Own among strangers - 3. Ugly duckling, which the Russians made a falcon

110
Own among strangers - 3. Ugly duckling, which the Russians made a falcon


Probably, it is strange to see a photo of the well-known fighter, on which Pokryshkin flew three times Hero of the Soviet Union, under such a heading. But the fact is that "Aerokobra" really came to us for a reason and not out of the goodness of the heart of good Englishmen and Americans. Those just acted on the principle of "give to others (in the sense of Russian), God, that it is not good for yourself." And "Cobra" is no exception.



But since the questions of the Lend-Lease have already been discussed three times and nine times, we will not focus on them. Not everything that went to us was frank trash. For example, cars. Or gasoline. But this is definitely not the case with airplanes, because everything that flew and was delivered to the USSR was just not the best quality.

"Mustangs" and "Spitfires" our allies preferred to exploit themselves. True, in the 1943 year, the English from the master's shoulder sent us "Spitfires", but as if it was already late. Sami handled. And the Thunderbolts calmly stood on the airfields of Moscow’s air defense.

But back to the Aircobre.

History The origin is simple, like all American things related to history. Once upon a time there was a large corporation, Consolidated. To the story aviation this company entered as a designer and manufacturer of the Catalina flying boat and the B-24 bomber.

But in 1935, Vice President Lawrence (Larry) Bell established Bell. The reason was simple: not all employees agreed to move from Buffalo to San Diego, in accordance with the decision taken by the company's management. Together with Bell remained, including his technical assistant Whitman and Chief Engineer Woods. Which became co-founders of Bella.



The new company managed to maintain normal relations with Consolidated, and survived thanks to orders from former employers. At first, Bell was engaged in the production of components for Catalina, but over time it swung at more significant projects.

The first project embodied in the metal, became the "Aerokud". A twin-engine fighter with quite heavy weapons (2 x 37-mm guns 2 x 12,7-mm machine guns 2 x 7,62-mm machine guns). But the technical characteristics, as well as a bunch of mechanical problems led to the abandonment of the serial construction of the aircraft. A total of 13 machines of the experimental batch were produced.






Cab "Aerokudy". Funny, but spacious. Much of it will move to the Cobra.

But Bell comrades were not discouraged, and while the Aerokudy was being tested, the firm was working hard on the new aircraft. And in 1937, work began, and in 1939, for the first time, the XP-39, the prototype of the Aero Cobra, took off.

The prototype behaved decently, the test batch was ordered in 13 machines, and the US Navy went even further, and ordered for itself a batch of such aircraft, only the usual layout in terms of the chassis and with the landing hook for landing on the deck of an aircraft carrier. So could appear "Airborne."





But the tests and the ongoing endless problems with the motor and the strength of the chassis put an end to Aerobonite. And after Pearl Harbor naval it was not at all up to her. "Aerobonite" did not take off.

“Air Cobra”, oddly enough, was alive and well. After the first series in 80 machines, the US Air Force ordered another 923. In addition, the British Bell managed to unleash 475 machines, and another 200 machines ordered but not received by France, after the surrender, the British also decided to take, and the Cobra’s 74 was ordered by the Australian Air Force.

The English "Air Cobra" as they say, "did not enter." Simply put, the Americans simply deceived their British allies. The Cobra was eased by almost a ton, removing almost all the additional equipment for this, manually polished all the surfaces, and here, make sure the excellent plane!

Yes, the fighter facilitated in such a cruel manner accelerated to 650 km / h and had a flight range to 1600 km. What can I say, where are the Americans, and where is honesty when it comes to profit? It is clear that the serial copies of the P-39, which arrived in England, became a cold shower on the heads of the English pilots.



In August 1941, the first 11 fighters were delivered to England. And in November of the same year, the Air Cobras were removed from service and the order for the remaining 200 machines was canceled.

The main reasons for such a drastic step were the following claims:

1. The maximum speed turned out to be at least 50 km / h less than that of the prototype.

2. The takeoff takeoff reached almost 700 m, which did not allow the use of the Cobra on most airfields in Britain.

3. When firing into the cabin got a large amount of powder gases.

4. The first shot of the 37-mm gun was firmly wedged by the gyrocompass. By the way, this is the most serious drawback, according to the British.

In Australia, things went no better. Complaints and reclamations flowed, and immediately after the end of the war, the Australian Air Force hurried to return all aircraft back to the United States.

The Bell company was really on the verge of collapse.

Strangely enough, the British saved it. It is clear that not from a good life. But the Allies found a masterpiece way out of the situation, proposing the Aero Cobra along with the Hurricane-type avia-waste to the Soviet Union. At that time, our place was simply nowhere to go, which is why Aero Cobra went to the USSR.

They were delivered from three directions. From Britain by sea to the ports of Murmansk and Arkhangelsk, from Iran "under its own power" to Azerbaijan, and there was also a completely crazy route from the USA, through Alaska, to the airfields of the Far East, and from there by rail. The so-called ALSIB.

In total, 4 952 machines of all modifications were supplied to the USSR. This is in fact, drowned with ships of the northern convoys or broken along the road are not counted.

And here began the oddities. Soviet pilots "Air Cobra", from which, by that time, all the pilots of the "normal" countries dashed, suddenly came to the court. Moreover, there are figures that only one Pokryshkin regiment on the Cobras shot down more enemy planes than all British, American and Australian pilots. And they shot down about 300 pieces.

However, taught by the bitter experience of the Kiitihauks, Tomahawks and Hurricanes, the Soviet command was in no hurry to throw the Cobras into battle. For a start, the plane was carefully studied by experienced pilots under the guidance of A. A. Gromov. And this study was not given without blood. During the tests of the Cobra, test pilots of the Scientific Research Institute of the Air Force A. K. Gruzdev, K. A. Avtonomov and K. I. Ovchinnikov died.

The list of claims against Bell was somewhat different from the British.

1. Corkscrew and flat corkscrew. “Cobra” very willingly “corkscrew” because of the slightest decentering, fell into a flat corkscrew, from which it was difficult to withdraw.

2. Insufficient strength of the tail section. Twisting of the rear part of the fuselage at the radio access site during sharp air evolution and deformation of the skin in the lower end part of the fuselage were detected. A case was described and documented (1944 year, 273 th IAD), when in the air one of the halves of the stabilizer was bent in the inner side.

3. When the pilot left the car, the plane often crippled the pilot with a tail stabilizer.

4. The engine produced the stated lifespan (250 h) by no more than 60%.

And so good plane, is not it?

Compare the claims of the British and Soviet experts. Carefully. The British pilots carried out 4 (four) combat sorties on four Cobras, dashed off the claim and unanimously rejected the aircraft. Clearly, this is Europe ... Where are we to the British. They also had a Spitfire.

And ours - flew. And they didn’t just fly, but fought.

What is behind the words "sharp evolution of the aircraft in the air"? Yes, damn it, Karl and all the others, this is an AIR BATTLE! Often with superior enemy forces.

That's the whole difference. The British flew, they realized that the plane was still ... and they refused it. And we started what? That's right, everything is in Russian: “handle with a hammer and a file”. For this served the special aviation regiments.

The 22-th reserve air regiment was a sort of transit point for all imported aircraft coming from the north. There they were collected, flown around, re-trained pilots on them. The regiment was originally based in the Moscow region, and at the end of the year 1941 was transferred to Ivanovo.

An analogue of 22 ZAP in the south was the 25-ZAP, which received fighters that entered the USSR under a lend-lease by the southern route through Iran.

I was lucky to have a few conversations with the mechanic-mechanic 153 IAP, my fellow countryman Nikolay I. Chashechkin. A graduate of the Voronezh Aviation Technical School, in 1942, he was drafted into the army and, by fate, got into the 153 IAP, in which he served until the 1943 year, when he was seriously contused with a bomb explosion. After that, he continued to serve in 22-ZAP.

This is what Nikolai Ivanovich told about Cobras.

