockpit, wearing a mesh helmet. (I remember I was also jealous of him: “The bastard is lucky!..”, because sweat was flowing from under my headset.)
What to do in such a situation is completely unclear. If one of us tries to take a turn, he won’t have time to get up and the enemy will shoot us. He’ll try to go vertical, and he’ll shoot him there, only he’ll have to raise his nose. While we were spinning, I had only one thought - to shoot down this bastard, but then I “came to my senses” and realized that my affairs were “not very good.” Firstly, it turns out that the German tied me up in battle and tore me away from the attack aircraft’s cover. God forbid, while I was hanging out with him, the stormtroopers lost someone - I should have a “pale appearance and bow legs.”
Although my commander gave me the command for this battle, it turns out that, having gotten involved in a protracted battle, I chased after the “downed” one, and neglected to fulfill the main combat mission - covering the “silts”. Then explain why you couldn’t break away from the German, prove that you are not a camel. Secondly, if another “Messer” appears now, it will be the end of me, I’m tied. But, apparently, the German had the same thoughts, at least about the appearance of the second “Yak” he definitely had.
I see the German slowly moving away to the side. I pretend not to notice. He is on the wing and in a sharp dive, I am “full throttle” and away from him in the opposite direction! Well, to hell with you, you’re so skillful.”
To summarize, I. I. Kozhemyako said that the Messer was excellent as a maneuverable combat fighter. If there was a fighter then created specifically for maneuverable combat, it was the Messer! High-speed, highly maneuverable (especially on the vertical), highly dynamic. I don’t know about everything else, but if we take into account only speed and maneuverability, the Messer was almost ideal for a “dumping ground.” Another thing is that the majority of German pilots openly did not like this type of combat, and I still cannot understand why?
I don’t know what “didn’t allow” the Germans, but not the performance characteristics of the Messer. On the Kursk Bulge a couple of times they pulled us into such “carousels”, our heads almost flew off from spinning, so the “Messers” were spinning around us.
To be honest, throughout the war I dreamed of fighting in just such a fighter - fast and superior to everyone in the vertical. But it didn’t work out.”
And based on the memories of other World War II veterans, we can conclude that the Bf 109G was not at all suited to the role of a “flying log.” For example, the excellent horizontal maneuverability of the Bf 109G-14 was demonstrated by E. Hartmann in a battle with Mustangs at the end of June 1944, when he single-handedly shot down three fighters, and then managed to fight off eight P-51Ds, which failed even get into his car.
Dive. Some historians claim that the Bf109 is extremely difficult to control in a dive, the rudders are not effective, the plane “sucks in”, and the planes cannot withstand the loads. They probably draw these conclusions based on the conclusions of pilots who tested captured samples. As an example, I will give several such statements.
In April 1942, the future colonel and commander of the 9th IAD, ace with 59 aerial victories, A.I. Pokryshkin, arrived in Novocherkassk, with a group of pilots mastering the captured Bf109 E-4/N. According to him, two Slovak pilots flew over in Messerschmitts and surrendered. Perhaps Alexander Ivanovich got something wrong with the dates, since the Slovak fighter pilots at that time were still in Denmark, at the Karup Grove airfield, where they studied the Bf 109E. And on the eastern front, judging by the documents of the 52nd Fighter Squadron, they appeared on July 1, 1942 as part of 13.(Slovak.)/JG52. But, let's return to the memories.
“In just a few days in the zone, I practiced simple and complex aerobatics and began to confidently control the Messerschmitt.” We must pay tribute - the plane was good. It had a number of positive qualities compared to our fighters. In particular, the Me-109 had an excellent radio station, the front glass was armored, and the canopy was removable. We have only dreamed about this so far. But the Me-109 also had serious shortcomings. The diving qualities are worse than those of the MiG. I knew about this back at the front, when during reconnaissance I had to break away from groups of Messerschmitts attacking me in a steep dive.”
