Military Review

Failed Soviet aircraft carriers: the development of the project 72

165
With the beginning of the Great Patriotic War in the Soviet Union, all the work of naval research and design institutions that were not related to the direct support of military operations was stopped. fleet. Work on the light aircraft carrier of project 71 stopped even earlier - in early 1940. However, the very idea of ​​strengthening the Soviet fleet with an aircraft carrier was not forgotten ...


In 1944, the People's Commissariat of the shipbuilding industry prepared a voluminous summary report of a group of shipbuilding engineers seconded to the United States. This document described in detail the ship design system and the specifics of the organization of the American shipbuilding industry - up to the shipyard personnel policy. Among other appendices to the report, there was an 55-page "Description of an escort aircraft carrier and amphibious vehicles." In addition, 25 in March 1944, Chief of the Navy's 1 Division, Naval Engineer, 2-rank, Kotov, sent a copy of the information about the aircraft carriers under construction for the British fleet to TsKB-17 and the Navy Scientific and Technical Committee.

But still information about the design and technology of construction of aircraft carriers was extremely stingy. So, in response to a request made by the Shipbuilding Directorate in May 1944 to the Intelligence Directorate of the Main Naval Staff for any materials on the aircraft carrier subject, they were only able to send the brochure “US Escort Aircraft Carriers”.

Project Kostromitinov

When the war danger receded a bit, it was time to think about the further development of the fleet, and work on aircraft carrier design resumed. In 1943, the Naval Academy, evacuated from Leningrad to Samarkand, began a large study called "Development trends of the warship." Its sixth section, completed by 1944, was dedicated to aircraft carriers. Such prominent scholars as Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Technical Sciences, Engineer Rear Admiral PF Papkovich, Professor Engineer Vice-Admiral A.P. Shershov, as well as Engineer 2- go rank N. A. Zalessky.


The pillars of the Soviet shipbuilding. Right in the first row is Professor A.P. Shershov, Head of the Department of Naval Architecture at the Naval Academy, I. Zalessky in the center in the second row, Academician A. N. Krylov in the first row in the center.

The work was carried out taking into account the available data on the British and American aircraft carriers and their combat use, as well as the report of a group of Soviet specialists who visited the German aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin before the war.

As part of the study, an aircraft carrier training project was also developed, which at the same time became the graduate work of one of the students of the shipbuilding department of the Academy - senior technician-lieutenant Kostromitinov (unfortunately, there is no other information about it). The technical and tactical task for the project was issued by the Doctor of Naval Sciences, Professor of the Academy, Vice Admiral L. G. Goncharov, who also became the head of the diploma.

In general, the Kostromitinov project was a further development of the 71 project: the ship had a very similar architecture, but much larger sizes: 40 800 t standard and 51 200 t full displacement at maximum speed 32 node. Graf Zeppelin obviously had a significant influence on the project, about which the Academy had sufficiently detailed information. This influence can be clearly seen in the placement of chimneys (reduced to one large pipe that goes through the central superstructure), but the main thing is in the composition and location of the artillery.

The ship was to be armed with sixteen 152-mm guns placed in eight (!) Paired casemate installations. Recall that this is how 150-mm artillery was placed on the Zeppelin, which sharply distinguished it from other pre-war aircraft carriers. In the 20-e, French “Bearn” (155 mm), Japanese “Akagi” and “Kaga” (203 mm) were equipped with casemate tools, but everywhere the gun mounts were single. Moreover, since the 30-s of non-zenith caliber artillery carriers have ceased to be equipped (Germany was the last in this regard). This is partly due to the fact that the "Graf Zeppelin", like other German cruisers and battleships, was supposed to be used also for single cruising operations, when medium-caliber artillery could be relevant.


German aircraft carrier "Count Zeppelin".
Platonov A.V. Frustrated carrier states


Kostromitinov’s universal caliber of the aircraft carrier also looked original: six paired and four built 100-mm units. The ship had two separate fire control systems: for 152-mm and for universal artillery. The huge size of the ship allowed to place on it a two-tier hangar and an air group of 106 aircraft: 66 fighters and 40 torpedo bombers. More 8 bombers and 14 fighters were supposed to be stored unassembled - the ship was clearly intended for long-range raids. About the same spoke and fuel supply - 8000 miles on 18 nodes. The stock of aviation fuel was calculated on the 22 departure of each fighter and on the 5 departures of each bomber — that is, the air defense functions for the ship were considered more important than the impact ones. The length of the flight deck was 300 m, width - 35 m.

Like the Count Zeppelin, the aircraft and conning tower of the Soviet aircraft carrier were protected by 100-mm armor, common to heavy cruisers of that time. Traverse thickness was 130 mm. But the horizontal protection was much more powerful and was close to the protection of the then battleships: 130 mm - armored, 50 mm - flight deck. This was to reliably protect the ship from 100-kg and 250-kg bombs. The sides of the hangar, which was 178 m long, was covered with 40-mm armor.

The powerful booking of the flight deck was a clear consequence of the English experience: it was not booked on American ships; on the “Zeppelin Count”, the flight deck was only in 20 mm.


Project aircraft carrier Kostromitinov.
Platonov A.V. Frustrated carrier states

Nobody was going to build a ship on this project - it is interesting, first of all, as an illustration of the ideas of the Soviet naval theorists of that time about what an aircraft carrier should be. But part of the ideas embodied in the Kostromitinov project were embodied in further developments.

The first studies of a large aircraft carrier

As early as January 1943, the Main Naval Headquarters issued preliminary operational tactical tasks (OTZ) for the design of large ships of various classes, including aircraft carriers. The task was approved on January 14, and the project immediately received the number 72, although in the militaryhistorical It is generally accepted in literature that this designation appeared only in the next year. On March 3, 1943, OTZ was sent to TsKB-4, which was engaged in the design of large military and civilian ships (in particular, battleships of the Soviet Union type, icebreakers Lenin and I. Stalin).

The main purpose of the aircraft carrier was to escort the maneuver formations operating in the open sea and off the coast of the enemy, providing it aviation support, as well as conducting independent air operations, “when the attached maneuvering connection only performs the task of covering aircraft carriers”.

The aircraft carrier was supposed to have a maximum travel speed in 30 units and the reservation of engine rooms, cellars and hangar, protecting against 130-mm destroyer shells at a distance of more than 60 cab. The flight deck was supposed to protect from the same projectiles at a distance of less than 140 cab (which in the case of destroyer fire was clearly redundant - they did not shoot from this distance). The ships were supposed to be armed only with universal and anti-aircraft artillery, with a large range of calibers: eight to twelve paired 130-mm units B-2U; Sixteen single 85-mm installations 90-K; twelve 37-mm automata and 24 paired automata with 20 – 23 caliber mm. It was proposed to consider options with different numbers of air groups: 30, 45 and 60 aircraft.

The task was handled by the Leningrad TsKB-17 (former TsKBS-1) evacuated to Kazan and TsNII-45, the leading research center in the People's Commissariat of the shipbuilding industry, established on the basis of the famous Experimental Basin (now the Krylov Research Institute). ). ZNII-45 itself, meanwhile, continued to work on the 71-B project, with characteristics very close to the 72 project: standard displacement - 24 000 t, full - 30 600 t, speed - 31,5 node).

In addition, other organizations were also actively engaged in aircraft carriers: for example, in March 1944, the Leningrad Plant No. 189 proposed to complete the heavy cruiser Petropavlovsk (the former German Lutzov, bought before the war), making it an aircraft carrier on 40 aircraft.

Even in 1943, during preliminary studies of the HTA for the 72 project, it became clear that with the dimensions specified in it (fighters - 11 × 7 × 3 m, torpedo bombers - 17 × 12 × 4,5 m with folded wings) to accommodate thirty aircraft, an area of ​​about X X would be required sq. Taking into account the area under the elevators and the fill factor of the 1600% hangar with a width of 50 m, its length should have been 20 – 160 m, which is the limit possible on a ship of length 170 – 225 m. Therefore, it would be advisable to make the hangar a two-tiered - then the height both hangars would be 250 – 11 m, which is quite acceptable for a ship of this size, although it increases its vulnerability due to the greater height of the board. However, in this case, the optimal capacity of the ship would be either 12 or 30 aircraft, but it was unprofitable to place 60 aircraft on it.

There were problems with the deployment of universal artillery. It could be placed either on the flight deck in front of and behind the “island”, or in sponsors on both sides - so that the roof of the tower was flush with the deck. However, the twinned 130-mm B-2U projected tower had a lower supply of ammunition and a developed turret section, which rotated with the tower, so it could not fit on the sponson. The installation of such towers on the deck along with the “island” entailed the placement of cellars under them, which lengthened the citadel and led to an additional load on the already overloaded starboard (recall that on the 71 ship for equilibrium it was necessary to strengthen the left side armor ).

CCB-17 offers options

Since there were problems with the B-2U installations, in its report for the Shipbuilding Department from 26 in January 1944, TsKB-17 proposed using 130-mm deck-tower installations, placing them on sponsors on both sides. These installations were noticeably lighter, although they demanded manual delivery of ammunition from the cellars in the distance. But for a given length of the ship along both sides, without any problems, it was possible to place all twelve paired 130-mm units that were required according to HTA. TsKB-17 offered to develop three versions of the 71 project:

“1. A large aircraft carrier on 60 aircraft with the placement of eight X-NUMX-mm B-130U tower installations on one side.

2. A large aircraft carrier on 60 aircraft with accommodation of twelve 130-mm deck-tower installations symmetrically on sponsors on both sides.

3. A small aircraft carrier on 30 aircraft with eight 130-mm deck-tower installations symmetrically on sponsors on both sides. "


In turn, TsKB-17 requested technical assignments for the communications and fire control systems from the Shipbuilding Authority, “as there is no indication of this indication from the HSS.” This request was repeated in February. In response, 26, February, the chief of the 1 division of the Navy CC, engineer-captain of the 2 rank Kotov, said that in early March a deputy chief aircraft designer for the aircraft carrier and representatives of the Navy Commissariat would be sent to Kazan to work out a number of issues. In addition, Kotov wrote that the requirements for fire control devices are being worked out at the Navy Artillery Directorate and will be communicated additionally (they came from the Naval Artillery Marine Research Institute (ANIMI) of the Navy in March 13).