“They struggled with a corkscrew as best they could, though they didn’t manage to defeat him. We (in 153 IAPs) used this method: they took a canister, cut it in half. It turned out two forms. Sand was mixed with armory with grease, this mixture was coated on the inside and then molten lead was poured. It turned out two lead bricks weighing 15 kilograms each. These bricks were placed in the nose of the aircraft, under machine guns, there was enough space. On the "Cobra" in general there was enough space everywhere.

Next is the most interesting. Bricks tacked on the bolts. Then the pilot without ammunition made a test flight. Then he said, like, ok or not. If it is normal, we drilled the holes in the case and screwed it tightly. If you didn’t like it, you moved the loads. So what, what holes? Holes brewed later, business something.

Then the ammunition was loaded, the trimmers rolled back, and the pilot took off again. Well, already in flight, he himself watched what and how. God knows that, but these bricks helped — better than nothing. It's just that if you shoot the whole BC on the Cobra, it was very poorly controlled.

Wing machine guns immediately removed. There was no sense in English, only extra weight. So we all fought with a gun and two large-caliber. And from large-caliber we then did anti-aircraft guns. Rama boiled and set in pairs. Shoot down with a raid, maybe you can not knock off, but you can scare. And there were cases that techies shot down. The car became easier. Easier - this is a maneuver, it can stay longer in the air.

American grease was immediately removed. Not for our frosts. Cannon, machine guns, gearbox, chassis - all washed white and put ours.

Butter ... Yes, "Allison" was very demanding to butter. Slightly late with the change - immediately began to drive chips. Constant monitoring was needed. And we, by the way, were accustomed to culture by an American. On our how? The car drove, even scoop bucket yes fill. Here it did not pass. Learned from experience. They produced the canvas as best they could, first run through it, and into a clean container, and then pour it into the engine. This is already in the 44 year, the special vehicles went, with filters and sleeves.

We still had a secret. You say that the plane did not go for the British. The Englishman is a gentleman, fought according to the rules. And what are our rules? “And now we need one victory, one for all, we will not stand up for the price!” That's all the rules.

Not nursed "Allison" put the resource? And how could he go when we didn’t have to fly for a walk, but to fight and beat the enemy? We, when we realized where that was in the motor, were the limiters of that ... Of course, if not more than giving 2200 turns, then maybe it would give out all 200 hours. Who would only give him the opportunity. 2500, dear, 2500. Yes, gasoline was almost always American, high octane. The butter is good, but also clean and heated. Filters washed, cleaned. But if in a fight, so much so that on a par with the “fokami” and “masses”, - be kind, 2500 revolutions. Yes, Fast and the Furious, not according to the instructions, but when the flyer is needed. Well, they threw all the excess from the plane. Up to half a ton it was possible to do without harm.

It is clear that the 80-90 hours - and the motor in the scrap. And what are we? We muzzles brooms and to zampotekhu. Write off, say, the motor is unfit. Some kind of bad caught. Write a memo. If anyone wants, let him examine. And the limiters, of course, how to stand. With the same factory fillings. We had to fight, but not to develop the service life, and so. And the pilot had to take everything from the car in battle in order to thrust the enemy into the ground. And the rest - little things.

I already served in 22 ZAP, after the hospital, so the Americans often came. Polite, meticulous. They really tried to understand why such problems with the aircraft. But as with a corkscrew, nothing clever was invented, and with motors too. But one thing could not be - who will believe that what is wrong in the other?

Behind the tails had to watch carefully. Constantly. Just where the curvature went - stop, on the bulkhead. Weak tails were. Very weak. We could do something. Krepili. The pilots flew. The enemy was beaten.

"Cobra" for a convenient aircraft technician. Everything can be approached without problems. While I am picking with the engine in the middle, gunsmiths cannon with machine guns in the nose are charged. And the device man, if necessary, sees in the cockpit, the reload knobs can help. Conveniently. It was more difficult to fly. But better than others. "Pterodactyl" ("Hurricane") - this was the mortal for all the longing. And "Cobra" - nothing, a good plane. Convenient. Strong. It was just that we had to teach him how to fly and fight. I think they taught. "

What can I say to all this? Never mind. The Cobra was an interesting machine. The fact that the British and Americans "could not" her, says that the plane was "raw." And so he would have remained on the list of losers, if he had not got to us. Yes, and he came to us not from a good life.

But the reality is that it is in our sky that the Air Cobra has turned from an ugly duckling into a falcon. But this is because, solely because the Soviet pilots were at the helm, and our mechanics were preparing to fly.

In any other country, the fate of this aircraft would be different.

Thanks to the Soviet pilots:

153 IAP - 28 Guards Leningrad IAP;
185 Red Banner IAP;
30 Guards Baranovyy Krasnoznamenny IAP;
145 IAP - 19 Guards IAP;
298 IAP - 104 Guards IAP;
45 IAP - 100 Guards IAP;
16 Guards IAP;
494 IAP.

Any aircraft (especially good) in the right hands is a formidable weapon. Ours were able to fight even on overt air junk like "Hurricane." And they fought. “Cobra” was not the best plane of that war, but, “Russified”, played its role (significant) in the defeat of the “Luftwaffe”.

Differences from domestic fighters were both for better and for worse. More powerful weapons, good durability, great radio equipment. Yes, Soviet fighters were superior to the Cobra in a vertical maneuver; they were not frightened by heavy overloads and abrupt maneuvers.

But our pilots loved and appreciated their “cobras”. For comfort and good protection. For powerful weapons. The Aero Cobra pilots did not burn, the aircraft was metal, and the tanks were located far in the wing, they were not hit in the face with a jet of steam or oil, the engine was located behind, the Cobra was unrealistic to squander.









There was even some kind of mysticism in that the pilot who tried to preserve a damaged Cobra by a forced landing almost always remained not only alive, but also unharmed, but those who left it with a parachute often died from the impact of a stabilizer located at the door level.

Peculiar plane. But the ugly duckling became a Soviet falcon. He just had no other way.

"We flew like ducks from the muddy fields ..."

Soared. It is ridiculous after all this to read the claims of the British. Yes, it was our grandfathers who took off from the muddy fields, because it was necessary.

Heavy car? Long run? Make it easier. Gases from weapons pass through the leather curtain with a zipper-zip into the cabin? You can lower the glass on the door or open the window. Can the recoil wedge gyrocompass? We will manage magnetic.

"Who said that the car can not
And he doesn't want to work for us ?! ”

The Americans and the British could not. Just, probably, because the best pilots and technicians were ours. It's simple.

Information sources:
War in the air. 2001. No. 91 // Periodical popular science publication for members of military history clubs / Compiled editor S. V. Ivanov.
Romanenko V. Aerobinks enter the battle.
Ivanov S.V. P-39 Airacobra. Modifications and design details.
110 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +31
    25 October 2016 06: 43
    In the USSR, the P-39 was delivered, which England refused, due to the lousy aerobatic characteristics of this aircraft. The plane in the USSR did not get any better, it just flew excellent pilots who could fly anything.
    1. +6
      26 October 2016 10: 55
      the aircobra was inferior to the F-109 to 160 km / h. even Pokryshkin shot down the F-109 a little.
      Pokryshkin came up with how to defend against the F-109.
      the genius of the Red Army in using the "aircobra" according to its capabilities. namely, the protection of low-speed IL-2 or the protection of the territory (for example, a crossing)
      in these cases the Germans themselves attacked the Aircobras and suffered heavy losses.
      just as the Germans themselves climbed the Allied bombers and also suffered losses.
      but they hunted for the German asss on yaks and lags.
      the Allies sent us almost all types of their aircraft, but in small batches, as they say for testing.
      1. +8
        3 November 2016 11: 58
        Direct opening at the opening .... What kind of aircraft F-109? Probably Me-109 according to Soviet sources or Bf-109. So write. The IL-2 security was entrusted specifically to the Yak-1, because their characteristics were optimal at these altitudes. Read Pokryshkin’s memoirs, you will not find IL-2 escorts there ... Learn the materiel.
      2. 0
        13 December 2016 01: 52
        Pokryshkin always tried to knock out strike aircraft - bombers, those who cause the main damage to the troops. And again, from the memoirs of those who fought on the cobras - a high-altitude plane, the king above. The pendulum used by Pokryshkin is one of the solutions for the features of this aircraft.
    2. +3
      29 October 2016 01: 55
      Quote: Haloperidol
      it just flew great pilots who can fly anything

