Register here

Author Topic: Low-powered WWII-era combat aircraft?  (Read 26761 times)

Offline robunos

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1722
  • You're Mad, You Are.....
Re: Low-powered WWII-era combat aircraft?
« Reply #30 on: May 20, 2009, 09:03:16 am »
thanks for the link, most interesting.

i've started a new thread, hoping it develops...... ;)

as for the 'mudfighters' thing, i think it was a journalist's piece, and we know how they get their wires crossed......

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

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1857
Re: Low-powered WWII-era combat aircraft?
« Reply #31 on: May 23, 2009, 10:31:54 am »
Two more aircraft that fit Mole's requirements:

Fi-156:
- SD-2 racks for smokescreen laying (don't know if they ever carried other bomblet types)
- Possibly a C-5 central rack carrying an SC-50 (is this just a rumour)?
- C converted to carry a 135kg depth charge or 3 SC-50 (for coastal ASW)
- Reports of an "Fi-156F" "police" aircraft with additional machine guns for COIN use (is there any merit to this?)

Polikarpov Po-2: Does anyone know anything about the more unusual weapon fits (eg. RS-82)?

Offline borovik

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 777
Re: Low-powered WWII-era combat aircraft?
« Reply #32 on: June 29, 2009, 10:51:12 am »
 I remember the phrase Mole at the start of the threads that "Po-2" off topic,
but still the working horse deserves a few words ...,
besides there are some little known facts of the practice.   

 The appointment was bomber aircraft operations at low altitudes, mostly at night in order to don’t give rest the enemy, to deprive him of sleep , pull down, destroy their aircraft at the airfields, fuel depots, ammunition and food, and interfere with activities of transport, staff, operating items and the like. At the same time, exploration was carried out, ongoing liaison between the armed forces, guerrillas, carried out many varied tasks. .   The aircraft was equipped with a noise- cancelling and the flame-eliminator were of the following tactics: initially for bombing the pilot to switch off the engine and the noiseless was planning to target. After dropping bombs from aircraft dive away at low altitude to the side, and air defense, usually fired in a void.
 Luftwaffe pilots were given special instructions for engagement with the aircraft, which they nicknamed ‘Rusfaner’, or 'Nahmaschinen' - sewing machine, or 'Russian [Venetian] Blind'. 
 German pilots considered a hunt for a U-2/Po-2VS as important as an air combat (for the whipped U-2/Po-2VS night fighter pilots were awarded the Iron Cross) This biplane brought a lot of trouble for the night fighter .. he had a small speed and flying at very low altitudes, resulting in airborne radars have been very difficult to observed. In order to attack and shoot down a Po-2, for example, pilots 12./NJG5, fly Ju-88 and Do-217N, had almost to the limit to remove speed, to produce flaps down, and sometimes with gear down, thus reducing its speed the aircraft to about 200 km/h. If the Ju-88 still could manage on such a small velocity, the Do-217N almost falling ... even when the night-fighter went into position to attack and opened fire, this does not mean that "kukuruznik" will be shot down. The shells could just break through and through his linen skin without causing a particular injury, it was necessary to get to the engine or the pilot.
 According to Wolfgang Falck, the best plane for combat Po-2 could be the FW-58 or FW-189, but the practical implementation case never came. For the same purpose, and suggested that He-111 bomber, which it planned to install the nose/bow of the four guns MG FF (20mm) under fuselage container with four automatic gun MG17 (7,92 mm) and a further two containers coupled with automatic guns WB 81Z (7,92 mm) on a wing pylons.

Polikarpov Po-2: Does anyone know anything about the more unusual weapon fits (eg. RS-82)?

 Some U-2/Po-2VS equipped with eight missile implement RO-82 or RO-132  – 4 RS for each plane of the lower wing. Development engineer for aircraft armament A.Dvorkin.
 When necessary to destroy the long-term strengthening of the defensive Germans, front air craftsmen workshops, strengthening the lower part of the aircraft fuselage, the suspension made it a high-explosive bombs caliber 250 kg.
 Unique is the product of an engineer K.Moskatov suspension under the fuselage U-2 bombs of 500 kg and installing the two machine guns on the lower wing.