February 25 Kotov sent to Kazan clarified requirements for the 72 project. The purpose of the aircraft carrier was defined as follows: "Operational and tactical support of all types of maneuverable compounds operating at sea and off the coast of the enemy, as well as independent actions of aviation in case the maneuver connection covers aircraft carrier operations." It is noteworthy that the last word is in the plural - that is, it was assumed the serial construction of aircraft carriers.

The ship’s artillery was to be used to repel enemy attacks and light enemy forces: destroyers and torpedo boats. Therefore, in any version of the aircraft carrier had to have at least eight paired X-NUMX-mm units of the B-130U (twelve - for the version on the 2 aircraft). 60-mm installations could be paired, 85-mm automata were also assumed to be paired - that is, the number of trunks doubled. In addition, the hangar was no longer required to protect from 37-mm projectiles. The remaining requirements remained unchanged from January 130. Particularly stipulated that on the wave to 1943 points roll of the ship should not have complicated the takeoff and landing of aircraft. Interestingly, until May 9, the Shipbuilding Department continued to insist on working out an intermediate option - an aircraft carrier on 1944 aircraft.

Gunners and pilots are involved in the work.

13 March The ANIMI Navy provided a brief description of the fire control devices for the 72 project, but did not send the requested fire control system circuit from it. Meanwhile, it was necessary for the design of the most important element of the ship - the superstructure, the “island. Therefore, TsKB-17 informed the Shipbuilding Department that it would develop such a scheme independently, at its discretion. A detailed diagram of the fire control system with the placement of devices and their weight distribution was received from ANIMI only 20 June. The total weight of all fire control systems (along with cables) was 240 T, personnel - 10 officers, 17 foremen and 101 navy men.

On March 31, the head of the Shipbuilding Directorate, Vice-Admiral N. V. Isachenkov, sent a request to the Main Directorate of the Air Force of the Fleet about the final dimensions of the deck aircraft in unfolded and folded form, which need to be laid in the project. He reported that with the dimensions specified in the HTA from 14 January 1943, the standard displacement of a large aircraft carrier is 29 500 t, small one - 22 000 t, flight deck length - 273 and 240 m, respectively.


Head of the Shipbuilding Department, Vice-Admiral N. V. Isachenkov, Engineer. Photos from the family archive, 1964 year

For inclusion in the HTA, it was required to report the main characteristics of catapults, elevators, aerofinishers and other special devices, mechanisms for loading and unloading aircraft, as well as aircraft maintenance posts. Finally, it was necessary to know the aircraft storage parameters in the hangars and the methods of their attachment, the technology and places for preparing the aircraft for departure, the characteristics and features of the take-off and landing parts of the flight deck, the characteristics of the storage of jet fuel and the ways of its supply to the machines, the equipment of the ship by pilots and aircraft maintenance personnel . Isachenkov recalled that "the aircraft carrier's pre-draft design will be completed in April, and submitted in May to the Navy NK, so the data are needed no later than April 15."

The problem was that naval aircraft designers had no experience in designing and using aircraft carriers and had absolutely no idea where to get all this information. Data on aircraft carrier aircraft, its features and methods of use were literally worth its weight in gold. More 8 February 1944, the specialists of the Main Directorate of the Air Force of the Navy appealed to the Shipbuilding Department with a request to transfer for temporary use the reporting materials on the experimental bombing of the ship’s compartment under the code "Sukhogruz". It was necessary to determine the effectiveness of the use of bombs. In response to this, 24 in February, the head of the department said that these materials are only in one copy and can only be provided for work in the department itself, suggesting that the “aviators” send specific individuals who will deal with this.

7 April The Navy Main Directorate reported that the requested materials on the size of deck aircraft and flight equipment parameters can be provided only by June 1:

“The design of the deck fighter has not yet begun, since the People's Commissariat of the Aviation Industry NKAP does not have free design capacity. The draft design of the PT-M72 deck torpedo carrier is currently being considered by the NCAP expert committee, after which it will be submitted for approval to the NKVMF ”.

At the same time, the design of the deck fighter did not even begin. The development of tactical and technical requirements for catapults, elevators and aerofinishers was hampered due to lack of experience. All the few specialists in naval aviation at that moment were in the Black Sea Fleet and were engaged in experiments to launch the Spitfire ejection fighter from the Molotov cruiser.
On April 10, the Deputy Chief Engineer of the Air Forces of the Navy, Major General Prussakov sent to the Shipbuilding Directorate a draft tactical and technical requirements for the Yak-9K ship fighter. At the same time, he offered a deck with airplanes and blow the “island” on a ship model at TsAGI. 15 May in the Shipbuilding Directorate, it was decided to purge the model only on the basis of readiness of the draft design with precisely defined placement of weapons.

The ship's plane was put into the plan of an experienced aircraft building for the 1944 year, it was engaged in plant number 458. His appointment was defined as a single air defense fighter for the ships of the fleet. It follows from Prussakov’s requirements that the Yak-9K was initially considered as a catapult fighter for cruisers (instead of the proposed Spitfire), therefore it was expected to land on the coastal airfields, without using a landing hook.


The Yak-9K fighter is on trial at the Air Force Research Institute, the start of the 1944 of the year. Apparently, it was he who was originally designed to arm cruisers and aircraft carriers, and the letter K in the index meant not “large-caliber” but “catapult”.

Add that already 16 June 5-e Head Office of the People's Commissariat of the shipbuilding industry reported Kotov that the development of fighters and torpedo bombers are carried out by plants No. 458 and No. 477 by the People's Commissariat of the aviation industry, but the state of work is unknown, and all requests from shipbuilders remain unanswered. Management has asked whether these developments are conducted only for the aircraft carrier or for some other purposes. In the first case, it offered to give instructions to the factories to send to the address of TsKB-17 the requested data. As can be seen, coordination between the shipbuilding and aircraft building departments remained unsatisfactory. This was particularly hard on the work on projects that lay "at the junction" of several types of troops.

To be continued.
Author:
Originator:
http://warspot.ru/8606-nesostoyavshiesya-sovetskie-avianostsy-razvitie-proekta-72
165 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Same lech
    Same lech April 16 2017 05: 41
    +7
    Thank you for the article hi ... a little lit and interesting topic.
    1. Cat
      Cat April 16 2017 07: 25
      +3
      I subscribe to your every word!
      After reading the article I received a sincere pleasure!
    2. A1845
      A1845 April 17 2017 15: 54
      +2
      Quote: The same LYOKHA
      little illuminated and interesting topic

      floating sheds did not impress the peoples father wink
      or case - pr. 82 "Stalingrad"! winked
  2. Barakuda
    Barakuda April 16 2017 07: 22
    +5
    History of domestic shipbuilding. Volume IV Shipbuilding during the first five-year plans and the Great Patriotic War. 1925-1945. - St. Petersburg: Shipbuilding, 1996.
    Platonov A.V. Failed carrier states. - St. Petersburg: Galea Print, 1999.
    Platonov A.V. Soviet battleships and aircraft carriers. - St. Petersburg, Galea Print, 2006.
    Platonov A.V. Project 72 aircraft carriers. // Gangut, No. 7 (1994).
    TsGA NTD. Fund 76, op. 21, dd. 1–13.
    CVMA Fund 13, op. 71, dd. 1144, 1168, 1169, 1264, 1284.
    Everything is there in expanded form. hi
  3. Hedgehog
    Hedgehog April 16 2017 08: 24
    +2
    20 mm ShVAK due to the design weakness of the YAK, which in fact was designed according to the principle of building planes into the 1st World War (steel tubes covered with plywood) could break off the carriage during shooting and smash the chest of the pilot by driving its breech into the cockpit — this happened — the return 20 mm ShVAK for a few tons-45 mm gun in the nose of a cardboard airplane, and even with an engine of 1300 horses, this is the pilot's dream))) - Large-caliber YAKs were not popular - and shooting from them was not convenient and dangerous
    1. Reviews
      Reviews April 16 2017 09: 56
      +4
      Quote: Igel
      20 mm ShVAK due to the weak design of the YAK, which in fact was designed according to the principle of building planes in the 1st World War (steel tubes covered with plywood) could break off the gun carriage during firing

      Like, on all-metal American aircraft, weapons were attached to the skin ... :)
      1. Hedgehog
        Hedgehog April 16 2017 10: 27
        +5
        no))) it was attached to the profile side members))) and did not hear that the artillery system r-39 from the shots came off the carriage and drove into the cockpit, but it's 37 mm !!!
        1. Reviews
          Reviews April 16 2017 10: 49
          +5
          Quote: Igel
          no))) it was attached to the profile side members)))

          Well, and why, then, the opus about the "frame with plywood"?

          and I didn’t hear that the artillery system r-39 came off the gun carriage from the shots and drove into the cockpit, but it's 37 mm !!!

          And when was this with Yak? On trials? Nude ...
          1. Hedgehog
            Hedgehog April 16 2017 11: 06
            +4
            No, it’s a fact — when shooting, there were cases of cannons being pulled off the carriage, the yak had many shortcomings - for example, when overloaded, planes could come off — too lightweight construction and not only. It is not clear how these aircraft made of plywood could go on aircraft carriers with salt water-life at the front airfields of such aircraft for 3 years and the maximum scrap is about La5-7 .. and about the plywood Yak - it’s possible and less fungus in the cavities, constant dampness and frost — which aircraft carriers when they could not even create a normal fighter and engine to it !!!?
            1. Reviews
              Reviews April 16 2017 11: 41
              +6
              Quote: Igel
              It is not clear how these aircraft made of plywood could go on aircraft carriers with salt water.