      It was made by excellent aircraft, capable of making decently anything to fly. So this is the first US-Soviet aircraft.
    3. +1
      16 March 2017 09: 08
      breakdowns in a flat corkscrew, from which it is very difficult to get out - this is the main reason why the British rejected the cobra
      several experienced pilots died on take-off.
      for an inexperienced cobra pilot - 50% grave.
      we just had pilots who mastered the donkey - far from the easiest aircraft to fly
      after him the cobra is normal
  2. tux
    +1
    25 October 2016 06: 50
    Pokryshkin flew in the 100th issue. There is even a book by Golubev "Paired with the 100th". Yes, and here's the article has already been here: https://topwar.ru/13676-pokryshkin-aleksandr-ivan
    ovich-i-ego-istrebitel-bell-p-39-airacobra.html
    1. 0
      25 October 2016 13: 24
      Pokryshkin had "Cobra" number 13. It was only later, after an unsuccessful landing, when the right landing gear of the rear pillar broke, he was given another plane.
      1. +2
        1 November 2016 03: 43
        Caddafi

        Cobra at 100. Yak-1 and I-16, at number 13.

        Pokryshkin was unique. Not only the ability to feel and synchronize control correctly, but the ability to tactical thinking. He foresaw the maneuver of the enemy.

        Well, his most important merit is that he broke the statutory requirements for the formation of combat groups of fighters. The concept of battle was not a number, but a skill. So, Pokryshkin formed groups and prepared the attack only with the excess of the group in terms of the number of attackers.

        This rule has long been used by the Germans since the beginning of the war. Even from Spain. It came from the time of the First World War. The Germans then gained vast experience in using aviation. Unfortunately, Russia did not have such an experience. And accordingly, the Soviet Union, formed its charters on the basis of minimal experience.

        These charters were difficult to redo. Serious authority was required, which Pokryshkin became. And even by 1943, it was hard to do anything. He could. And this is his main merit. Not the number of downed opponents, but a change in flight charters.
        1. +1
          6 November 2016 13: 50
          Cobra under 100

          You know, the small details of the history are not listed on Wikipedia. Wikipedia writes only relatively. And yet, smart guy, Alexander Ivanovich flew on a MiG-3 plane. Does not say anything? From history, when, in bad weather, on this plane, he found a convoy of German tanks, while orienting himself along the terrain, along the rivers.
          In addition to "Wikipedia" I advise you to read books about Alexander Ivanovich. In particular - "Akhtung! Akhtung! In the sky POKRYSHKIN!", Author Evgeny Polishchuk, Eksmo publishing house, 2009.
          Have a desire to get up and tear your fifth point from the chair, and your eyes from the monitor. Go to your local library and ask about books about this wonderful person.
        2. 0
          16 March 2017 09: 13
          Pokryshkin has a lot of merits, for example, he cared about the survival of the flight crew
          invested a lot in training combat pilots
          introduced several simple preventive maneuvers that reduced losses
          I consider him a much more significant figure than Kozhedub, for example.
          His personal account is not very large, but according to eyewitnesses, there were not a few cases when he wrote down the shot down on others. He put a lot of effort into the development of coordination of ground observers. Under him, work was underway to improve the coordination of large flight groups - a sore spot in our aviation.
    2. +2
      25 October 2016 21: 58
      There is even a book by Golubev "Paired with the 100th"


      I saw Colonel Golubev alive as a cadet. He had a personal copy of the film "Pokryshkin in the Sky" - they played it for us in the club. You know, he even brushed away a tear then. The shot was there - he was a young man from the Cobra climbed out. Talked about the plane, the radio is excellent, the cabin is gorgeous. I also remembered - 5 barrels for one trigger were altered. This means that the wing machine guns were not removed.
  3. +8
    25 October 2016 06: 52
    Cobra was removed from the boost, and it became non-high. Naturally, the British began to suffer, there all the battles were almost on top. It is the same as supplying high-altitude thunderbolts in the USSR.
    And Spitfires fought, for example, in the Kuban.
    1. +6
      25 October 2016 07: 22
      `` Spitfire '', this is perhaps the best thing that the allies had, well, maybe even `` Corsair '', and everything else is so-so and worse ... Once one English ace flew on an I-16, returned so quickly, sat down all wet with sweat and swore to fly on it. Our people said so - a pilot capable of flying the I-16 can fly anything. At the beginning of the war, ours lacked combat experience, which no study can replace ... Experience came and the Germans got sick in the air ... I read about a case described by one of the German aces. It seems that it was in the winter of 1941-42, if I'm not mistaken. The German met a single LAGG-3 in the air and, considering it an easy prey, attacked, but the Russian escaped the blow and went over to the attack himself. Then the German noticed a red propeller spinner on the LAGG, which indicated his belonging to the guards unit. The further battle boiled down to mutual attacks, which brought no results to anyone. Having spent all the ammunition, the Me-109 and the LAGG approached and for some time flew alongside, parallel courses. The pilots looked at each other and left, each to his own airfield.
      1. +1
        25 October 2016 10: 45
        there was not enough combat experience that no training could replace ...

        Our studies were notable. 10 hours flight time. There were even 2 hours of flight. There were releases of pilots in the summer on Po-2. Or even with a theoretical fighter pilot course
        1. +7
          26 October 2016 05: 16
          Quote: Hupfri
          there was not enough combat experience that no training could replace ...

          Our studies were notable. 10 hours flight time. There were even 2 hours of flight. There were releases of pilots in the summer on Po-2. Or even with a theoretical fighter pilot course

          This is where such a heresy was read? According to the VASP documents, the average flying time was about 70 hours. 2 hours of training is from the strength of 4 days of flight training. There were reductions in the program, for example, often dispensing with cone shooting, etc., but 2 hours or no flights? What kind of nonsense? In addition, after graduation, the pilots fell into the reserve aviation regiments where they continued to study. Read there works on this topic or memories of veterans, for example, from Drabkin (as I recall, they called at least 15 hours of raids there).
          1. +2
            26 October 2016 08: 40
            "This is where such heresy was subtracted? The average flight time according to WASHP documents was about 70 hours"

            You read Shakhurin, there is about 10 hours, and nothing about 70 ... Especially the episode about the transfer of planes to pilots ... a heartbreaking sight ... And according to the documents, they also added a mechanical trainer there, most likely.
        2. 0
          16 March 2017 09: 17
          no one would let a cadet with such a raid into the sky.
          in combat units, they tried to bring the raid to 100-150 hours, when they were allowed to take off a flight, and then the first sorties often had some kind of safe, simple role.
      2. 0
        13 July 2017 15: 39
        You probably mean the battle of Gerhard Barkhorn with Alexei Vasilyevich Alelyukhin that happened at the end of 1942 in the battle of Stalingrad !?
        According to the memoirs of Barkhorn, once he had to fight for about 40 minutes with a solitary LaGG-3 in which the winner did not appear. Having spent all the ammunition, the opponents dispersed on equal terms.
        As for the R-39th ... then you do not need to write off the accounts and employees of the Bell company. We must pay tribute to them in the timely introduction of changes in the design of the aircraft according to the recommendations received from our pilots and employees of the LII. Thanks to the joint efforts on versions (L, N), the possibility of falling into a flat corkscrew was slightly reduced, while in version (Q) it was already significantly reduced. It was thanks to the comments received from the Union and working with them ... Bell employees managed to make a large number of changes to the original design of the P-39 and create such an aircraft as the P-63 Kingcobra.
    2. 0
      25 October 2016 13: 53
      The cobra, according to the recollections of veterans flying on other types, remained high-altitude. By the standards of our fronts. Therefore, there was a separation. Yaks usually cover IL-2 and so on.
      1. 0
        1 November 2016 03: 50
        fell ill

        At Pokryshkin, flights above 3 km were considered high-altitude.