  12 aircrafts U-2/Po-2 were fitted sheet made of iron the special cassettes to reset incendiary vials AZh-2 (tin sphere volume 1 liter). Ampoules contain pyrophoric in air compound «KS».
Each cassette consisted of five tightly fastened between the pipes. In each tube was placed 10 vials/ampoules. Two such cassette fastened under the console of the lower wing.
  10 September 42 th similarly equipped U-2/Po-2 were used for manpower and equipment the enemy. Action has been overwhelming. One ampoule of falling in any German tank or vehicle was sufficient for their destruction.
  Unfortunately, effective fire mixture «KS» was heavily dependent on weather conditions (primarily on ambient temperature) and the availability of flammable materials in the area of goals. In the same conditions, favorable for the use of a mixture of «KS», the results of U-2/Po-2  attacks against tanks and other purposes is high.

U-2/Po-2 VОМ-1 (vozdushnyi ognemet) aerial flame thrower
 Bags capacity to (30 liters.) -52.79 Pint, made of oilcloth tissue that filled a special viscous mixture fire / napalm. Discard them with the anticipated height of 50m., At a height of several meters of the explosion was a mixture, and cover the purpose of ...
Bags were placed in two cartridges: the tail and bottom. Tail, was the second cockpit, consisted of four 260mm diameter cylindrical compartments.
  Lower box cassette, mounting under the front cockpit and was also divided into four parts, dropping the charges could be made in two steps.
  Thus, using the ammunition in the two cassettes, the aircraft could carry out the maximum three target run in the objective. Additional armament consisted of a course ShKAS machine gun (300 rounds) mounted on the bottom right-wing plane.

U-2/Po-2 VS (№ 387 factory) (protivotankovyi) tank-buster
In June 1942, passed the test range U-2 VS production plant number 387, which, in addition to the standard six external hardpoint, equipped with two cylindrical internally fuselage small cluster bombs. A cassette installed inside the fuselage for the cabin and allows the download navigator of small caliber bombs from 2.5 to 15 kg.
Used as the armed four under wing cassettes ABK-P-100  of the small cluster bombs , containing 33 bombs PTAB-2,5-1,5 (anti-tank bomb).
  According to the results of target range testing anti-tank U-2/Po-2VS military pilots concluded the use of such aircraft at the front of their intended purpose (ie, against the tanks), only in a lunar night or when lighting illuminated purpose bombs. Daily use of U-2 against tanks excluded because of strong saturation of the front edge of anti-aircraft fire and enemy fighters.

Sources:
Aviation World Magazine #2/99; #1/2000
Aviation and Cosmonautic
M.Maslov  “Combat planes by Polikarpov”
_________________________________________________________________

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1857
Re: Low-powered WWII-era combat aircraft?
« Reply #33 on: July 25, 2009, 08:30:43 am »
Amazing post Borovik!  ;D

Do you know the make of guns and amount of ammunition carried in K.Moskatov's prototype? Also, do you know how the bombs were suspended in Moskatov's plane? One 500kg bomb or Wing racks or Fuselage racks?)

Offline Tophe

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1151
    • Forked Ghosts
Re: Low-powered WWII-era combat aircraft?
« Reply #34 on: July 25, 2009, 08:59:44 am »
FW-189 if you allow for the fact that it had two engines.
A single-engined version of the Fw 189 has been designed also, but as what-if and most of you does not like that, sorry.

Offline borovik

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 777
Re: Low-powered WWII-era combat aircraft?
« Reply #35 on: July 28, 2009, 12:29:30 pm »
Do you know the make of guns and amount of ammunition carried in K.Moskatov's prototype? Also, do you know how the bombs were suspended in Moskatov's plane? One 500kg bomb or Wing racks or Fuselage racks?)
K. Moskatov been made a slight gain, and change the landing gear and the zone strengthening / hardening of the fuselage where the suspended racks Der-19 with FAB-500.
2 ShKAS machine gun (300 rounds)

Sorry for my bad english ((

Offline Madoc

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 113
Re: Low-powered WWII-era combat aircraft?
« Reply #36 on: March 17, 2011, 10:39:17 am »
Folks,

Well, AMP has now gone and kitted the Moskalev SAM-23!

If I'm inferring things correctly, that trailing arm served primarily as an altitude monitoring device.  The pilot would still have to respond to terrain obstacles to pop up and over however.  It also sounds like the arm was intended to be trailed along roads?  That would at least mostly avoid it getting snared on something so firmly that it would be ripped off or manage to pull the aircraft down.

I can't really see that arm being used to rip away barbed wire barricades.  Doing so would be a very tricky thing and it wouldn't take much to defeat such an attempt - just include a length of well anchored steel cable in the mix and the SAM-23's trailing arm would snare onto that like a hooked fish with an ensuing nose dive into the ground.