              If you personally don’t understand something, then the problem is usually not a phenomenon that you don’t understand. :) Ask the English, they will explain.
              The rest of the flow of your words is without comment.
              1. Hedgehog
                Hedgehog April 16 2017 11: 52
                +2
                I don’t know what kind of aircraft the aircraft carriers were from plywood, in the end there are neither aircraft carriers nor planes))) nor the battleships built in the post-Tsarist era
                Here's another: The first flight of the prototype took place on April 17, 1934. The aircraft was a biplane with a metal power frame covered with linen sheathing. To save space when basing on an aircraft carrier, the wings folded. The crew was located in two open cockpits: a pilot in the front and one or two members .....
                Metal power frame !!!!!!
                1. Reviews
                  Reviews April 16 2017 12: 04
                  +4
                  Quote: Igel
                  I don’t know what kind of planes on the aircraft carriers were from plywood, as a result, there are no aircraft carriers or planes)))

                  *** yawned ***
                  Well, okay, live dunno ... Have a good Sunday.
                  1. PPD
                    PPD April 16 2017 13: 07
                    +3
                    The weakness of the design of the Yak seems like news to you. Somehow, by what methods Yakovlev pushed his crafts. With its design, the Yak 9 K-at launch from a catapult, at best a one-time product, in normal practice, will fall apart at launch. Every 2 cars are for sure.
                    Keep yawning. Do not forget to cover your mouth with your hand - good-form rules oblige. bully
                    1. Reviews
                      Reviews April 16 2017 13: 13
                      +4
                      The weakness of the design of the Yak seems to you news.

                      What is news to me, you cannot know by definition. I asked exactly what I asked - where did the assurance come from that Yak had his gun loose from the mount. Dot. All. If you or your client saw something beyond this, then both of you should go to the psychiatrist to wipe the convolutions.
                      The yawning paragraph is definitely not from brain health.
                      1. Hedgehog
                        Hedgehog April 16 2017 14: 49
                        +1
                        It broke the gun, sadness, but it’s true, although I myself learned about it from historians, those who dig archives and documents for half their lives. I didn’t hear this from the pilots. Nobody! -DIDN’T WANT TO FLY ON YAK according to the words of someone who had to fly on it -WEAK POWER INSTALLATION ,, flimsy lightweight glider, weak armament, low speed in diving. Inability to fight on verticals and over 3 thousand meters-lack of compressor (boost) that our designers could not defeat, even if it is possible to study trophy compressors made this plane good t lko for one to accompany the silt who flew on it and said, this car like it was created for, to drive away from the silts enemy fighters, and he did it well because it had a good go-horizontal maneuver on the vertical for Messer meant death
                      2. PPD
                        PPD April 19 2017 21: 35
                        0
                        Quote: Avis
                        The weakness of the design of the Yak seems to you news.

                        If you or your client saw something beyond this, then both of you should go to the psychiatrist to wipe the convolutions.
                        The yawning paragraph is definitely not from brain health.


                        Dear, please use the generally accepted norms when communicating in a public place. Rude is not necessary.
                        Quote: Avis
                        What is news to me, you cannot know by definition. I asked exactly what I asked - where did the assurance come from that Yak had his gun loose from the mount. Dot. .

                        I didn’t understand what you were saying about the gun, I apologize.
                        But nevertheless, by design, the Yak 9 was completely unsuitable for the role of a carrier-based fighter. It’s not a cannon, it was not originally adapted for this. The fact that the Yak 9 to the pier is a ship, and not a large-caliber, is completely contrived. The problems of the original And 26th have not gone away.
                        Could it be brought to the right state, of course. But it would be like a new plane in which the name would probably remain from the old one. But the designers didn’t have such a task. They were ordered to think, they thought. They’re “ne AmYrYkantsy" .. They’ve finished the catapult, though under Be 2 on cruisers, but there are no air finishers. And the ship itself will either be, or not. There is no project, and jet aircraft is looming. Yak 15 is not far off, well, what a Yak 9. That's when the Aircraft Carrier was laid, then real estimates would begin. And so this is all an alternative story, nothing more.
                  2. Hedgehog
                    Hedgehog April 16 2017 14: 12
                    +1
                    above it is written about English planes. if I don’t know what, I don’t argue
                    1. Reviews
                      Reviews April 16 2017 14: 39
                      +3
                      Quote: Igel
                      above it is written about English planes. if I don’t know what, I don’t argue

                      Did you understand what you wrote? :) On both sides of your posting?
                      1. Hedgehog
                        Hedgehog April 16 2017 14: 52
                        +1
                        And once again, look at the post above, it says what the soundfishes were made of, for example. And if I don’t know what or don’t have a clue, I don’t enter into a polemic. And UC is a poor car with a poor dvigolom Spanish-Suiz and weak weapons
                2. aiw
                  aiw April 16 2017 12: 12
                  +7
                  That is the Hurricanes, including versions for basing on aircraft carriers, had a fuselage in the form of a truss from steel pipes with a sheathed fabric, with plywood frames. Looks like in England either plywood is different, or the conditions on aircraft carriers are softer ... and the cannons are pretty.
                  1. Hedgehog
                    Hedgehog April 16 2017 14: 14
                    +2
                    No, the fabric can be pulled, and for the first time I hear that the Hurricanes have marine life. I have not seen or heard such
                    Modification of Spitfire-Seefayer, yes, I know, but I didn’t hear about Hurricanes
                    1. Reviews
                      Reviews April 16 2017 14: 38
                      +8
                      Quote: Igel
                      for the first time I hear that Hurricanes have marine life. -I have not seen or heard such

                      about the Hurricanes did not hear

                      That's it, the issue has been resolved: there were no sea "harricanes", he expressed himself. Everyone goes home. :)
                      To hell with the fact that yksperd does not know about the ejection "Hurricanes", this is really not for average minds, but do not know what the aircraft carriers "Eagle", "Indomiteable" and "Victories" were armed with, it must be absolutely miserable .. .
                      1. Hedgehog
                        Hedgehog April 16 2017 14: 56
                        +1
                        The first flight of the prototype took place on April 17, 1934. The aircraft was a biplane with a metal power frame covered with linen sheathing. To save space when basing on an aircraft carrier, the wings folded. The crew was located in two open cockpits: a pilot in the front and another .....
                        I did not find there either wooden spars or cardboard-plywood sheathing .... Metal power frame ....- Curtain ....
            2. yehat
              yehat April 17 2017 10: 41
              0
              the problem was not the ability to create a normal plane, but the cash
              Yak-7u, Yak-9 was created almost completely melallic, but this was already during the war and thanks to the supply of Lend-Lease. They could have made the air group normal before. It is rather a question of setting the task and the ability to organize.
              I think the issue of deck aircraft was relatively easy to solve in a limited amount. Another thing is that the Soviet Union could not, like the United States, make hundreds of such aircraft.
              There’s just nothing. Separately, I want to say that for marine aviation there was not only not enough duralumin - electronics, communications, rubber and rubber, high-octane fuel, high-quality coatings, stainless steel, electric motors, turbochargers and much more.
              1. Reviews
                Reviews April 17 2017 11: 17
                0
                Quote: yehat

                There’s just nothing. Separately, I want to say that for marine aviation there was not only not enough duralumin - electronics, communications, rubber and rubber, high-octane fuel, high-quality coatings, stainless steel, electric motors, turbochargers and much more.

                Nevertheless, they planned to get hold of aircraft carrier aircraft by developing specialized carrier-based aircraft.
                1. yehat
                  yehat April 17 2017 11: 21
                  0
                  carrier aircraft

                  what are you talking about? About it?

                  planned

                  If it can be called planning. More reminds demagoguery.
                  It makes no sense to build aircraft carriers for an air group that does not work but survives on deck.
                  1. Reviews
                    Reviews April 17 2017 11: 40
                    0
                    Quote: yehat
                    carrier aircraft

                    what are you talking about?

                    Yes, it somehow crookedly turned out. :) I mean, aviation for aircraft carriers. Not VTOL aircraft, but classic planes with horizontal take-off and landing.

                    If it can be called planning. More reminds demagoguery.

                    Is the stormtrooper built and almost ready for the series a demagoguery? What is “real business” for you, then?
                    I did not understand the rest.
                    1. yehat
                      yehat April 17 2017 11: 50
                      0
                      attack aircraft (IL-2T) a priori a very narrow niche of naval aviation.
                      as far back as 40, it was perfectly clear that torpedo bombers, fighters, dive bombers and reconnaissance ships should be the basis of the deck group.
                      All of them should have had flexible tactical tactics for tactics - especially a considerable range, and the attack aircraft, with all due respect to it, is very limited in use. Much better than it suits the marine version of the Sukhoi dive.
                      1. Reviews
                        Reviews April 17 2017 12: 33
                        0
                        Quote: yehat
                        attack aircraft (IL-2T)

                        What's on him?
            3. tolancop
              tolancop April 17 2017 23: 50
              0
              "... It is not clear how these aircraft made of plywood could fly on aircraft carriers with salt water then life on the front-line airfields of such aircraft for 3 years and in the wreck ..."
              Nu-nu ... For 3 years at the front airfield, the regiment commander’s plane could probably have lived if it was a small one. And the life of an ordinary pilot was clearly less. And do not confuse peacetime aircraft (which are VERY long to be written off) and wartime aircraft, which, after leaving the factory, do not know how long they will live. Hence the reduced requirements for durability. By the way, the same picture on ammunition: I have repeatedly met references to the primitive packaging of wartime cartridges.
          2. Hedgehog
            Hedgehog April 17 2017 14: 00
            0
            I add gazka, sharply slip forward, and so abruptly that I did not have time to come to my senses, as the "Messer" already completely fills the sight ring and begins to crawl out. From surprise, I threw a long line of cannons and machine guns at him. Half-set in one queue! It was not completely remembered how many and what got into the Messer, but it seems that I killed the pilot right away. “Messer” did not catch fire, but at first he lifted his nose, then fell on the wing, twisted into a spiral and crashed into the ground. This was my first shot down.
            http://iremember.ru/memoirs/letchiki-istrebiteli/
            kozhemyako-ivan-ivanovich /
            here's how the cannon-example-read-read and marvel

            But the fun began later. A gun plate jumped off my volley and jammed my foot control. The pedals almost stopped working. I tried to push this recoil pad forward, but I need to bend harder, and the belts are not allowed. I told the presenter (I already had the transmitter), which jammed the foot control and turned around with a “bank” and flew home. I sat down normally. What happened? It turns out that the technician for arming the butt plate did not lock the nut. In flight, from a vibration, the nut turned away, but generally jumped off from firing, and here the butt plate moved out.
            this is so for example
            1. mkpda
              mkpda April 17 2017 17: 10
              +3
              This text is only about one thing - there are no trifles in aviation. The missing control and nearly lost the pilot and the plane. This case has no relation to the strength of the gun carriage and its attachment to the aircraft structure.
              1. Reviews
                Reviews April 17 2017 17: 20
                +2
                Quote: mkpda
                This case has no relation to the strength of the gun carriage and its attachment to the aircraft structure.