        In 1943, Pokryshkin had a need to intercept a reconnaissance aircraft. He was surprised to find that the mechanics did not oxygenate the equipment. It turns out that the adapter does not fit there.

        Those. they did not always climb to a height.
  4. +10
    25 October 2016 06: 56
    Pokryshkin is one of those who saved the reputation of the aircraft.
    The plane showed itself very poorly at altitude and in naval battles in the early stages of the war - in the years 1940-41 among the Americans. He was on the verge of decommissioning. The most successful American pilot on the Cobra shot down just ... three planes! In the end, the Americans moved ... to the English Spitfires.
    Soviet pilots, meanwhile, brought the plane to mind and began to work miracles, using on the plane not only what he lacked - altitude and speed of take-off - but taking what was his advantage. He was heavy, he did not like heights, but he was good at medium height. And very protected. The motor in an unusual place - behind the cockpit allowed to increase weapons by a whole gun. When Pokryshkin, who had an extraordinary engineering mark, made an innovation - he locked all the weapons, including the cannon - on one trigger, as a result of which one press gave a powerful salvo of all weapons - the enemy’s planes exploded at once.
    Pokryshkin shot down 48 planes on the Cobra, a record for this plane.
    After Pokryshkin’s first successes at the Cobra, ours began to purchase them under Lend-Lease in significant quantities. In total, about five thousand planes were bought, which saved the reputation of the Bell company that produced it.
    1. +2
      25 October 2016 12: 54
      In your drawing is a side view of the plane of Rechkalov, against the background of which that photo was taken with A.I. Pokryshkin.
    2. Alf
      +3
      25 October 2016 21: 42
      The plane showed itself very poorly at altitude and in sea battles

      In what MARINE battles did the Cobra participate, if it is a US Army aircraft?
      In the end, the Americans moved ... to the English Spitfires.

      Can you give more details, at least part numbers?
      Yes, American pilots really fought on the Spits. But! These were volunteers and organizationally they were part of the Royal Air Force. It is logical that if you fight in the British unit and obey the British command, you will get exactly the British plane. Advantageous even from the point of view of standardization of equipment.
      With the outbreak of World War II in 1939, the United States found itself in a very interesting position. The ruling circles continued to pursue a policy of neutrality. On the world stage in those years, the States remained largely a “thing in themselves” - Washington did not at all try to spread democracy around the globe and smash Germany. Meanwhile, the bulk of the country's population in those days was still Anglo-Saxons, who could not help but sympathize with their historic homeland.
      From the first days of the war, many American military pilots expressed a desire to fight the Teutons in Europe shoulder to shoulder with the British and French. A certain Colonel Charles Sweeney, an American with a Canadian “residence permit”, who received the rank of Colonel in the French Foreign Legion, announced the recruitment of volunteers to the French Air Force.
      Sweeney's initiative was supported not only by Paris, but also by London. The colonel received the right from the British government to recruit pilots in the RAF. In May 1940, Sweeney sent overseas a group of 32 American pilots. They were sent to France, but before it surrendered, they did not manage to get to the front. However, the British Air Force accepted the volunteers with open arms.
      From overseas volunteers in Britain began to form squadrons, which received the name "Squadron of the Eagles." The first in Charle Fenton was the 71st Eagle Squadron. The personnel are Americans, the command personnel are RAF officers. At first, the Bruster "Buffalo" Mk I fighters came into service. These unpretentious aircraft were initially considered only a transitional type before receiving the Mk I Hurricanes. The squadron pilots conducted their first sorties on February 5, 1941. In April, the Mk II Hurricanes received the squadron , and in August 1941 - the first Spitfire. It was a Mk II modification car. It is Spitfires that are associated with American volunteer pilots as part of the RAF.
      Two months later, the 121st squadron (the second American squadron formed in the spring of 1941) was re-equipped with Spitfires Mk II / IIA
      In August 1941, the third and last American squadron was formed as part of the British Air Force - the 133rd. Initially, the 133rd squadron, as well as the first two, received the Hurricanes, but already in October the Hurricanes replaced the Spitfires of the Mk NA, and in January 1942 the Fives entered service with the Spitfires of the Mk V.
      In September 1942, all three squadrons were transferred from the RAF to the 8th Air Army and brought into the 4th fighter group. The formal ceremony of transferring the 71st, 121st, and 133rd squadrons from RAF to the 8th US Air Force took place on September 29. The squadrons received new numbers - 334, 335, and 336, respectively. They formed the 4th fighter group, whose commander became Colonel Edward W. Anderson. The group became part of the 8th Air Army, although the American Spitfires remained subordinate to the headquarters of the RAF Fighter Command.
    3. 0
      1 November 2016 03: 54
      Bayonet

      A bit wrong.

      There were carried down the descent into machine guns and a cannon. The descent to the gun was not convenient, it was necessary to reach for it. And in battle, this was an additional difficulty. In general, combined.
    4. 0
      16 March 2017 09: 21
      locking the trigger on all weapons is a controversial decision
      Some of the pilots liked it, others didn’t. I would not call it a definite plus.
  5. +7
    25 October 2016 07: 01
    Zaporozhets is far from Porsche, albeit the same layout. But any Porsche can be turned into a Zaporozhets if hands do not grow from there.
    1. +3
      26 October 2016 10: 59
      Zaporozhets used by its capabilities is much more useful than Porsche used for other purposes.
      so it was with the "aerocobra". in the Red Army they found a niche - a slow-moving fighter.
    2. 0
      16 March 2017 09: 22
      In Krasnoyarsk, the Zaporozhets won the tuning contest, turned with the help of accessories piston961 into its analogue
  6. +8
    25 October 2016 07: 47
    It is not a place that colors a person, but a person a place. Another confirmation of the talent of the flight and engineering personnel of the Red Army Air Force.
    1. +1
      26 October 2016 11: 02
      no, in this case, the use of technology in accordance with its capabilities.
      that is, here is a plus to the leadership of the Red Army
      the capabilities of the "aircobra" are a slow-moving fighter and an attack aircraft.
  7. +1
    25 October 2016 08: 17
    [/ quote] Spitfires, our allies preferred to exploit themselves. True, in 1943, the British sent a Spitfire from the noble shoulder, but it was already too late. They did it themselves. And the "Thunderbolts" quietly stood at the airfields of Moscow. [Quote]

    But what about the information from the article "Soviet Aces on Lend-Lease Fighters. Part 4." Spitfires "on the Military Review from 28.12.2012 ???
  8. +8
    25 October 2016 08: 47
    And what will the Mustang do on the Soviet front? Spitfayers fought in the USSR but did not live up to expectations.
    It does not burn because it is iron.
    Dear author, it’s not a tree that burns in the plane, but gasoline, because at a speed not a tree from the wind at speed will not light up. Try a fire in the wind.
    Regarding the fact that they sent all the trash. But what about Mitchells, Bostons, Sherians, Scouts, Students, etc.
    Yes, and the Allies and Germans fought a lot on obsolete equipment and also used ingenuity to improve performance.
    1. +5
      25 October 2016 10: 22
      Indeed: the front-line soldiers were highly respected by the students. From the words of the old chauffeurs I heard that individual copies of studentbeckers successfully "ran" back in 1961, and after all, they had already been broken.
      About "Bostons": I talked with front-line aircraft mechanic Ishkildin Yulumbay "Yura" and he praised "Boston" very much
      1. +3
        25 October 2016 16: 47
        Quote: Monarchist
        I talked with front-line aircraft mechanic Ishkildin Yulumbay "Yura" and he praised "Boston" very much

        I don’t know how the aircraft mechanics assessed the “Boston”, but my father's friend also caught this plane, flew it and spoke very well of it.
        1. +2
          26 October 2016 11: 09
          People are smarter. in an era of lack of technology, technology will work endlessly.
          remember the cube they drive in cars produced before the 50s.
          we even had leather straps inserted between the connecting rod and crankshaft. when there were no parts and it was necessary to plow.
    2. 0
      16 March 2017 09: 24
      Mustang would be very useful for escorting db3 / il-4 or pe-2, tu-2.
      as well as to intercept high-altitude scouts
      1. 0
        15 July 2017 18: 03
        but in view of the absence, they had to "plow" the yaks instantly and loopyakov (No. 3)
  9. +7
    25 October 2016 09: 04
    The Americans and the British could not. Just, probably, because the best pilots and technicians were ours. It's simple.