It seems more likely that the conventional armaments carried by the SAM-23 were what would do for barricade and fortification clearing.

Then again, there's never been any shortage of truly whacky and impractical ideas that bubble up in wartime...

Anyway, at least someone has popped out a kit of this particular one!

Madoc

Offline Hawker Nut

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 36
Re: Low-powered WWII-era combat aircraft?
« Reply #37 on: March 17, 2011, 12:21:31 pm »
Apparentely, the AMP kit is based upon the SAM-23 scale plan published a few years ago with an article on this project, in the Russian magazine 'Mir Aviatsii'. Never thought such weird idea would ever be released in kit form, much less as an injected limited run (resin maybe)... Given the fact that so many actually built Soviet aircraft from the same era remain unavailable in kit form, this is indeed a strange choice.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2011, 11:53:49 am by Hawker Nut »

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1857
Re: Low-powered WWII-era combat aircraft?
« Reply #38 on: March 21, 2011, 05:41:37 am »
By the way, I found an online copy of the book on the U-2:
http://wunderwaffe.narod.ru/Magazine/AirWar/135/index.htm

It has a few additional details to add to Borovik's excellent summaries.

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1857
Re: Low-powered WWII-era combat aircraft?
« Reply #39 on: January 28, 2012, 09:54:16 am »
ightly OT - but his seemed the best thread for it:

I'm having trouble finding information on the up-armed FW-189 A4 (eg. placement and ammunition loads for the 20mm cannons). I have too much information on the C though...  :o

Offline Bill Walker

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 482
  • Per Ardua ad Nauseum
    • Canadian Military aircraft Serial Numbers
Re: Low-powered WWII-era combat aircraft?
« Reply #40 on: April 19, 2012, 08:05:31 am »
Can't remember the source right now, but I have seen photos of a Tiger Moth equipped with a light bomb rack under the fuselage, during the "invasion scare" of late 1940.

Also, with a little digging we can probably find lots of examples of low horsepower aircraft being used for anti-submarine patrols off the east Coast of Canada in 1939, and the US in 1941/1942.

Added in edit: found two. AW Atlas, 450 hp, used by RCAF for ASW patrols in September and October 1939 over Bay of Fundy, armed with depth charges and machine guns.  They were remarkably unsuccessful and unreliable, the crews were relieved to receive Lysanders in November 1939.  110 Squadron at Dartmouth used Wapitis over the Atlantic in the same role at the same time, but at 550 hp they are just outside the scope of this thread  ;).  The "superior" Wapiti survived on operations up to April 1940, before being replaced by Lysanders and Hudsons.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2012, 08:16:15 am by Bill Walker »
Bill Walker

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8066
  • The path not taken.
Re: Low-powered WWII-era combat aircraft?
« Reply #41 on: May 14, 2012, 03:33:32 pm »
To butt in for a moment, one of the primary armament options would have likely been small bombs from the SD series, especially the SD 1, SD 2, and SD 4. Either ejected from a rack or carried in a bomb container or two.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2012, 03:56:24 pm by Grey Havoc »
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Bill Walker

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 482
  • Per Ardua ad Nauseum
    • Canadian Military aircraft Serial Numbers
Re: Low-powered WWII-era combat aircraft?
« Reply #42 on: May 14, 2012, 07:04:15 pm »
Interesting Bill.
Did you find anything more re: digging?

Take a look at http://www.ohwg.cap.gov/ohio-wing-world-war-ii-history for a brief description of Civil Air Patrol anti-sub operations shortly after Pearl Harbor.  Probably not armed, but aircraft as small as the Stinson 10 (80 horsepower) were used "operationally".  A quote from a USN Admiral in the article probably sums it up well: "It will serve no useful purpose except to give merchant ships the illusion that an adequate air patrol is being maintained.”
Bill Walker

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22573
Re: Low-powered WWII-era combat aircraft?
« Reply #43 on: October 29, 2015, 06:44:03 am »
Hi,

also there is a Yakovlev UT-1 Project equipped with two BK machine-guns,mounted
underwing pods.

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1857
Re: Low-powered WWII-era combat aircraft?
« Reply #44 on: October 29, 2015, 07:55:48 am »
Hesham - are you sure they were underwing pods? The pictures posted by Borovik show the guns mounted on the top side of the wings. If they were underwing pods it might indicate another configuration existed (or that some authors with inadequate information assumed they were mounted under the wings).