                Useless. It is insane.
      2. NIKNN
        NIKNN April 16 2017 18: 05
        +5
        Yak-9 with 37 mm was designated Yak-9T, in the picture Yak-9K. (45mm gun) Only there too (the article states that the Index "K" was supposed to be used as a "ship" and not as "Large-caliber", about there was no alleged modification of speech in the article ...., I don’t see any reason to fantasize ..., "ship" could have any weapons, with very strong imagination up to torpedoes ... :))
    2. hohol95
      hohol95 April 16 2017 13: 17
      +2
      Maybe the Yak-9T?
      In the conclusion of military tests, it was noted that:

      1) the Yak-9T aircraft is a fighter necessary for the spacecraft air force;

      2) when forming parts of fighter aviation, it is advisable to make the regiments mixed, comprising 30 ... 50% of Yak aircraft with conventional weapons and 70 ... 50% of aircraft with a 37 mm gun;

      3) it is advisable to use Yak-9T aircraft to equip units with flight personnel that are well versed in aerial shooting. A pilot flying a Yak-9T must be a kind of air sniper and be able to hit the enemy for sure - from the first shot.
      1. Hedgehog
        Hedgehog April 16 2017 14: 16
        0
        The tank YAK didn’t justify itself - when shooting at targets, the percentage of hits was awful and everyone was asked whether you flew on YAKs with guns 37-45, almost all answered no, I didn’t fly. I was able to get a verbatim interview with only one pilot who flew on this and then not for long. We did not like them in the shelves, the threshing floor dull and not the plane.
        1. aiw
          aiw April 16 2017 16: 08
          +2
          I’ll tell you more, the German versions of the cannon anti-tank attack aircraft didn’t work either - the caliber is large, the rate of fire is low, and you’ll get the hell out of it. And no one else at that time of such experiments and did not put EMNIP, cost 20 mm guns.

          But this is not due to the strength of the structure in the first place, but with a low probability of falling out of such a fool on the fly.
          1. Hedgehog
            Hedgehog April 16 2017 22: 36
            +1
            Yu-87 was armed with a hefty fluff - they pounded a bunch of our tanks with them - it was on the external suspension from below between bast shoes
            1. aiw
              aiw April 16 2017 23: 06
              +3
              The time has come for afigitious stories ... Have you never learned how to use a search engine before posting your nonsense?

              "statements by German pilots about the destruction of a large number of Soviet tanks, as well as other ground targets, were usually not confirmed by anything other than their own words. On most planes, film guns were missing, and if there were, they recorded not so much the result of the action as the hit shells into the tank.As expected, the real losses of Soviet tankers from bombs and artillery fire of German aircraft actually turned out to be much more modest than is reflected in the reports of German pilots.

              Thus, according to the headquarters of the Soviet 1st Tank Army of the Voronezh Front, against which anti-tank squadrons of Henschel from FuPz were operating, the combat irretrievable losses in T-34 tanks from the effects of aviation as a whole during the period from July 5 to July 20, 1943 amounted to only 7 cars, or 1,6% of all losses of the thirty-four.
              ...
              The situation in the dive squadrons is clearly characterized by the recognition of StG2 commander Oberst Lieutenant E. Kupfer, who wrote: “Ju-87 can no longer be used on any front, even in the East. For example, my squadron lost 89 crews in eight months. In terms of this corresponds to a year. A 100% renewal of the flight crew. If this continues for another year, the result will be the complete end of the assault units ... I have a squadron with one aircraft in service. "

              http://www.airwar.ru/enc/bww2/ju87g.html
            2. yehat
              yehat April 17 2017 12: 00
              +1
              I want to add to the above lgel and aiw
              Firstly, what is this modification of ju87 with a gun in the middle?
              was ju-87 with 2 guns in its wings. was hs-129 with a gun in the middle, was me-110 in the assault version.
              secondly, the effect of the German attack aircraft was, but rather episodic.
              their biggest success is the raid of 3 air regiments on the tank army near Kursk, when it was advanced to the front. About 40% of tanks were disabled (disputed figures).
              Finally, against the KV, KV-85, IS, ISU-152 tanks, air guns were already ineffective.
              1. Reviews
                Reviews April 17 2017 12: 41
                +1
                Quote: yehat

                What is this modification of ju87 with a gun in the middle?

                This is his hallucinogenic delirium. Orderlies do not always have time to inject a dose of sedative. Malcheg just had seen enough of sidewalls in the “Murzilka” (there’s not enough neuron for more). And on them, indeed, it seems that the gun is one and it is located "between the bast shoes."
                1. yehat
                  yehat April 17 2017 12: 50
                  0
                  the Germans really created such a suspension by the piece, but I don’t remember something of its use at the front, especially the mass one. Even thing G was rare.
                  1. Hedgehog
                    Hedgehog April 17 2017 14: 20
                    0
                    they used and built up quite a few tanks in such a modification — I won’t say how many people have it there, but they created problems for ours from the age of 43, then they began to experiment with guns 37-45, but they put few in part. According to the veteran it was hard to get from them, they even received a pilot that he taught how to shoot at targets like Tank
                    1. yehat
                      yehat April 17 2017 15: 27
                      +1
                      you can ask what kind of mythical modification was?
                      And why, if a piece laid a 500 kg bomb with an accuracy of 5 meters, just turning the tank over, even if it didn’t hit?
        2. hohol95
          hohol95 April 16 2017 22: 25
          +1
          The Yak-9T began to be operated in early 1943. Since the end of this year, it has been successfully used to combat enemy ships in the Black Sea.
          He LIKE naval pilots! It was necessary to be able to fly!
          Prior to this, the FW-190 aircraft, having rather strong weapons, eagerly went on the attack at oncoming courses in air battles with the Yak-1. After the appearance of the Yak-9T, they began to avoid frontal attacks of the Yak aircraft.
          1. Hedgehog
            Hedgehog April 16 2017 22: 40
            0
            naval regiments may have flown — I don’t argue — but I didn’t hear about positive ratings; I couldn’t beat on the ships; maybe I don’t argue but not for air battles. I didn’t like the plane because more than 1-2 shells you won’t let go. strong gunpowder gases burst into the cockpit — nothing was visible, the plane literally stopped from a salvo — and there was a high probability of structural destruction from the impact of a shot on a glider — this is from the words of the pilots who flew at them. Particularly disturbed was the fact that after the volley the pickup was severely lost and the powder gases in the cockpit
            1. Parabelum
              Parabelum April 17 2017 10: 37
              +3
              But how did our pilots fight, then? Now it wedges, then the cannon flies out, everything falls apart and the spars of their wrong system. For example:
              Fedorov, Ivan Vasilievich (1920-2000) - military pilot, participant in the Great Patriotic War, squadron commander of the 812th fighter aviation regiment of the 265th fighter aviation division of the 3rd fighter aviation corps of the 1st air army. Major General Aviation. The hero of the USSR.
              He flew on Yaks of various modifications Yak-1, Yak-1B, Yak-7 (Yak-7, Yak-7B), Yak-9 (Yak-9R, Yak-9D, Yak-9T, Yak-9K), Yak-3 .
              “On August 16, 1944, during a reconnaissance flight in Lithuania, near the Nemokšty airfield, after the damage to the wingman’s plane, he was alone against 12 Fw-190. Having covered the wingman’s withdrawal, Fedorov led the enemy’s planes behind him. The enemy tried to land the Yak-9R, but, knocking out one Fokke-Wulf, Fedorov managed to break free and returned unscathed to his airfield. " It’s strange, and the plane didn’t fall apart and the gun didn’t fly anywhere ... "miscalculations", they probably lie award sheets
              1. yehat
                yehat April 17 2017 11: 29
                0
                FV-190 was very different! And much depends on the position in the battle.
                if he met 12 a4 ... a8 models, he would hardly return home
                but against the not very agile FW-190g or F, the Yak could have come out without weapons.
                1. Parabelum
                  Parabelum April 17 2017 11: 59
                  +1
                  This is one example, on the other hand, the plane is not so bad as it is presented here, if allowed to leave the battle with 12 fighters.
                  1. yehat
                    yehat April 17 2017 12: 04
                    +1
                    formally fighter jets. 95 percent that they were FW-190F attack aircraft or FW-190G fighter-bomber.
                    Chasing after yak is more expensive for them.
        3. yehat
          yehat April 17 2017 11: 25
          0
          Well, I do not quite agree with you!
          The Yak-9t loved a number of pilots, especially when they succeeded in intercepting bombers.
          I remember talking about the fact that the Yak-9t near Stalingrad proved to be sane in the air.
          But he was suited for the attack so-so - neither protection, nor adequate speed.
          1. mkpda
            mkpda April 17 2017 17: 18
            0
            If I remember correctly, the Yak-9T, according to the results of the battles near Stalingrad, was recommended to be used to combat enemy bombers and to hunt for locomotives. For fights with enemy fighters, they were poorly suited.
            1. Hedgehog
              Hedgehog April 17 2017 18: 25
              0
              The development of the 11P-37 gun was begun in 1941 by a group of engineers led by A.E. Nudelman and A.S. Suranov. Ground tests were very successful and ended in August 1942. The cannon also withstood military tests on LaGG-Z aircraft in April-May 1943, after which it was finally put into service. The full test gun passed by April 43, which is Stalingrad
              1. mkpda
                mkpda April 17 2017 18: 57
                0
                Sh-37 gun, not NS-37.
    3. avaks111
      avaks111 April 16 2017 15: 46
      0
      As for unpopularity, did you interrogate those who fought on the Yak-9K?
  4. andrewkor
    andrewkor April 16 2017 09: 36
    +2
    Quote: Igel
    20 mm ShVAK due to the design weakness of the YAK, which in fact was designed according to the principle of building planes into the 1st World War (steel tubes covered with plywood) could break off the carriage during shooting and smash the chest of the pilot by driving its breech into the cockpit — this happened — the return 20 mm ShVAK for a few tons-45 mm gun in the nose of a cardboard airplane, and even with an engine of 1300 horses, this is the pilot's dream))) - Large-caliber YAKs were not popular - and shooting from them was not convenient and dangerous