    Still easier.
    The Americans and the British fought an intense air war.
    Basically it was a massive raid of armadas of bombers on industrial centers and cities in Germany and Japan. To reduce losses, raids were carried out at high altitude, and therefore, high-altitude fighters were needed to cover the bombers
    The aerocobra was not high-altitude. He behaved better at medium and low altitudes. It was precisely this that was characteristic of the Soviet-German front. Here the plane showed itself here.

    For a complete understanding of what the Americans and the British could and could not do, it’s enough to look at the lists of losses of the Luftwaffe pilots during the war years.
    4000 - Soviet-German Front
    13 000 - the western front in the period from 39 to 45 years.
    The most modern Luftwaffe cars fought in the West
    The USSR could gain air supremacy only in 44th. Rather start fighting with "backlashes" on equal terms
    1. +6
      25 October 2016 10: 33
      Quote: Hupfri
      The Americans and the British could not. Just, probably, because the best pilots and technicians were ours. It's simple.

      For a complete understanding of what the Americans and the British could and could not do, it’s enough to look at the lists of losses of the Luftwaffe pilots during the war years.
      4000 - Soviet-German Front
      13 000 - the western front in the period from 39 to 45 years.
      The most modern Luftwaffe cars fought in the West
      The USSR could gain air supremacy only in 44th. Rather start fighting with "backlashes" on equal terms


      I won’t even waste a word. Read first, then talk
      https://topwar.ru/98557-aviaciya-v-velikoy-oteche
      stvennoy-voyne-istoriya-bez-protivorechiy-chast-1
      .html
      https://topwar.ru/98819-aviaciya-v-velikoy-oteche
      stvennoy-voyne-istoriya-bez-protivorechiy-chast-2
      .html
      1. +4
        25 October 2016 10: 58
        I won’t even waste a word. Read first, then talk
        https://topwar.r

        Articles from Topvar are confirmation of words that you do not want to spend? Confirmation of another article on topvar?
        You read the list of complaints about the Yak-1. Which exhibited to the manufacturer at the end of the 40th. The number 120. The plane has been in production for six months.
        1. +2
          25 October 2016 11: 07
          I'm talking about Thomas, you're talking about Erema. The bare numbers of the lists of losses are by no means an indicator of the effectiveness of the aviation of a particular country. This is an argument from the category of "corpses filled up". It is primarily a matter of the tactics of using aviation (especially fighter aircraft) in the USSR and Germany. In these articles, the ratio of losses of the Luftwaffe on the Eastern and Western Fronts, the reasons for this difference, are reasonably explained with figures. This is the question of who and what could. ... Judging by your answer, you haven't even skimmed through these articles.
          1. +2
            25 October 2016 11: 50
            The low numbers of the lists of losses are by no means an indicator of the effectiveness of the aviation of a particular country. This is an argument from the category of "corpses filled up".

            This argument reflects the scope of the air war.
            The Germans had the wrong aircraft where it was customary to fill up with corpses. Flight school graduate was from 200 hours
            1. +12
              25 October 2016 12: 36
              What do you mean by air war? Fighter aircraft battles? Fighting against bomber and assault aircraft? The work of ground attack and bomber aircraft? I will tell you a terrible secret - there is no air war, as there is no sea and land. There is a war in which the types of troops interact. So in the USSR, the main emphasis was placed on aviation support for infantry operations on the ground, especially assault aviation. It is no coincidence that the most massive aircraft of the Great Patriotic War was the Il-2 attack aircraft and its later modifications. Fighter aircraft, on the other hand, were assigned mostly difficult and ungrateful guards accompanying attack aircraft and bombers. Hence the nature of the air battles between the Luftwaffe fighters and ours. The Germans took the so-called "free hunt" as a basis, and in all cases the pilot was FREE in matters of target selection and initiative in the attack. Simply put, I want to hit, I do not want to - so I will look. Of course, with such a free interpretation, when you have a choice, losses are reduced to a minimum. When you are "tied up", forced to cover heavier vehicles, when you are essentially limited in your capabilities, this naturally leads to a higher level of losses. And the pilots of the "Luftwaffe" felt it very well in 1942-1943, when they covered the "air bridge" to the 6th Army of Paulus surrounded at Stalingrad. Well, when the massive bombing of Germany began and the German aces were FORCED to face the firepower of British and American bombers - this is where those same massive losses began on the Western Front. German pilots suffered smaller losses on the Eastern Front, not because "the scope of the air war" was less, but because the very nature of the actions in the sky was different. And of course, the quality of training of our pilots in the first years of the war also left much to be desired, here I will not even argue. You are always trying to argue with bare numbers: the number of flight hours, the number of claims, the number of losses, without trying to grasp the essence of these numbers, so to speak, into the cause and effect. This is the approach I call an argument from the category of "filled up with corpses", that is, juggling with numbers without understanding their essence
              1. +1
                25 October 2016 13: 44
                I will tell you a terrible secret - there is no air war, as there is no sea and land. There is a war in which there is an interaction between the types of troops.

                And there is the doctrine of the Douai.
                This theory says that it is possible to inflict unacceptable damage on an enemy only by aviation forces. This theory in one form or another is being realized by the Americans.
                In the period from 42 to 45, the Allies successfully used the tactics of air war against Germany and Japan. The loss of population of Germany from the bombing is estimated at one million in 3. Industry and the largest railway junctions were destroyed. In some cases, up to 3000 Allied aircraft were simultaneously in the air.
                At the same time, the Allies began ground operations in Europe only in the second half of the 44th year.
                So the air war in spite of your secrets had a place to be
                German pilots suffered smaller losses on the Eastern Front, not because the "scope of the air war" was smaller, but because the very nature of the actions in the sky was different.

                But then a reasonable question arises why, with such a nature of actions in the sky, the Soviet Air Force suffered such serious losses. At times more. The system itself was bad. And attitude towards people.

                Let's not operate with numbers. Refer to the memoirs. There, the entire war, German aviation hangs in the air, but ours are not ....
                This is the approach I call an argument from the category of "filled up with corpses",

                You can call it what you want.
                We did not invest in a soldier. The soldier was cheap. He was not taught to fight, he worked mainly with a shovel. Blucher in the Far East had whole army collective farms.
                We also could not do high-quality equipment. We have all aircraft designers either sitting, or preparing to land. Therefore, we produced equipment of medium and low quality.
                The Germans studied soldiers for 16 hours a day. Shoot, navigate, interact, dig in. ...
                The technique was also carefully thought out and carefully assembled.
                Why did we win? I will not say "they filled up with corpses."
                I will say God helped.
                Don't like the numbers? Well, Astafiev read ....
                1. +6
                  25 October 2016 16: 15
                  There, the entire war, German aviation hangs in the air, but ours are not ....
                  As I understand it, God landed all the German aircraft hanging in the air.
                  And there is the doctrine of the Douai.
                  This theory says that it is possible to inflict unacceptable damage on an enemy only by aviation forces.

