Register here

Author Topic: Low-powered WWII-era combat aircraft?  (Read 26759 times)

Online Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7924
Re: Low-powered WWII-era combat aircraft?
« Reply #15 on: April 18, 2009, 05:23:27 am »
Franz probably is refering to the Bv 143 rocket powered gliding torpedo
(see drawing from Kens/Novarra "Die deut.Flgz. 1939-45"), which should at
first use a mechanical altitude probe, too. But tests showed this system to be
very unreliable, although the probe was used over water only, not over land !
Automically keeping a very low altitude, would have been a great advantage for
an attack aircraft, but as B & V discovered, the only solution would have been
a radar altimeter.
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline borovik

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 777
Re: Low-powered WWII-era combat aircraft?
« Reply #16 on: April 18, 2009, 11:24:23 am »
Borovik, can you tell us about the skid / pole / tail wheel?  ;)

I've checked this thread about fifteen times waiting to find out how it was supposed to work.  :D

I apologize for the delay friends ... My poor English does not fully communicate (with the horror of thinking about large volumes of translation for me, plus this week was a lot of work and football (soccer), but it is a weak alibi.  :) Once again, I apologize.
  Give a compilation of quotes from the book of O. Rastrenin "Attack plane the Great Patriotic War" and from the above source:
"... The most unusual in this plane is the way to military use. The attack occurred strafe run - the flight from a height of 4-5 m. for speed of 150-180 km / h, it was thought that at such a speed and high" tankette "will be invincible to enemy fire. a device to allow "run", was released a special сошник=shoe/share/trail spade. ??? The end of his track all soil roughness. Emerging shoe in contact with obstacles times estimated were within the limits of physical capacity and the pilot may have been timely parirovanny them.
Flying tankette could jump and flit obstacles, as well as with the current ceiling of 1200m, attack
ground targets for the planes normal way - with a dive. The small size allowed the SAM-23 to start with ordinary roads and, where appropriate, to steer them, secretly making the place ... the sudden attack, but its primary function shoe was also used to destroy light fortifications and wire.

  The project has received approval TsAGI.
The main drawback - the need to constantly fend pilot dive time, arising from the movement of shoe  obstacles (at a low thrust-to-weight aircraft)

Offline GTX

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2555
  • All hail the God of Frustration!!!
    • Beyond The Sprues
Re: Low-powered WWII-era combat aircraft?
« Reply #17 on: April 18, 2009, 12:00:34 pm »
Ok, so if I understand this correctly, the trailing wheel/spade had a dual function:

1. To help ensure the aircraft didn't fly into the terrain whilst at such low level - the quasi-terrain following function; and
2. To also be used as a means of attack, specifically against "light fortifications and wire".

Thanks.

Regards,

Greg

Online Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7924
Re: Low-powered WWII-era combat aircraft?
« Reply #18 on: April 18, 2009, 01:00:09 pm »
A use against wires ok, but against "light fortifications" ?
Is a camo net a fortification ?   :D
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline borovik

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 777
Re: Low-powered WWII-era combat aircraft?
« Reply #19 on: April 22, 2009, 05:29:19 am »
Yes. Agree. ;D
It is simply a quote ...
in principle it is possible to do was read Mole: "I imagine that the skid and wheel on the SAM-23 was some sort of terrain-following device for low-level flight"

 Anti partisan experience of Low-powered aircraft in the recent past.
from AviO #5/96

Offline cluttonfred

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1302
    • Eric Clutton's classic homebuilt FRED and more!
Re: Low-powered WWII-era combat aircraft?
« Reply #20 on: April 22, 2009, 08:35:31 am »
Anti partisan experience of Low-powered aircraft in the recent past.
from AviO #5/96

LOL, thanks Borovik.  The more things change, the more they stay the same.  I daresay if anyone were still building a rugged, radial-engined trainer like the Yak, Harvard or even Ki-46 etc. today they would find a market in counterinsurgency ops.  With lightweight armor to improve protection and modern electronics to reduce pilot workload even a single-seater with unguided rockets could be very effective, especially if modified to be relatively quiet.
*******
Matthew Long, Editor
cluttonfred.info
A site for builders, owners and fans of Eric Clutton's FRED
and other safe, simple, affordable homebuilt aircraft

Offline borovik

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 777
Re: Low-powered WWII-era combat aircraft?
« Reply #21 on: May 19, 2009, 04:02:29 am »
In spring 1942, under conditions of acute shortage of aircraft were searching for
possible use in training aircraft Jakovlev's
combat application ...

Sources: Aviation World 1 / 1998
             O. Rastrenin «WWII attack plane»

Offline borovik

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 777
Re: Low-powered WWII-era combat aircraft?
« Reply #22 on: May 19, 2009, 04:15:54 am »
... Approximately the same situation in April 1945 was Nazi
Germany, where there was an attempt at the Bucker Bu 181A
(armed with four Panzerfaust 100) to create three Panzerjagdstaffel.