    Maybe you confused ShVAK -20 with VYA-23? But it was only placed on the IL-2 just because of the strong recoil. I don’t understand: how did the IL-2 wing withstand the return of the VYA-23 gun and the M-105 engine could not withstand? And the 37mm, 45mm guns, which is weaker than the Vy -23? Enlighten who is in the know !!!
    1. Hedgehog
      Hedgehog April 16 2017 10: 33
      0
      The V-23s were not placed on the YAK - after reading a bunch of information and stories from the pilots, I only read about Yak with a 37 mm cannon; there are restrictions on the shooting of 1-2 shells, and then there are a lot of goodies, and again, only 1 pilot told me how I flew in practice YAKe ... All that I read firsthand ... About IL with their VYA-23 I don’t know about problems. That's YAKY yes. 45-37 MM The guns were set but they did not receive any development because of the poor percentage of accuracy and shooting problems.
      I don’t know whether the engine withstood the shooting or not, I know what disrupted the motor - the gun from the gun mount and drove it into the cockpit in the chest of the pilot
      1. aiw
        aiw April 16 2017 12: 14
        +4
        And what is a gun carriage? This is some new word in aircraft construction ...
        1. Hedgehog
          Hedgehog April 16 2017 14: 17
          0
          no is not a new word is your ignorance ...
          1. aiw
            aiw April 16 2017 18: 30
            +4
            Baby, the motor-gun is installed on the MOTORAMA and not on the CARRIAGE.
            1. Hedgehog
              Hedgehog April 16 2017 22: 41
              0
              the gun was in the collapse of 12v dvigla cylinders on special mounts-carriages.
              1. aiw
                aiw April 16 2017 23: 28
                +1
                That's right, baby! And how, with such a design, can the motor gun be completely ripped off the carriage if the carriage is part of this motor gun?
                1. Echo
                  Echo April 17 2017 00: 06
                  +1
                  Is the gun mounted on an engine mount? Are you out of your mind at all?
                  1. aiw
                    aiw April 17 2017 00: 09
                    +2
                    The gun is mounted on a carriage, the carriage is integrated into the motor housing, and this entire assembly is called a motor gun and is installed exactly on the engine mount.

                    I yes, and you? Do you offer to put the motor on a carriage? repeat
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                    2. The comment was deleted.
                  2. The comment was deleted.
  5. moskowit
    moskowit April 16 2017 09: 51
    0
    Thank! Extremely interesting!
  6. Nekarmadlen
    Nekarmadlen April 16 2017 10: 56
    +3
    The aircraft carrier themselves could not be built, and the captured "Count Zeppelin" was sunk for eksprementov ... ((((
    1. Hedgehog
      Hedgehog April 16 2017 11: 07
      0
      drowned the zepellin? -fun-did not know-but could save and study-if they themselves could not build a battleship or an aircraft carrier ..
      1. DimanC
        DimanC April 16 2017 17: 08
        +1
        According to the conditions of surrender of the Weimar Republic (if anyone does not know what we fought in 1941-1945), the fleet was divided by the winners and then drowned in various experiments. Ours played with the Zepellin, the Americans drowned the German cruisers during the atomic tests on the Bikini Atoll ... In general, we got this Zepellin only to drown ...
        1. Mordvin 3
          Mordvin 3 April 16 2017 17: 18
          +3
          Quote: DimanC
          Ours played with "Cepellinus",

          After raising the “Cepellin”, ours appreciated his condition, about half as much as the finished one. What for it is needed? Also, the calibers are not the same.
          1. DimanC
            DimanC April 16 2017 17: 47
            0
            Yes, he was far from complete, I agree. But as far as I remember, it was impossible to finish it, even if they wanted to
            1. Mordvin 3
              Mordvin 3 April 16 2017 18: 06
              +2
              Quote: DimanC
              it was impossible to finish, even if they wanted to

              I'm not in the know. Somehow I asked, but how was the fleet divided? They played in the storm, or in seca? laughing They replied that they pulled the names of the ships from their caps.
            2. mkpda
              mkpda April 17 2017 17: 22
              0
              More precisely, for him there were a number of critical components and there was no where to get them.
      2. Walking
        Walking April 16 2017 17: 29
        +2
        Quote: Igel
        drowned the zepellin? -fun-did not know-but could save and study-if they themselves could not build a battleship or an aircraft carrier ..


        How did you not know? You are an expert, judging by your words or as one commentator put it, which is clearly closer to the truth.
  7. Kenneth
    Kenneth April 16 2017 11: 24
    0
    Very interesting article thanks. It is a pity that our pro .... whether Cepelin
  8. irazum
    irazum April 16 2017 12: 29
    +1
    Excellent article, thank you!
  9. mar4047083
    mar4047083 April 16 2017 14: 27
    +2
    Quote: Igel
    drowned the zepellin? -fun-did not know-but could save and study-if they themselves could not build a battleship or an aircraft carrier ..

    The arrangement was with the allies. Brought into the sea and organized the raid of a whole regiment Pe-2. We couldn’t get how it happened, they finished off with torpedoes.
    1. Hedgehog
      Hedgehog April 16 2017 14: 56
      0
      Amen ... what a pity ...
  10. motorized rifle
    motorized rifle April 16 2017 14: 56
    +11
    Quote: Igel
    The V-23s were not placed on the YAK - after reading a bunch of information and stories from the pilots, I only read about Yak with a 37 mm cannon; there are restrictions on the shooting of 1-2 shells, and then there are a lot of goodies, and again, only 1 pilot told me how I flew in practice YAKe ... All that I read firsthand ... About IL with their VYA-23 I don’t know about problems. That's YAKY yes. 45-37 MM The guns were set but they did not receive any development because of the poor percentage of accuracy and shooting problems.
    I don’t know whether the engine withstood the shooting or not, I know what disrupted the motor - the gun from the gun mount and drove it into the cockpit in the chest of the pilot

    I do not know, but I know !!!.
    So, the recoil energy, taking into account the aftereffect of powder gases (which increases it), at ShVAK is 120 kgm. It is in its pure form, i.e. when the gun is in the wing, turret or synchronous version. in the motor-gun variant, when the weight of the motor is added to the weight of the gun 46kg + 900 kg, the recoil energy of the motor-gun is as much as 6 (six) kgm !!!!!!! You can create this effort yourself by lifting 6 kilogram cargo to a height of 1 m in one second .. The R-39 fighter gun you mentioned had a recoil energy of 1120 kg. True, I did not find the weight of the propellant; I had to take a similar one from the N-37. The propeller thrust of Yak, transmitted to the fuselage through the engine mount to the engine mount, the last for yaks in the second half of the war, was one with the power frame of the fuselage. So with an engine power of 1000l.s. and a speed of 100m / s (360km / h), it is 600 (six hundred) kgm. Those. 100 times more than recoil and nothing, the motor with the propeller did not come off the plane and did not fly away! Everything can be counted (and it is necessary), and then it is already argued that something. In the end, even without calculations, the logic will prompt the correct answer.
    1. andrewkor
      andrewkor April 16 2017 15: 40
      +3
      Motostrelku.That thanks, pleased with an exhaustive answer, and then from the poor iksperdy already sick !!!!
    2. aiw
      aiw April 16 2017 18: 42
      +2
      Actually, the recoil is measured in units of force and not energy, and the NS-45 had it very significant (70KN, and even shock load). For Yak9 pilots, there was an instruction limiting the length of the line to 4 shots, precisely because of the risk of destruction of the fighter’s structure.

      But what IgeI writes about the alleged disruption of the motor gun "off the gun carriage" entirely is from the field of unscientific fiction. lol
    3. Hedgehog
      Hedgehog April 16 2017 22: 45
      0
      I write what I read from the words of the pilots — recoil at 37 mm guns stopped the plane !!! and there was a risk of destruction of the glider from wild recoil, they did not like to fly on airplanes with such armament. That's what the pilots said, The probability of the glider destruction! no one says that the engine with the cannon flew off to the side — the cannon was shifting backward — it could break loose and that’s all ..
      1. aiw
        aiw April 16 2017 23: 34
        0
        Well, let's count. The NS-45 projectile weighs 1 kg, the initial speed is 780 m / s total total impulse of the line is 3000 kg * m / s.

        The weight of the yak is 2500 kg, i.e. according to the law of conservation of momentum, such a queue will change the speed of the aircraft by ONE meter per second (with a little). It's pretty far from the plane stop, don't you think?

        And the likelihood of a glider being destroyed during firing is a typical problem of an aircraft with powerful cannon weapons, which is now what. But before the plane stops, and before the motor gun is driven into the chest of the pilot, this is quite a long way off.
        1. yehat
          yehat April 17 2017 12: 47
          0
          such a queue will change the speed of the aircraft by ONE meter per second (with a small one).