Another pilot, Englishman Eric Brown, who tested the Bf 109G-6/U2/R3/R6 in 1944 in Farnborough (Great Britain), speaks about the dive characteristics.
“With a relatively low cruising speed of only 386 km/h, the Gustav was simply wonderful to drive. However, as speed increased, the situation quickly changed. When diving at 644 km/h and experiencing high-speed pressure, the controls behaved as if they were frozen. Personally, I achieved a speed of 708 km/h during a dive from an altitude of 3000 m, and it seemed that the controls were simply blocked.”
And here is another statement, this time from the book “Fighter Aviation Tactics” published in the USSR in 1943: “The draft of the aircraft when recovering from a dive is large for the Me-109 fighter. A steep dive with a low altitude recovery is difficult for the Me-109 fighter. Changing direction during a dive and generally during an attack at high speed is also difficult for the Me-109 fighter.”
Now let's turn to the memoirs of other pilots. The pilot of the Normandy squadron, Francois de Joffre, an ace with 11 victories, recalls.
“The sun hits my eyes so hard that I have to make incredible efforts not to lose sight of Schall. He, like me, loves a crazy race. I line up next to him. Wing to wing we continue patrolling. Everything, it seemed, was going to end without any incident, when suddenly two Messerschmitts fell on us from above. We're caught off guard. Like crazy, I take the pen on myself. The car shudders terribly and rears up, but fortunately does not go into a tailspin. The Fritz's line passes 50 meters from me. If I had been a quarter of a second late with the maneuver, the German would have sent me straight to that world from which there is no return.
An air battle begins. (...) I have an advantage in maneuverability. The enemy senses this. He understands that now I am the master of the situation. Four thousand meters... Three thousand meters... We are rapidly rushing towards the ground... So much the better! The advantage of the “yak” must have an effect. I clench my teeth tighter. Suddenly, the “Messer”, all white, except for the ominous, black cross and the disgusting, spider-like swastika, emerges from its dive and flies off at low level to Goldap.
I try to keep up and, enraged with rage, I pursue him, squeezing out everything he can give from the “yak.” The arrow shows the speed of 700 or 750 kilometers per hour. I increase the dive angle and, when it reaches about 80 degrees, I suddenly remember Bertrand, who crashed at Alytus, the victim of a colossal load that destroyed the wing.
Instinctively, I take the handle. It seems to me that it is presented hard, even too hard. I pull again, carefully so as not to damage anything, and little by little I select it. Movements regain their former confidence. The nose of the plane faces the horizon. The speed drops somewhat. How timely it all is! I can hardly understand anything anymore. When, after a split second, consciousness fully returns to me, I see that the enemy fighter is rushing close to the ground, as if playing leapfrog with the white treetops.”
Now I think everyone understands what a “steep dive with a low-altitude exit” as performed by the Bf 109 is. As for A.I. Pokryshkin, he is right in his conclusion. The MiG-3, indeed, accelerated faster in a dive, but for different reasons. Firstly, it had more advanced aerodynamics, the wing and horizontal tail had a smaller relative profile thickness compared to the wing and tail of the Bf 109. And, as you know, it is the wing that creates the maximum drag of the aircraft in the air (about 50%). Secondly, the power of a fighter engine plays an equally important role. For the Mig, at low altitudes, it was approximately equal to or slightly higher than for the Messerschmitt. And thirdly, the MiG was heavier than the Bf 109E by almost 700 kilograms, and the Bf 109F by more than 600. In general, the slight advantage in each of the factors mentioned was reflected in the higher dive speed of the Soviet fighter.
Former pilot of the 41st GIAP, reserve colonel D. A. Alekseev, who fought on La-5 and La-7 fighters, recalls: “German fighter planes were strong. Fast, maneuverable, durable, with very strong weapons (especially the Fokker). In a dive they caught up with the La-5, and with a dive they broke away from us. Flip and dive, that's all we saw. By and large, in a dive, neither the Messer nor the Fokker even caught up with the La-7.”