                  Chic tactics - carpet bombing of civilians with the aim of exerting moral influence and coercion to surrender. I will not touch on the moral side of the issue, we turn to the practical side. Remind me of the case of the surrender of at least one German city without the participation of ground forces. The Americans, however, this tactic is now being implemented exclusively in conjunction with the preparation of the opposition within the country, the same infantry. No, of course, if you set yourself the task of getting a scorched field - you can try. Although in Stalingrad did not ride.
                  In some cases, up to 3000 allied aircraft were simultaneously in the air.
                  At the same time, the Allies began ground operations in Europe only in the second half of the 44 year

                  And what, the allies marched victoriously, effortlessly?
                  We did not invest in a soldier. The soldier was cheap. He was not taught to fight, he worked mainly with a shovel. Blucher in the Far East had whole army collective farms.
                  We also could not do high-quality equipment. We have all aircraft designers either sitting, or preparing to land. Therefore, we produced equipment of medium and low quality.

                  I understood this message from the beginning, I was waiting for it when you issue it to the mountain. You still forgot to mention the tyrant tyrant Stalin and the unfortunate people who dream of casting off the yoke of the Jewish commissars. And we won the war exclusively by Lend-Lease, a shovel, penal battalions and ... God helped. By the way, do not specify, according to your version, God was he more under a star-striped or under a union jack?
                  But then a reasonable question arises why, with such a nature of actions in the sky, the Soviet Air Force suffered such serious losses
                  I have probably already devoted an entire poem to the answer to this question. Don’t you read?
                  Don't like the numbers? Well, Astafiev read ....
                  I prefer Boris Vasiliev and Valentin Pikul. But I consider it frivolous to study the history of the Great Patriotic War on their works.
            2. 0
              16 March 2017 09: 34
              you are like a stubborn donkey. Examine what you have been shown.
              stop repeating cliches about the superiority of the Aryan genius.
              no one forces you to take one side or another.
              just learn.
              1. 0
                16 March 2017 09: 38
                as for a couple of arguments. In 44-45 years on the western front there was a situation when 1 German during the interception (and it was impossible to refuse it) often opposed 10 times more planes and not in the airfield, but in the air. In such conditions, the Luftwaffe suffered serious losses. At the same time, according to one of the Western sources, the allies for the war lost about 300000 pilots and other crew members. Here are the statistics.
                1. 0
                  16 March 2017 09: 43
                  we had a situation somewhat similar - the USSR aviation was confined by the charter to supporting ground units and was often limited to defensive combat.
                  Therefore, the pilots who gained “energy”, which was not a problem on the bf-109, took almost no risk when meeting with our aircraft. This was compounded by the lack of a normal connection, as our radio stations did little to help. The situation began to change sharply in the year 43 - a number of factors played a role - the supply of raw materials, radio equipment, cars and high-octane fuel, changes in tactics, etc.
          2. +1
            25 October 2016 12: 46
            Judging by your answer, you did not even skim over these articles.

            Well why, looked
            Here is a quote from the article

            "There were too few German fighters for the Eastern Front. Even making 5-6 sorties a day, they could not destroy the Soviet Air Force."

            So I’m talking about that
            1. +3
              25 October 2016 13: 18
              [quote = Happfree] [/ quote]
              Here is a quote from the article
              "There were too few German fighters for the Eastern Front. Even making 5-6 sorties a day, they could not destroy the Soviet Air Force."
              So I’m talking about that [/ quote]

              About what? It seems that you have pulled out the first phrase that is convenient for you and are trying to operate on it. This phrase is cited in the article as a fact that by 1943 the Luftwaffe was forced to disperse its forces between the Eastern and Western Fronts, since the Allied bombing had become massive by that time. character. Not having a sufficient number of flight personnel, the German aviation was forced to increase the number of sorties of each individual pilot, which by itself does not contribute to the preservation of the flight crew. Well, what does it say. That the Germans did not take care of the personnel ahead of time, hoping for a blitz-krieg? Does this somehow refute my thesis that the losses on the Western and Eastern fronts differed not because of the quality of the aircraft or pilots, but because of the different nature of aviation actions. Most of the losses on the Western Front, the German pilots received from the airborne gunners of the "flying fortresses". You want to say that the quality of training of some "tail Charlie" was higher than that of the assa fighter "Luftwaffe", so what? No one is trying to dispute the contribution of the allies to the victory over Germany, but to compare the losses of German aviation on two fronts, and on the basis of this assert that there was a real Jutland air battle over Germany, and over the steppes of Ukraine and over Belarus is just an easy walk - it looks like strange to say the least
    2. +5
      25 October 2016 12: 07
      Hapfrey - indicate the source of your knowledge. Otherwise, your blah blah blah is already starting to strain.
      1. +2
        25 October 2016 13: 49
        Hapfrey - indicate the source

        The study of historical and military technical literature for 30 years.
        1. +2
          25 October 2016 14: 07
          Specifically - where did you get your numbers. Let there be several sources - take the trouble to list.
          1. +2
            31 October 2016 15: 41
            You can study at least 50 years, but if the sources are incompetent or biased, then all the dogs down the drain
    3. +5
      25 October 2016 16: 19
      Of course, I wildly apologize, but other numbers came across.
      Only in January-August 1942, the decrease in the drugs of the Luftwaffe on the Soviet-German front amounted to 1095 people killed, 2215 missing. This is already a total of more than 3000 people. For half a year. And this is even before the Kuban and Kursk. Information based on data from the Bundesarchive, especially (unless, of course, the author of the article is lying).
      http://www.airwar.ru/history/av2ww/axis/germloss/
      germloss.html
    4. 0
      26 October 2016 11: 26
      bombing from a height even now makes no sense. therefore even now they bomb from a distance of no higher than 4 km a safe height from cannon defense.
      fly high to fly faster, spend less fuel and more bomb load.
      you're interesting.
      German losses counted from one fron (eastern) and from 41g
      losses attributed to the western front with 39g from all fronts, French, Polish, Mediterranean, African, British ....
      and you hu .. did not try to compare with a finger? like eating and you can use it
  10. +7
    25 October 2016 09: 13
    The author, of course, went too far at the expense of air junk. They gave what they could. At the beginning of the war, the British themselves had a deficit of everything, and nevertheless something was singled out. And that something was us to the yard.
    As for the Cobra, then all our pilots note that if they were flying in the prescribed modes, they would have hit them at the moment. The life of the aircraft at the front is not long, and not everyone survived until the engine was exhausted. So either a resource or fly and fight. In addition, our began to buy a lot of engines. The same Golodnikov says that with the replacement of the engines there have never been problems, there has always been a supply.
  11. 0
    25 October 2016 10: 11
    I read somewhere that the specialists of the Bell firm took into account the most typical shortcomings and released a modification of the "king cobra" adapted to Russian conditions, but a small number of it were released in the summer of 1944
    1. +1
      25 October 2016 14: 09
      Our "specialists" arrived at the plant and helped, taking into account the CIT, to modernize 39, but "the modernization was of such a level that in fact a new 49 appeared.
  12. 0
    25 October 2016 10: 11
    Yeah, our techie is rugged ... with the help of a sledgehammer, crowbar and file, anything will be brought to mind ...
  13. 0
    25 October 2016 10: 35
    Roman, you always have interesting materials, but sometimes controversial moments happen (forum users pointed to them) please be careful and the materials will be in 5 ++
  14. +3
    25 October 2016 12: 16
    Quote: Moor
    Another "Hapfrey" with the ratio of losses on the Eastern and Western Front laughing It is simply amazing how in an introductory article one can see "ideological sabotage" against the unsurpassed aircraft industry of the United States.