          Do you think this is not much? In aerial combat, even an advantage in speed of 30 km / h is no longer enough. A stop at 1 m / s reduces speed by about 4 mph. Given that the Yak and so with the speed set was not easy, it was felt. Maybe not critical, but felt tangibly.
    4. Hedgehog
      Hedgehog April 17 2017 14: 38
      0
      Read this:
      http://iremember.ru/memoirs/letchiki-istrebiteli/
      kozhemyako-ivan-ivanovich /
      there about motor-guns, guns and stuff: the Yak was heavy with such guns, only for assaults and then 1-2 shells; if you dig longer, you will find that Yak with such guns had a threat of gun breakdown, etc., etc. but the fact that it breaks away with a screw and flies off is the figment of your imagination — I didn’t write this — I wrote about the cannon’s shift back because of its large recoil — disruption from the place that took place and there’s no need to do this just read those who flew them
  11. aiw
    aiw April 16 2017 16: 03
    +1
    Hedgehog,
    Google and find it.

    "The fuselage is a truss structure, the truss is welded, of steel pipes, with internal cable braces. The motor mount was an integral part of the truss. They were mounted on the frame plywood frames, in the recesses of which the slats - stringers were attached. "

    http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fww2/shurr.html
    1. Reviews
      Reviews April 16 2017 18: 06
      +1
      Quote: aiw
      Hedgehog,
      Google and find it.
      "The fuselage is a truss structure, the truss is welded, of steel pipes, with internal cable braces. The motor mount was an integral part of the truss. They were mounted on the frame plywood frames, in the recesses of which the slats - stringers were attached. "
      http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fww2/shurr.html

      Useless. It is really an idle being. You write to him directly about the "Hurricanes", and it repeatedly sculpts about the "Swordfishes". Inadequate is some who escaped from the nearest madhouse.
      1. Hedgehog
        Hedgehog April 16 2017 22: 48
        0
        Why do you offend the hen?
        1. Reviews
          Reviews April 17 2017 07: 11
          0
          Quote: Igel
          Why do you offend chickens indoor?

          To tell a moron that he is moron is not an insult. I, Ipanthropa, recalled your ravings from a branch with the Tu-154 crash in Sochi. Including, not you, moron, speak.
  12. Reviews
    Reviews April 16 2017 18: 01
    +3
    Hedgehog,
    And how do you enter, moreover, not into a polemic, but into a pathos illiterate pose. However, what else to expect from a character who does not know what a supercharger is and what our engines had.
    The rest of the nonsense about swordfish in a conversation about "Harry" - no comment.
    1. Hedgehog
      Hedgehog April 16 2017 22: 49
      0
      yyy woodpecker you are roomy, we did not have a normal boost-turbine, we didn’t have enough brains .. and millet peck
    2. Hedgehog
      Hedgehog April 16 2017 22: 56
      0
      I don’t write about the steps of the woodpecker supercharger. You are talking about the turbine. The high-altitude speech-supercharger stood on all the planes and switched at the altitude border on the yak. ​​It was 3100 meters. BUT NOT A TURBINE!
      1. aiw
        aiw April 16 2017 23: 50
        0
        Oh, how interesting ... but how was the supercharger arranged on the yak? Smelt piston? Or furs, the pilot rocked them with muscular strength? Oh no no no...
        1. Reviews
          Reviews April 17 2017 07: 14
          0
          Quote: aiw
          Oh, how interesting ... but how was the supercharger arranged on the yak? Smelt piston? Or furs, the pilot rocked them with muscular strength? Oh no no no...

          Malcheg judges aviation by what he subtracted from women's magazines, such as Vogue and Glamor, in an advertisement for modern cars. He does not know about drive superchargers and believes that the only option is turbo.
          1. Hedgehog
            Hedgehog April 17 2017 14: 26
            0
            Did the height of M-105 suit you?

            - M-105 was a non-high engine, it was a big plus. Why? You see, the height of our battles was "determined" by "Ilya", and they did not go above 2000 meters (usually 1200-1500 meters). For us, this is precisely the height of the 1st stage of the supercharger, where even the “simple” M-105 is 1100 hp, and even the “forced” one is generally 1260 hp. I have 80% of sorties on the 1st stage of the supercharger, which means up to 1800 meters. At the heights of the work of the 1st stage of the Yaki supercharger, they were most effective. In a battle at this altitude, the Yak-1 was capable of "twisting" any fighter: both the Messer, the Cobra, and even the La-5. However, on the 2nd stage, the M-105 was not bad. At least, at altitudes up to 4000 meters, we felt quite confident, 2500-3000 meters - very good, "our" height.
            Here you have the supercharger stage 1 and 2 without any boost; the YAK had a supercharger, there was no turbine, well, you can put it under your tail on a bunch of chickens at a poultry farm to fly, you’ll get there faster, you’ll have a place for you
        2. Hedgehog
          Hedgehog April 17 2017 07: 15
          0
          ah ah ah-supercharger and its steps of altitude-and TURBINE are different things-like a high-altitude corrector-ah ah ah how not professionally-anal
          1. aiw
            aiw April 17 2017 08: 48
            0
            My child, as I understand your revelations - you say that the supercharger on the Yak-e did not have a turbine. I asked you a simple question - on the basis of what exactly was the supercharger made? Again, instead of answering, you began to write a lot of rambling beeches ... sad.
            1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Reviews
        Reviews April 17 2017 07: 15
        +1
        Quote: Igel
        I don’t write about the steps of the woodpecker supercharger. You are talking about the turbine. The high-altitude speech-supercharger stood on all the planes and switched at the altitude border on the yak. ​​It was 3100 meters. BUT NOT A TURBINE!

        A set of words. The orderlies didn’t work, they released a quiet man out of a coma.
        1. Hedgehog
          Hedgehog April 17 2017 08: 05
          0
          What did the woodpecker in your head look for and beat? all supercharger-driven, what are you eating Easter cakes with vodka? Turbine-turbocharger and supercharger of altitude, there are 2 stages, it happens like i-185-Polikarpov-as much as 3 stages !!! it doesn’t have a relationship with turbocharging — the supercharger switches based on a height of 3000 meters somewhere like the third one and I-185 under 5 thousand meters or a little less, I flew a long time ago - right now I don’t remember ... how many years have passed ...
          1. Reviews
            Reviews April 17 2017 08: 12
            0
            Well, damn it, and a set of words ... You're really mentally unwell.
            Quote: Igel
            I flew for a long time - right now I can’t remember ... how many years have passed ...

            Did you fly? :))) Now it’s clear how it got into the psychiatric hospital - head down on the drunk from the bed fell.
            1. Hedgehog
              Hedgehog April 17 2017 08: 14
              0
              Have you caught the essence of what I wrote above? what was it all about? or you don’t know the proverb — When cowboys wave mares do not harness?
              1. Reviews
                Reviews April 17 2017 08: 25
                0
                Quote: Igel
                Have you caught the essence of what I wrote above? what was it all about?

                I have already caught it.
                About the fact that you are insane squalor.
                1. Hedgehog
                  Hedgehog April 17 2017 08: 38
                  0
                  No-Owl Owl - Slotted head-I didn’t catch it-You can not insult people only for their opinion, it is IMPOSSIBLE. This is the main thing, and the rest is just controversy. You probably even had mice — voles even had the wrong owl — or can you mow it underneath? -You need to roll it in tar and feathers properly and on a gay parade with a drum on your neck, lead the squad going to ....
                  1. Reviews
                    Reviews April 17 2017 08: 42
                    +1
                    Quote: Igel
                    No-Owl Owl - Slotted head-I didn’t catch it-You can not insult people only for their opinion, it is IMPOSSIBLE. This is the main thing, and the rest is just controversy. You probably even had mice — voles even had the wrong owl — or can you mow it underneath? -You need to roll it in tar and feathers properly and on a gay parade with a drum on your neck, lead the squad going to ....

                    People - you can’t, here you are right. But you are not a man already. Fig with the fact that you in aviation in particular in technology do not understand anything at all, but you don’t even know the Russian language. Generally.
                    1. Hedgehog
                      Hedgehog April 17 2017 08: 52
                      0
                      And that you mean the determinant of people — are you not a follower of Uncle Adi by chance? it’s you who gave your permission to yourself and who delivered the verdict and who isn’t? You are a dangerous creature, because from defining and passing out an epicrisis by one person to another only on the basis of whether the first one is written by the second or not, and as a sentence translating it into the category of non-people ... You need to be hanged-by means of a hook and a piano string-destroy like mad ferrets , bury across the road so that there is no trace left, so did our soldiers with traitors and transporters. You yourself determined your fate, for one step from written to accomplished ..
                      1. Reviews
                        Reviews April 17 2017 09: 08
                        0
                        Quote: Igel
                        And that means you are a people guide

                        it’s you who gave your permission to yourself and who delivered the verdict and who isn’t? You are a dangerous creature, because from determining and making an epicrisis by one person to another only on the basis of whether the first one is written by the second or not and as a sentence translating it into the category of non-people ...