However, D. A. Alekseev knew how to shoot down a Bf 109 going into a dive. But this “trick” could only be performed by an experienced pilot. “Although, even in a dive there is a chance to catch a German. The German is in a dive, you are behind him, and here you need to act correctly. Give full throttle and tighten the propeller as much as possible for a few seconds. In just these few seconds, “Lavochkin” literally makes a breakthrough. During this “jerk” it was quite possible to get close to the German at firing range. So they got close and shot down. But if you missed this moment, then it’s really all about catching up.”
Let's return to the Bf 109G-6, which E. Brown tested. There is also one “small” nuance here. This aircraft was equipped with a GM1 engine boost system; the 115-liter tank of this system was located behind the pilot's cabin. It is known for certain that the British failed to fill the GM1 with the appropriate mixture and simply poured gasoline into its tank. It is not surprising that with such an additional load of a total mass of 160 kg it is more difficult to bring the fighter out of a dive.
As for the figure given by the pilot of 708 km/h, then, in my opinion, either it is greatly underestimated, or he dived at a low angle. The maximum dive speed developed by any modification of the Bf 109 was significantly higher.
For example, from January to March 1943, at the Luftwaffe research center in Travemünde, the Bf 109F-2 was tested for maximum dive speed from various heights. In this case, the following results were obtained for the true (not instrumented) speed:
From the memoirs of German and English pilots it is clear that in battle sometimes higher dive speeds were achieved.
Without a doubt, the Bf109 accelerated perfectly in a dive and came out of it easily. At least none of the Luftwaffe veterans I know spoke negatively about the Messer’s dive. The pilot was greatly assisted in recovering from a steep dive by an in-flight adjustable stabilizer, which was used instead of a trimmer and was adjusted with a special steering wheel to an angle of attack from +3° to -8°.
Eric Brown recalled: “With the stabilizer set to level flight, a lot of force had to be applied to the control stick to pull the plane out of a dive at 644 km/h. If it was set to dive, recovery was somewhat difficult unless the helm was turned back. Otherwise, there will be excessive load on the handle.”
In addition, on all steering surfaces of the Messerschmitt there were flötners - plates bent on the ground, which made it possible to remove part of the load transmitted from the rudders to the handle and pedals. On machines of the “F” and “G” series, the flatners were increased in area due to increased speeds and loads. And on the modifications Bf 109G-14/AS, Bf 109G-10 and Bf109K-4, the flatners, in general, became double.
Luftwaffe technical personnel were very attentive to the flätner installation procedure. Before each combat flight, all fighters underwent careful adjustment using a special protractor. Perhaps the Allies, who tested captured German samples, simply did not pay attention to this point. And if the flätner was incorrectly adjusted, the loads transmitted to the controls could indeed increase several times.
To be fair, it should be noted that on the Eastern Front the battles took place at altitudes of 1000, up to 1500 meters, there was nowhere to go with a dive...
In mid-1943, at the Air Force Research Institute Joint tests of Soviet and German aircraft were carried out. Thus, in August they tried to compare the newest Yak-9D and La-5FN in training air battles with the Bf 109G-2 and FW 190A-4. The emphasis was placed on flight and combat qualities, in particular, on the maneuverability of fighters. Seven pilots at once, moving from cockpit to cockpit, conducted training battles, first in the horizontal and then in the vertical planes. The advantages in throttle response were determined by the acceleration of vehicles from a speed of 450 km/h to maximum, and a free air battle began with a meeting of fighters during frontal attacks.
After the “battle” with the “three-point” “Messer” (piloted by Captain Kuvshinov), test pilot Senior Lieutenant Maslyakov wrote: “The La-5FN aircraft up to an altitude of 5000 m had an advantage over the Bf 109G-2 and could conduct an offensive battle in both horizontal, and in vertical planes. During turns, our fighter entered the enemy’s tail after 4-8 turns. On a vertical maneuver up to 3000 m, the Lavochkin had a clear advantage: it gained an “extra” 50-100 m during a combat turn and hill. From 3000 m this advantage decreased and at an altitude of 5000 m the planes became the same. When climbing to 6000 m, the La-5FN was slightly behind.