«Pegas» in action / in the artist impression ( B. Petelin)

Project Boulton Paul P.101

Sources: M. Maslov "Lost victory - unfulfilled drafts Soviet aviation"
             A. Brew "Boulton Paul Aircraft since 1915" - Putnam

Offline smurf

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 544
Re: Low-powered WWII-era combat aircraft?
« Reply #23 on: May 19, 2009, 05:32:47 am »
Boulton Paul P101. A Centaurus is not exactly 'low powered'

Offline cluttonfred

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1302
    • Eric Clutton's classic homebuilt FRED and more!
Re: Low-powered WWII-era combat aircraft?
« Reply #24 on: May 19, 2009, 06:00:19 am »
Thanks, borovik, the Panzerfaust-armed Bu 181 is a new one for me, though not unlike the Piper L4 Grasshopper armed with bazookas strapped to the bracing struts that I have seen.  Still that's getting a bit off-topic as the question was about purpose-designed low-powered combat aircraft rather than adaptations of trainiers.  There are dozens of the latter.  The Pegas is very much what I had in mind, one of the best examples, in fact.  The Bristol Centaurus in the Boulton-Paul biplane (I remember that one from BSP3) would put it way over the "low-powered" threshhold.
*******
Matthew Long, Editor
cluttonfred.info
A site for builders, owners and fans of Eric Clutton's FRED
and other safe, simple, affordable homebuilt aircraft

Offline cluttonfred

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1302
    • Eric Clutton's classic homebuilt FRED and more!
Re: Low-powered WWII-era combat aircraft?
« Reply #25 on: May 19, 2009, 06:10:59 am »
In spring 1942, under conditions of acute shortage of aircraft were searching for
possible use in training aircraft Jakovlev's
combat application ...

Sources: Aviation World 1 / 1998
             O. Rastrenin «WWII attack plane»

The Yak UT-1 and UT-2 "combat conversions" are very reminiscent of the armed close air support variants of agricultural aircraft.  Flying at low-level they could well have been very handy in combat as tank-hunters or for point attacks on machine gun nests, etc. though it would have been dangerous work.  Even today, there is an argument to be made that an armed and armored version of an agricultural aircraft (already optimized for good handling and crash safety when carrying heavy loads low and slow) would be very handy in counter-insurgency, border patrol, etc.  But, I digress...  ;)
*******
Matthew Long, Editor
cluttonfred.info
A site for builders, owners and fans of Eric Clutton's FRED
and other safe, simple, affordable homebuilt aircraft

Offline robunos

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1722
  • You're Mad, You Are.....
Re: Low-powered WWII-era combat aircraft?
« Reply #26 on: May 19, 2009, 07:26:03 am »
Quote
the armed close air support variants of agricultural aircraft

Getting OT i know, but i've been looking for more info on these since hearing/reading about them somewfere previously. If memory serves they were being championed by a US general under the name 'mudfighters'.
anything you have would gratefully recieved.  :)

TIA,

cheers,
         Robin.
Where ARE the Daleks when you need them......

Offline Justo Miranda

  • Secret Projects Master
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3369
Re: Low-powered WWII-era combat aircraft?
« Reply #27 on: May 19, 2009, 07:42:52 am »
And Winter "Zaunkönig"

Offline borovik

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 777
Re: Low-powered WWII-era combat aircraft?
« Reply #28 on: May 19, 2009, 11:18:24 am »
Boulton Paul P101. A Centaurus is not exactly 'low powered'
Yep, Smurf this is my mistake.  Very interesting project without stratted biplane.

One more 'Zaunkonig'. Thanks Justo )

Online AeroFranz

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2102
Re: Low-powered WWII-era combat aircraft?
« Reply #29 on: May 20, 2009, 07:36:57 am »
Thanks for posting the pics of the Zaunkonig. I didn't know somebody actually armed the thing!

Getting OT i know, but i've been looking for more info on these since hearing/reading about them somewfere previously. If memory serves they were being championed by a US general under the name 'mudfighters'.
anything you have would gratefully recieved.  :)

I generally associate the term 'mudfighter' with something more survivable and high performance like BAe SABA and Scaled model 151 ARES. But yeah, agricultural aircraft in low-threat COIN operations make a lot of sense. I think the US sent a few armored Ayres Thrushes to spray coke fields in Colombia, and armed variants were proposed. For some more information see here:

http://worldatwar.net/chandelle/v3/v3n3/articles/ayres.html

(PS: feel free to start a thread on this, I'm sure a lot of information will come out!)
All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics.   TSR.2 got the first three right - Sir Sydney Camm