                        In your case, yes, a "determinant" and I have the right to "make a diagnosis." I already wrote to you, a fool, - you don’t even know how to write in Russian. Ask anyone here: what is closer to your scribbles - to a meaningful text or just a set of words?
                        A creature that cannot write is not a person. Well, if he is over 4-7 years old.
                  2. aiw
                    aiw April 17 2017 09: 12
                    0
                    Judging by the style of communication, you are 12-14 years old. The puberty, reduce it all to sexual intercourse ... and to same-sex intercourse, i.e. You are clearly embroiled in homosexual fantasies. My deepest condolences ... although for humanity it may be for the better, according to the theory of evolution you should not have children - God forbid your mental abilities will be passed on to them ...
                    1. The comment was deleted.
          2. aiw
            aiw April 17 2017 08: 50
            0
            all driven blowers

            Everything, the curtain ... Your level of competence in the matter under discussion is at the level of the baseboard of the anti-nuclear shelter cellar.
            1. Hedgehog
              Hedgehog April 17 2017 09: 00
              0
              “The projectile hit the air intake crushing the blades of the supercharger”, a quote from Pokryshkin’s book “The Sky of War” is about MiGG-e. Well, maybe Pokryshkin turned the pedals from the bicycle, and thus the supercharger spun .. I think the supercharger works from the main power plant by taking part of her power or a turbine from her, by taking part of the exhaust gases. What did he come up with the word ... skirting his grandmother asking a word?
              1. aiw
                aiw April 17 2017 09: 18
                0
                And how is the supercharger built? Is there a turbine, a piston pump, or what? Shovels what exactly stand?
                1. Hedgehog
                  Hedgehog April 17 2017 17: 03
                  0
                  Are you seriously asking me this? You are not at the address — you need in KB for superchargers — obviously not for me — it’s enough for me to know that a turbocharger is not the same turbine, that a high-altitude supercharger is a different destination ... And just know, well, for example, what’s on airplanes there were no turbines in the Great Patriotic War fighters, we didn’t have turbocharged engines. I don’t need either I-16, Yakakh or La5-7, I’m neither a designer nor an engineer
    3. Hedgehog
      Hedgehog April 17 2017 07: 25
      0
      I didn’t enter anywhere at all — you enter — I wrote the opinion you answered — moreover, rudely and crookedly. No need to be rude — chickens aren’t to their beaks — and read again about khurri and fish — they all have steel structures. and not from wood. And the Hurricanes were already obsolete by the age of 41 - and they fused them according to Lend-Lease as rubbish. And that rubbish was from duralumin and from steel - all power elements and not like from our pine - you are a crowing parent
  13. aiw
    aiw April 16 2017 18: 35
    +3
    Hedgehog,

    Are you banned in Google at all? So there is still Yandex ...

    Yak-9K
    Modification of the Yak-9T, on which instead of the 37 mm gun NS-37 was installed 45 mm gun NS-45. The gap between the hollow shaft of the screw gearbox and the gun barrel passing through it was only 0,75 mm. To reduce the recoil force, which was 7 tons, the NS-45 barrel was equipped with a muzzle brake. But still, when shooting at low speeds, the plane turned around, and the pilot experienced sharp shocks. It was recommended to fire in short bursts of 2-3 shots. The mass of a second volley Yak-9K reached 5,53 kg. In April-June 1944, the Yak-9K series of 53 aircraft was built. During military tests, the fighters conducted 51 air battles, during which 8 FW-190A-8 and 4 BF-109G were shot down (there were no meetings with the bombers). Their losses amounted to 1 Yak-9K. The average consumption of 45 mm rounds per shot down enemy aircraft was 10 pieces. "Yak-9K did not produce a large series due to the unreliable operation of the NS-45 gun."

    You stated that the armament of the yak was weak. In this regard, to you, as to Yksperd, two questions:

    1) please name another thread of the fighter of those years that has a second volley of 5 kg or more.

    2) what other thread is the serial fighter of those years that had a 45mm cannon in service.

    Well, or go already, look for a gun mount for a motor gun ...
    1. Alf
      Alf April 16 2017 21: 22
      +2
      Quote: aiw
      1) please name another thread of the fighter of those years that has a second volley of 5 kg or more.

      I figured a 4-gun Hurricane or Tempest or Typhoon, but there are 600 v / m for 0,13 kg and only 4 kg for 3,2 barrels.
      The only one is FV-190A-4 = 4,92 kg / s.
    2. Hedgehog
      Hedgehog April 16 2017 22: 54
      0
      Go look for those pilots who flew such squalor and their reviews about the 37-45 mm guns — the pilots spat on the lot of these planes and the standard armament of the Yak 3p was miserable-1 cannon in versions and the large-caliber Berezina — which is clearly not in the second half of the war And if he was such a piped plane, then why didn’t they build it in mass quantities — such gold with a second salvo of as much as 5 kg? —there was only zero from this salvo — the plane turned into an ax because of the mass of the cannon — poorly controlled .. there are only a few aircraft there were combat use from the lips of the pilots you will find once or twice and miscalculated. Pokryshkin did not even take the yak-9d as a gift !!! due to his overweight, let alone such art systems with a 1200 horsepower engine
      1. aiw
        aiw April 16 2017 23: 47
        +1
        Mdya ... baby, you seem to have dyslexia, this is not for you here, but for the doctor. Even on Wikipedia, Russian in white shows why 9K was not mass produced (despite the fact that there were 8 fokers + 4 messers per 1 yak for military tests), but you seem to be unable to read and understand what was written.

        In addition, your manner of communication tired me - sheer balabolstvo without any reliable facts and references confirming them. Aren't you tired of disgrace?
        1. Hedgehog
          Hedgehog April 17 2017 07: 39
          0
          Yes, I was told how many of them were produced, it was written about WHAT THEY ARE PRODUCED FROM WHICH !!!! - lift your wallets up and run through the posts and catch what I wrote to us, and no matter how I wrote, WHAT I WOULD NOT WRITE I do not offend anyone for his opinion expressed here - I write MY because I have the right to receive insults in response and even scribble from you like: Tired of the way of communication ... do you frown about something where you saw a little girl? if you pull my gum from my underpants with a curious tongue, there you are, a little girl and you will see mine. Yak-was with guns of 37-45 mm dull manure - they couldn’t normally fly at them, they couldn’t fight in air. In 41-43-45 Japan and Finland had airplanes from duralumin .. Here it was about this! How to conduct a wooden airplane in an environment where humidity and salt! Clean your belma
          1. aiw
            aiw April 17 2017 08: 58
            +1
            Hmm ... You have already been given an example of a Hurricane, the design of which included a steel truss and plywood and fabric, and which was perfectly based on aircraft carriers.

            As for the cannon yaks, the score of 12: 1 in our favor seems to refute your dull stream of consciousness.

            But after your statement about the fact that all the superchargers are driven, the line from the gun stops the plane, disrupts gun carriage and blows her right in the tail, there’s nothing to talk about with you ...

            http://402.moy.su/forum/6-29-1

            "Supercharger. What to eat with.
            In order for the fuel to completely burn out, an appropriate amount of oxygen is needed. To increase engine power on WWII aircraft, a turbocharger (a special turbine that pumps air under pressure) was used. Accordingly, by supplying a greater amount of oxygen, it is possible to burn more fuel in one cycle of the engine and thereby increase its power. The device for pressurization either used the energy of exhaust gases or was driven by an engine (sometimes a special electric one was used, such as on the R-47).
            At a height where the air density drops noticeably, it is necessary to change the supercharger mode. On most German and allied aircraft, such a transition was carried out by automation. Soviet aircraft had a simpler design and required manual translation of the regime.
            The switching height can be determined by the device, but it is better to remember the tabular values ​​so that in battle you are not distracted by the dashboard.
            Most airplanes have 2 supercharger modes. On the I-185 and a number of American - three.

            Altitude corrector.
            As already mentioned, in order for the fuel to completely burn out, an appropriate amount of oxygen is needed. But at high altitudes, when the power of the superchargers is already not enough, the “fuel-air” ratio is violated. This leads to splashing of candles, incomplete combustion of fuel, overheating of the engine and, most importantly, to a significant loss of engine power. Outwardly manifested by the appearance of smoky stripes behind the aircraft, unstable engine operation. To avoid this, it is necessary to reduce the amount of fuel in the mixture. "

            Reread until complete enlightenment ...
            1. Hedgehog
              Hedgehog April 17 2017 09: 20
              0
              altitude corrector and altitude supercharger are two different things, turbocharging too, we didn't have turbines, we had superchargers, they were different things they switched in different modes — Germans had turbines — turbo engines — not superchargers that helped to pump air depending on altitude. The turbines were removed from German aircraft, they were studied, but they could not do something similar, (the same with regards to AVISH-machine gun screws), something they did was out of order. High-altitude supercharger - one thing - high-performance turbocharging - another
              1. aiw
                aiw April 17 2017 09: 23
                +1
                Once again I ask, the supercharger (ours) in your opinion how exactly is arranged? How (how) does it blow air? What is the basis of its design?

                And in your opinion, is it not a supercharger? But what is it then? What do you think is turbocharging, how does it work? "Oooooooo" - like this? Are you not blond?
                1. Hedgehog
                  Hedgehog April 17 2017 09: 48
                  0
                  A supercharger and a turbine are two different things — a high-pressure supercharger is a high-altitude supercharger — the I-16 of 39 also had a supercharger — from 2300 it switched somewhere and at the same time it was also a carburetor! ISHAK !!! For example, Migga had a supercharger — he helped at high altitudes, but became unnecessary and at low altitudes only interfered because he took power from the motor !!! (he had single-threaded mine) that the pilots felt when at 41 they went to cover attack aircraft and PE-2-he MIXED !!! Engineers were turbocharged and then also with injection !!! w-50 or VW somehow I can be mistaken — the Japs had methanol injection, the amers had water — forced direct injection — few such engines were produced — 10 percent of the usual al-82 because they were capricious and had extremely little engine life - getting on la-5 fn-82 wasn’t easy - it’s so for example
                  1. aiw
                    aiw April 17 2017 10: 00
                    +1
                    I’ll tell you a terrible military secret, but you don’t tell anyone - drive superchargers also use a turbine. It spins and pumps air (provides additional compression at the inlet). Turbocharging is as much as whole two turbines - one is spinning from the exhaust, it transmits the moment to the second one that is at the inlet, and the drive supercharger is one a turbine driven by the engine itself, or electric (actually also from the engine but through a generator).