During the dive, the Lavochkin also lagged behind the Messerschmitt, but when the aircraft were withdrawn, it caught up with it again, due to its smaller radius of curvature. This point must be used in air combat. We must strive to fight a German fighter at altitudes up to 5000 m, using a combined maneuver in the horizontal and vertical planes.”
It turned out to be more difficult for the Yak-9D aircraft to “fight” German fighters. The relatively large supply of fuel had a negative impact on the Yak’s maneuverability, especially vertical. Therefore, their pilots were recommended to conduct battles on turns.
Combat pilots were given recommendations on the preferred tactics of combat with one or another enemy aircraft, taking into account the reservation scheme used by the Germans. The conclusion signed by the head of the institute’s department, General Shishkin, stated: “The serial Yak-9 and La-5 aircraft, in terms of their combat and flight-tactical data, up to an altitude of 3500-5000 m, are superior to the latest modifications of German fighters (Bf 109G-2 and FW 190A-4) and with proper operation of aircraft in the air, our pilots can successfully fight enemy aircraft.”
Below is a table of characteristics of Soviet and German fighters based on testing materials at the Air Force Research Institute. (For domestic cars, data from prototypes is given).
| Comparison of aircraft at the Air Force Research Institute | |||||
| Airplane | Yak-9 | La-5FN | Bf 109G-2 | FW190A-4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flight weight, kg | 2873 | 3148 | 3023 | 3989 | |
| Maximum speed, km/h | near the ground | 520 | 562/595* | 524 | 510 |
| on high | 570 | 626 | 598 | 544 | |
| m | 2300 | 3250 | 2750 | 1800 | |
| on high | 599 | 648 | 666 | 610 | |
| m | 4300 | 6300 | 7000 | 6000 | |
| SU power, hp | 1180 | 1850 | 1475 | 1730 | |
| Wing area m² | 17,15 | 17,50 | 16,20 | 17,70 | |
| 167,5 | 180,0 | 186,6 | 225,3 | ||
| 2,43 | 1,70 | 2,05 | 2,30 | ||
| Climbing time 5000 m, min | 5,1 | 4,7 | 4,4 | 6,8 | |
| Turn time at 1000m, sec | 16-17 | 18-19 | 20,8 | 22-23 | |
| Elevation gain per combat turn, m | 1120 | 1100 | 1100 | 730 | |
*Using boost mode
Real battles on the Soviet-German front were noticeably different from the “staged” ones at the testing institute. German pilots did not engage in maneuver battles in either the vertical or horizontal plane. Their fighters tried to shoot down a Soviet plane with a surprise attack, and then went into the clouds or into their territory. Stormtroopers also unexpectedly attacked our ground troops. It was rarely possible to intercept both of them. Special tests conducted at the Air Force Research Institute were aimed at developing techniques and methods for combating Focke-Wulf attack aircraft. They took part in captured FW 190A-8 No. 682011 and the “lightweight” FW 190A-8 No. 58096764, which were intercepted by the most modern fighters of the Red Army Air Force: the Yak-3. Yak-9U and La-7.