    good
  15. +1
    25 October 2016 12: 24
    The list of regiments omitted the Safonov - 2nd Guards Fighter Pechenga Red Banner Aviation Regiment of the Northern Fleet. In 44-45 they also flew on "cobras".
  16. 2ez
    +4
    25 October 2016 16: 03
    As a child, I read a book by the pilot-ace, twice Hero of the Soviet Union Vladimir Lavrinenkov "Return to the Sky". It is clear, the time of the USSR, censorship and other blah-blah-blah. But he spoke about "Cobra" with respect and love, not hiding bad qualities. The main advantage of the aircraft is its powerful armament, none of the fighters of the Second World War had this, it was not for nothing that it was sometimes used in attacking ground forces. And everything else is the skill of the pilot and service personnel. After all, the Germans were shot down not by planes, but by people ... And ours were the best! And you don’t need to tell me about Hartmann and other ottographs. Read the memoirs of Vitaly Popkov, the prototype of "Maestro", he proved long ago that the Germans were big fans of postscripts ...
  17. +3
    25 October 2016 16: 06
    Quote: Hupfri
    Hapfri

    Why are you distorting and substituting, if you bring memoirs in which ours say that they are not covered by aviation, then bring back the memories of the Germans about the same thing about their aviation.
    Regarding outdated technology, what is it? and what are the criteria for backwardness? the technique is created for the tasks
    By the way, why didn’t you write that the Mustang became a famous fighter, only with the receipt of merlin, and before that, to put it mildly, it was not very good, backward so to speak.
    About investing in a soldier. you could not give your conclusions, but the norms of combat training. Wehrmacht and the Red Army.
    By the way, I do not know how you studied history and military technical literature, but flights at high altitude are carried out not only to reduce losses, but also allow you to increase range, speed, and load.

    The technique was also carefully thought out and carefully assembled.[i] [/ i]
    Are you talking about the Gall chain in Messer, or about heating the tank launcher with a burner, or the Junkers combat cabin, or the abundance of machine guns in the dornier, and knowledgeable people will tell you even more about the sophistication of German technology, and allied too (for example, five engines in Sherman)

    And what Astafyev wrote, and what needs to be read, what he wrote before perestroika or after, and to be honest, you can advise reading the memories of German soldiers there, too, you can learn a lot about the stupidity of the German command in general and Hitler in particular.
    1. +5
      25 October 2016 16: 25
      Dear Kostya Andreev, do not ask Mr. Hapfrey rhetorical questions laughing You just have to look at his comments in other topics and you will understand everything. But such discussions are good gymnastics for the mind. Here another comrade under the union jack promotes the same theories, though not so active. It’s just curious to watch how the white dogs wash the black male winked
      1. 0
        15 July 2017 18: 25
        Mr. Hapfrey probably also believes that during the Korean War the Americans shot down 3000 "communist" planes and lost only 150 wassat
        despite the fact that in Korea all (Korean, Chinese, Soviet) aircraft were less than 2000.
  18. +2
    25 October 2016 16: 16
    Incidentally, the Americans, the descendants of those who built the aircraft and generally history buffs are very proud — they are proud that their Cobra fought in Russia (watched an interview with one of them) —know that a lot of enemy planes were shot down with their help. They also know the names of our pilots who fought on the Cobra ... and so ... the cobra had 2 positive properties — decisive — it’s speed in diving (it caught up with the Germans on a steep dive) and had powerful weapons .. Of the advantages, it’s also a convenient taxiing device , radio. Convenient exit from the cab. Convenient to maintain, mechanization on true-flap electric motors was slower than on pneumatics. Shortcomings-iron in maneuverable combat at low altitudes-they were called-irons. They had such a nickname. But from a height he dived, hit and went up — this is the boom zoom of her element — as Pokryshkin wrote. The truth jumped out with a parachute waiting for a flat corkscrew, she chopped off your head. If she went into a corkscrew, then first with a screw, then she would break into a flat one. It was time to get out of the cab. It was tenacious, it’s just that you won’t fail. I don’t know about high-pressure superchargers and compressors, but the fact that she loved to show her friendship fist was not rare. The gasoline was also poured or prevented because of savings (maybe in the initial stages?) I didn’t develop full power. (The phlegmatic plane had to be heated up, I didn’t go for gas, as the pilots said) - (La5 fn already went for gas, give a pen and presses it in a chair) if it flutters, it’s briskly good power ratio ..
  19. 0
    25 October 2016 17: 04
    Americans spent about a million dollars so that astronauts could write with ballpoint pens in zero gravity. And ours just wrote with pencils.
    1. +1
      25 October 2016 19: 06
      How much can you carry this Zadornovskaya joke seriously
      http://inosmi.ru/world/20121118/202319832.html
      1. 0
        25 October 2016 23: 15
        for old horse
        This is not Zadornov's joke, it is an objective reality given to everyone in sensations.
        Long before Zadornov.
        We did this in 1981 at the seminars at Moscow Higher Technical School.
        Do not know - look for primary sources.
        Zadornov found or prompted.
        Unlike you.
        Sincerely ...
        1. 0
          26 October 2016 03: 00
          The history of the creation of the Fisher Space Pen is quite well known, it is mentioned on Wikipedia. There is a company website, you can buy it. And what stories you poisoned, it’s on the conscience of the teachers ...
        2. 0
          26 October 2016 03: 18
          And the fact that I will not spoil the Zazhornovskaya bike, it’s simply better known in its performance.
        3. 2ez
          +2
          26 October 2016 13: 49
          On the subject: Mikhail Zadornov studied at MAI! And, I hope, they explained not only why the planes fly, but they don't flap their wings. / From M. Zadoronov /
          1. 0
            15 July 2017 18: 20
            in fact, only a little small wave! laughing
  20. +1
    25 October 2016 20: 15
    Quote: Monarchist
    I read somewhere that the specialists of the Bell firm took into account the most typical shortcomings and released a modification of the "king cobra" adapted to Russian conditions, but a small number of it were released in the summer of 1944

    These really irons dragged into the Union about 2000 pieces. They did not take part in battles at the front. They were armed with air defense regiments in the rear areas. According to the feedback of the pilots flying them and having real combat experience on the same Cobras, engaging in it in a maneuvering battle with the Germans would be suicide. Actually, that's why they remained in the air defense, by the way, until the end of the 40s.
  21. +1
    25 October 2016 20: 37
    I read the article, agree with something, disagree with something, but I strongly disagree with the comments about Western pilots. For some reason, everyone forgets that these were young guys of 18-20 years old who fought for their country and fought they are not worse than our Soviet pilots. One battle for Britain is worth something. And about the additions, read Sokolov's book "Falcons Washed in Blood" everything is clearly written there. In particular, what was attributed to everything, and not always by malicious intent, and therefore - that in battle there was no time to look, I didn’t knock it down, but we must look behind our tail, otherwise they will cut it down.
  22. +4
    26 October 2016 05: 31
    Quote: Hupfri
    Hapfrey - indicate the source

    The study of historical and military technical literature for 30 years.

    your "knowledge" makes you doubt it. Statements from the fact that the T-54 was copied from the panther, about the 200 hours of the German graduate's flight (already in the 44th the German graduate's flight time was only 2 takeoffs, 2 landings and a flight between 2 airfields), about the loss of the German aircrew and "other corpses were thrown over" make you think that by "sources" you mean any yellow "revealing" literature.
  23. +1
    26 October 2016 06: 22
    He just had to be taught to fly and fight in our way. I think they taught. "
    Who said that the car cannot. And does not want to work for us ?!
    The main meaning of the article and our Grandfathers and Great-Grandfathers - GOOD FELLOWS and HEROES.
  24. 0
    26 October 2016 10: 51
    the aircobra was inferior to the F-109 to 160 km / h. even Pokryshkin shot down the F-109 a little.
    Pokryshkin came up with how to defend against the F-109.
    the genius of the Red Army in using the "aircobra" according to its capabilities. namely, the protection of low-speed IL-2 or the protection of the territory (for example, a crossing)
    in these cases the Germans themselves attacked the Aircobras and suffered heavy losses.
    just as the Germans themselves climbed the Allied bombers and also suffered losses.
    but they hunted for the German asss on yaks and lags.
    the Allies sent us almost all types of their aircraft, but in small batches, as they say for testing.
  25. +1
    26 October 2016 11: 28
    Quote: yegor rustic
    the aircobra was inferior to the F-109 to 160 km / h. even Pokryshkin shot down the F-109 a little.
    Pokryshkin came up with how to defend against the F-109.
    the genius of the Red Army in using the "aircobra" according to its capabilities. namely, the protection of low-speed IL-2 or the protection of the territory (for example, a crossing)
    in these cases the Germans themselves attacked the Aircobras and suffered heavy losses.
    just as the Germans themselves climbed the Allied bombers and also suffered losses.
    but they hunted for the German asss on yaks and lags.
    the Allies sent us almost all types of their aircraft, but in small batches, as they say for testing.
    Cobras were not used just to accompany silts, since at low altitudes it is an "iron". The speed of the cobra is quite decent, it was inferior to the Messers by 70-80 km / h of maximum speed, but the battles still take place at lower speeds, in addition, the cobra was excellently gaining speed in diving from a height. Cobras were used to achieve superiority in the sky at or at worst, accompanied by bombers.
  26. +1
    26 October 2016 17: 40
    "True, in 1943 the British sent us" Spitfires "
    but it was too late. "////