The “battles” showed that in order to successfully combat low-flying German aircraft, it is necessary to develop new tactics. After all, most often the Focke-Wulfs approached at low altitudes and left in low-level flight at maximum speeds. Under these conditions, it turned out to be difficult to detect the attack in a timely manner, and pursuit became more difficult, since the gray matte paint hid the German vehicle against the background of the terrain. In addition, the FW 190 pilots turned on the engine boost device at low altitudes. Testers determined that in this case, the Focke-Wulfs reached a speed of 582 km/h near the ground, i.e. neither the Yak-3 (the aircraft available at the Air Force Research Institute reached a speed of 567 km/h) nor the Yak-3 could catch up with them. 9U (575 km/h). Only the La-7 accelerated to 612 km/h in afterburner, but the speed reserve was insufficient to quickly reduce the distance between the two aircraft to aimed fire range. Based on the test results, the institute’s management issued recommendations: it is necessary to echelon our fighters on patrols at altitudes. In this case, the task of the upper tier pilots would be to disrupt the bombing, as well as to attack the covering fighters accompanying the attack aircraft, and the attack aircraft themselves would most likely be able to intercept the lower patrol vehicles, which had the opportunity to accelerate in a shallow dive.
Special mention should be made of the FW-190's armor protection. The appearance of the FW 190A-5 modification meant that the German command considered the Focke-Wulf as the most promising attack aircraft. Indeed, the already significant armor protection (its weight on the FW 190A-4 reached 110 kg) was strengthened by 16 additional plates weighing a total of 200 kg, mounted in the lower parts of the center section and engine. The removal of two Oerlikon wing cannons reduced the weight of a second salvo to 2.85 kg (for the FW 190A-4 it was 4.93 kg, for the La-5FN 1.76 kg), but made it possible to partially compensate for the increase in take-off weight and had a beneficial effect on aerobatic performance FW 190 - thanks to the forward shift of the centering, the stability of the fighter has increased. The altitude gain for a combat turn increased by 100 m, and the turn time was reduced by about a second. The plane accelerated to 582 km/h at 5000 m and gained this altitude in 12 minutes. Soviet engineers suggested that the real flight data of the FW190A-5 was higher, since the automatic mixture quality control functioned abnormally and there was heavy smoking from the engine even when operating on the ground.
At the end of the war, German aviation, although it posed a certain danger, did not conduct active combat operations. In conditions of complete air supremacy of Allied aviation, no most advanced aircraft could change the nature of the war. German fighters only defended themselves in extremely unfavorable conditions. In addition, there was practically no one to fly them, since the entire flower of German fighter aviation died in fierce battles on the Eastern Front.
* - The maneuverability of the aircraft in the horizontal plane is described by the turn time, i.e. full reversal time. The smaller the specific load on the wing, the smaller the radius of the turn, i.e., an aircraft with a larger wing and a lower flight weight (having a greater lift force, which here will be equal to the centrifugal force), will be able to perform a steeper turn. Obviously, an increase in lift with a simultaneous decrease in speed can occur when the wing mechanization is released (flaps are extended and the speed of automatic slats is reduced), however, exiting a turn at a lower speed is fraught with loss of initiative in combat.
Secondly, in order to perform a turn, the pilot must first bank the plane. The roll rate depends on the lateral stability of the aircraft, the effectiveness of the ailerons, and the moment of inertia, which is smaller (M=L m) the smaller the wing span and its mass. Hence, maneuverability will be worse for an aircraft with two engines on the wing, filled with tanks in the wing consoles or weapons mounted on the wing.
The maneuverability of an aircraft in the vertical plane is described by its rate of climb and depends, first of all, on the specific power load (the ratio of the mass of the aircraft to the power of its power plant and in other words expresses the number of kg of weight that one horsepower “carries”) and obviously at lower values the aircraft has a higher rate of climb. Obviously, the rate of climb also depends on the ratio of the flight mass to the total aerodynamic drag.
Sources
- How to compare planes of World War II. /TO. Kosminkov, "Ace" No. 2,3 1991/
- Comparison of World War II fighters. /“Wings of the Motherland” No. 5 1991 Viktor Bakursky/
- Race for the ghost of speed. Fallen from the nest. /“Wings of the Motherland” No. 12 1993 Viktor Bakursky/
- The German trace in the history of domestic aviation. /Sobolev D.A., Khazanov D.B./
- Three myths about the "Messer" /Alexander Pavlov "AviAMaster" 8-2005./
Loading...