    The Americans offered the USSR and the best they had: Thunderbolt,
    but the Russians refused. They required a completely different piloting technique.
    and other tactics of application. Even test pilots hardly retrained.
    And among the Americans, it was one of the main heavy fighters.
    1. 0
      26 October 2016 20: 45
      I read something like that from one of our pilots who flew on Thunderbolts.
      The overall impression is "This is not a fighter". Yes, it flies quickly, and the weapons are powerful, but not a fighter, at least as applied to the realities of our front.
      Put them, or Cobra in cover for IL-2, so they themselves still need to be covered :)
      Not for our front plane. By the way, they were put by the Americans in the region of hundreds. Just like Kingcobra was pushed into the air defense.
      1. 0
        26 October 2016 20: 54
        This review is Mark Gallay
    2. 0
      29 October 2016 01: 51
      They correctly refused, because it is a heavy fighter for escorting long-range bombers, and not for air battles near the ground. Such machines, equipped with decent navigation equipment, could be useful in the North in the aviation of the Northern Fleet.
      1. 0
        13 December 2016 01: 56
        As for the "heavy fighter", it is rather an iron for escorting heavy weights and scaring away lonely Germans who have managed to get to the formation of bombers. I don’t want to debate, just find and read the memoirs of American pilots who switched from "Thunder" to "Mustangs". There, several regiments were re-equipped in this way, as they were saturated with equipment. Plus, they managed to make a non-armored attack aircraft out of this coffin - this is the question of a "good high-altitude fighter". And the "number" of victories speaks for itself.
        And Hapfrey, with his bloopers, was already tired. I especially liked the quote about the fact that Westerners began ground operations in Europe in the second half of 1944. He laughed with a man who supposedly studied literature for 30 years.
  27. 0
    27 October 2016 11: 02
    Good to all!
    Yesterday I updated my knowledge on the history of "Cobra" and reached your comments, many interesting questions arose, can anyone enlighten?
    1. "The first victories over the Japanese <Aircobra."
    won on April 30, 1942, when 13 P-39O 35th
    and 36th of the 8th YAG flew to attack the airfield
    Barking. After a successful attack on the move away from the target
    they met a group of 15 Japanese fighters.
    According to the report of the leader, lieutenant colonel
    Boyd D. Wagner, as a result of air combat
    shot down four, zero. at the cost of the loss of three <cobr.,
    and he himself claimed three victories Zb. American
    the pilots fought very competently,
    at low altitude, where <cobra. had clear advantages,
    a .zero>, the best Japanese fighter
    of that time, they were losing
    . "??? !!!
    2. "According to American data,
    different routes another 58 R-39M-1. However traces of these
    aircraft have not yet been discovered not only in the ferry
    parts, but also in the documents of the regiments of the current
    army "... ??? Where could they go?
    This is all from the book:
  28. 0
    29 October 2016 01: 48
    Backward American equipment and friendly Soviet team!
    1. 0
      31 October 2016 15: 58
      Only the stubborn can argue with the second.
  29. +2
    24 January 2017 16: 23
    But the fact is that Aerocobra really came to us for a reason and not because of the kindness of the sincere good English and Americans. Those just acted on the principle of "give to others (in the Russian sense), God, that you are worthless." And the Cobra is no exception.


    Hurricane is bad for him - that Lugg-3 was handsome? No wonder his pilots called the iron.
    What A-20 is also rubbish? B-25 Mitchell is also rubbish? Well, apparently the Pe-2 for the author is the standard of a bomber?
    Flying boats like catalina junk? Apparently MBR-2 is good for the author?
    The author somehow easily draws the line under all avia-lend-lease - that from the first phrases you begin to doubt his competence.
    1. 0
      21 February 2017 12: 14
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      Hurricane is bad for him -

      The fighter of 1935, by 1941 it was very outdated. And our aircraft engineers carried out their own modernization: they replaced the armored back of the pilot's seat with LaGG-3, I-16. 7,62-mm Browning on 12,7 UBC, put paired ShVAK. The approach is the same as for Cobra. It was not possible to choose, it was necessary to fight.
  30. 0
    21 February 2017 11: 44
    Thanks, Roman. Great article.
  31. 0
    13 July 2017 15: 45
    Quote: Alf
    In what MARINE battles did the Cobra participate, if it is a US Army aircraft?

    Kamrad probably meant the battles that took place in the battle at the Pacific Theater of War. R-39, as you know, quite widely fought in New Guinea.
  32. 0
    13 July 2017 16: 06
    Quote: Yegor village
    so it was with the "aerocobra". in the Red Army they found a niche - a slow-moving fighter.

    I do not quite agree with you! The “slow-moving” aerial cobras were certainly not. In maximum speeds, the versions (L, M, N) were even slightly superior to the mass Yak-9 and La-5. Well, the P-39Q was already significantly faster than the same Yak-9 and approximately comparable to the La-5FN.
  33. -1
    April 4 2018 16: 05
    Quote: Hupfri

    Our studies were notable. 10 hours flight time. There were even 2 hours of flight. There were releases of pilots in the summer on Po-2. Or even with a theoretical fighter pilot course

    Most surprisingly, there were not enough cadet pilots. There were more than necessary. Not enough resources needed gliders, engines, fuel. And then the pilots studied for years, many did not even get to the war at all. remember the memoirs of Soviet aces - they all started by scribbling dozens of reports. Here's a great example: Kozhedub graduated from the Chuguev Flight School in 1940, joined the Red Army the same year, ended up in the active flight at the end of 42, and only got to the front near Kursk. Nifiga own way in 3 years, right? He was not the only one, tens of thousands of pilots stuck out on spare and training units for YEARS, while still not having a raid.
  34. -1
    April 4 2018 16: 11
    Quote: DimerVladimer


    Hurricane is bad for him - that Lugg-3 was handsome? No wonder his pilots called the iron.
    What A-20 is also rubbish? B-25 Mitchell is also rubbish? Well, apparently the Pe-2 for the author is the standard of a bomber?
    Flying boats like catalina junk? Apparently MBR-2 is good for the author?
    The author somehow easily draws the line under all avia-lend-lease - that from the first phrases you begin to doubt his competence.

    No one doubts his competence - an ordinary cotton-cheered patriot.
    The aerocobra, by the way, was a balanced aircraft and began to fall into a tailspin only in the USSR, because in order to increase the rate of climb (the aircraft was quite heavy by Soviet standards), in the flight units they began to massively dismantle the armor protection of the hood, auxiliary equipment, sometimes taking off some of the weapons. In total, about 250+ kg were removed from the nose, even if the balancing were not violated. So the stories about canisters with lead - even that nonsense, would you like to - returned the reservation back.
  35. -2
    April 6 2021 02: 41
    What a disgusting thing for free to take P-39s, to fight with them with pleasure [the pilots loved them and complemented the best units with them], and then, as a gratitude, write about the allies "on you, God, that doesn't suit me."