                    And do any a supercharger without a turbine (which you blame our designers for) is quite difficult ... much more complicated than with a turbine.
                    1. Hedgehog
                      Hedgehog April 17 2017 10: 21
                      0
                      And was there a boy? I know that the supercharger is also the same as the turbine, but it is intended for pumping air into the cylinders, depending on the altitude !!! the turbine picks up at least somewhere more than how many revolutions the engine makes and the turbine starts to work — I say the supercharger and the turbine as it stood at the Germans are different things. The Germans had a turbine and a supercharger — it only switched automatically and the Americans r- 39, p-40, spitfire, etc.THE THINGS ARE THINGS !!!!! calm down already finally and stop insulting me only because of the lack of information or something else if you want to check how the superchargers work, download 2 attack aircraft, there full engine control is a complete flight simulator and try switching both the high-altitude corrector and the supercharger! and I don’t blame designers for anything — they just couldn’t make a turbine for an aircraft engine during the war! –– they couldn’t solve the problem with the Shvetsov M-71 engine again because of the supercharger !!! - m 71 remained raw and not finished motor like the m-107 ...
                      1. aiw
                        aiw April 17 2017 10: 34
                        +1
                        Ahhh, so you are a real pilot? Forgotten battles flew to IL-2? And even the cockpit was probably done with Daddy’s help almost like a real one?
                    2. Hedgehog
                      Hedgehog April 17 2017 10: 33
                      0
                      The I-16 fighter began to be studied immediately. Especially a lot of time was devoted to the study of the M-25 engine, the features of its operation. We also studied the engines M-62 and M-63. They did not differ much from the M-25, mainly only with a supercharger device.
                      http://iremember.ru/memoirs/letchiki-istrebiteli/
                      kozhemyako-ivan-ivanovich /
                      I’ve looked for you
                    3. Hedgehog
                      Hedgehog April 17 2017 17: 56
                      0
                      I sent links to an interview with a WWII veteran fighter pilot. In your opinion, on the I-16 25 the engine was turbocharged, with a carburetor, it doesn’t happen, it’s kind of fiction, it says how the engines 25-62-63 differed — only the superchargers — the ALTITUDE HEIGHTER. The supercharger is the same turbine that pumps air into the cylinders under pressure and has from one to several steps. But its job is to compensate for the lack of oxygen or pressure at heights of more than 2 thousand. Such a supercharger may not stand on a turbocharged engine. You were mistaken - a turbine as a boost and a high-altitude corrector and a supercharger are two different things. Superchargers stood before the war. We did not have turbines
                2. Reviews
                  Reviews April 17 2017 10: 09
                  +1
                  Quote: aiw
                  Are you not blond?

                  It is, naturally, a moron. Already three times (or four, I’ve already gone astray), I scored “Migg”. Apparently, the top-secret aircraft Mikulin-Gorbunov-Gurevich or Mikoyan-Gribovsky-Gudkov.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                    1. Reviews
                      Reviews April 17 2017 10: 32
                      +1
                      Quote: Igel
                      Hey Owl, like I-16 you have a 39-year-old turbine with a carburetor, there is a Toko turbine in the anus, there’s also a supercharger on the donkey, there’s 2 stages there, and a turbocharged carburetor-carburetor, well, you’ll give you a feathery in certain circles, don’t blurt out, you’ll put such a turbine in ... they’ll put it into a leather one ... and even with a screw-scumbag — what terrible creatures are you people! -Why do you click with your beak so greyhound? you chicken, nicho I will break off

                      ... and again - a set of words. Or do you even have killer drugs do not work on you, oligophrenic?
                      1. Hedgehog
                        Hedgehog April 17 2017 13: 43
                        0
                        I sent you a link to the tamper-downs there, so that you read, you learn the mind, there the pilots adjusted the turbines on engines even before the war on donkeys. Look at the link, don’t just choke on the pressure and you’ll break the back rings. can’t be described in words, they begin to insult the first ones, they prove something wrong, they turn out to be wrong, and all the one slops are poured, go to the person - why ??? You should be eradicated as dogs, you’ll heat the stove using a place for firewood — there will be more benefit — do you even understand what kind of substance you are? Why do you like to live like that?
                  2. The comment was deleted.
                    1. Reviews
                      Reviews April 17 2017 11: 21
                      +1
                      Quote: Igel

                      just peck chicken what is a turbine and what is a supercharger

                      Unlike you, oligophrenic, I know what it is.
                  3. Hedgehog
                    Hedgehog April 17 2017 13: 57
                    0
                    What engine was on your Yak-7B? - M-105PA or M-105PF?

                    - First, “simple”, then, at the end of 1943, the cars went with forced. Most of our Yak-7B engine was "simple" - 1100 hp. at the 1st stage of the supercharger. I fought on the Kursk on a “simple” engine, and on the Dnieper. There were few cars in the regiment with a forced engine. Although the Yak-7B, even with the M-105PF, still did not reach the Yak-1. Heavy.
            2. Hedgehog
              Hedgehog April 17 2017 09: 30
              0
              Right now, for the sake of fun, I climbed into the TTX and -16 39 years old and what would you think? Here's a scumbag on our asses there was a turbocharged engine !!!! - there are also supercharger stages there !!!! But this does not mean that Ishak was turbocharged !!!!! The superchargers stood even before the war, but this is not a TURBINE !!! Wright cyclone from the Americans bought the m-63 (m-64?) Already under-1000 horses was-and-16 went and the gas handle-moment and you had the maximum speed-not inferior to Emily, really there was a feature in the turbine-CARBURETOR -yyy turbocharged carburetor
        2. Hedgehog
          Hedgehog April 17 2017 07: 40
          0
          and wikipedia for you cho accuracy limit? Yaks produced as 45 and 37 mass produced it how? The yak with these guns was a small-scale fighter, they were at the front and they fought !!! only they were not particularly favored !!!
    3. Hedgehog
      Hedgehog April 17 2017 07: 49
      0
      I don’t have the mass of a second volley of Yak on the drum, it wasn’t about that. Let him have at least 1000 kg per second, that’s not the point — you’re not counting the second volleys here, it’s not convenient to shoot from this gun , not safe, and not comfortable. And you send your grandfather information about the downed planes, he will laugh and pat his head gently))) According to our data, there were hundreds of tigers under Prokhorovka, and in fact there were only 4 of them. I read the memoirs and reviews of the pilots which of these fuzz shot-an interesting thought, as if the plane did not fall apart ...
    4. yehat
      yehat April 17 2017 16: 12
      0
      5 kg salvo? yes what nonsense! gun in reality single shot.
      what a second volley! 200-300 grams, not more !.
      take at least a monstrous in weight volley p47 - a thunderbolt.
      he hit 6x 12.7 machine guns with 15 bullets per second each, i.e. second volley of 6 * 15 bullets
      each bullet weighed 46.7g. accordingly, the weight of his salvo is 90 * 0.05 kg = 4.5 kg
      This is a monstrous weight salvo.
      5 point Bf-109g with 3 guns and 2 machine guns with difficulty exceeded 3 kg.
      and suddenly a light yak with one cannon takes all the weight of a volley?
      my dear, you write nonsense !!!
      1. Hedgehog
        Hedgehog April 17 2017 18: 00
        0
        at the thunderbolt, I'm sorry 8 machine guns were 4 on the plane. Although you are honored anyway, everything is correct, people are not adequate there, they confuse a second volley that can give out a barrel with real live fire. Yak certainly couldn’t shoot in such portions, I gave a link to a veteran who did not fly long on the Yak-9 With 45 mm of fluff. it’s the same as comparing the ShVAK’s rate of fire with the combat one — there the speed of shots depends on the rotation of the screw since the synchronizer was working and the higher the rotational speed of the screw, the higher the rate of fire of the gun and vice versa
        1. aiw
          aiw April 19 2017 09: 49
          0
          I gave a link to a veteran who did not fly long on the Yak-9 With 45 mm of fluff.

          Honey, do you even read your own links? He flew on the Yak-9T with a 37mm cannon, and spoke of him well as an attack plane "as a strike aircraft he is worthy of praise. The tank set fire to three shells." Although you that 37mm.yu that 45mm one fig ...

          ShVAK’s rate of fire and combat - there the speed of shots depends on the rotation of the screw since the synchronizer worked and the more the revolutions of the screw were, the higher the rate of fire of the gun and vice versa

          Is that all ... a syncronizer for a motor gun firing through a hollow shaft of a propeller? My dear, as you correctly noted above, you are not just not an engineer - you don’t even own a topic at the level of a middle school student who is fond of military technology ... this is in addition to your general insanity and dyslexia.
      2. aiw
        aiw April 19 2017 09: 36
        0
        Weight 45mm shell 1 kg. A single shot from a cannon was fired only in your imagination, a fighter cannon is not a sniper rifle in a stationary position, and the target is moving.

        > and suddenly a light yak with one cannon does everyone by weight?

        I’ll tell you a terrible secret - the mass of the projectile / bullet grows as Cube caliber weapons.

        > my dear, you write nonsense !!!

        No you hi
        1. yehat
          yehat April 19 2017 09: 40
          0
          do you even know how many shells loaded to the NS-45?
          take an interest, you are our waiting list. If you try to shoot a burst, the ammunition is enough for 3-4 seconds of fire. Those. in fact, after the first attack, the aircraft will remain unarmed.
          In addition, due to the peculiarities of the design and supply, they usually did not take full ammunition into flight.
          1. aiw
            aiw April 19 2017 10: 11
            0
            In general, the instruction forbade firing in bursts longer than 4 shots due to the risk of glider destruction. Bursts, Carl!

            What incomplete BC do you say if there are only 29 rounds in the BC? And from a very, very massive naval gun?

            Incomplete tanks were poured, it was. But for BC to take incomplete ... this is either a specific task or a tribunal.
            1. yehat
              yehat April 19 2017 10: 20
              0
              I read that often took no more than 12 shells
              moreover, even such ammunition was not always shot.
              1. aiw
                aiw April 19 2017 11: 10
                0
                In the memoirs of Kozhemyak (what Igel brought here) - he planted bursts of health on the roofs of tanks from a 37mm gun. And it is understandable, even if you get there - the tank of such shells needs more than one or two. With 45mm a little better, but overall I think the same.

                Limiting BC can probably be to save weight to increase maneuverability, i.e. when using the Yak9T / K in uncharacteristic tasks of maneuverable air combat?
                1. yehat
                  yehat April 19 2017 11: 19
                  0
                  mostly intercept ju-52 ju88 he-111
                  they flew there with such ammunition
                  1. aiw
                    aiw April 19 2017 11: 32
                    0
                    Fine! Let's go back to our rams - a big mind, the Igel muse fiercely argued that the Yak-i with large-caliber guns were very bad, weakly armed aircraft. You write that these yaks took an incomplete ammunition and fired at single bombers to intercept the bombers - apparently the 1st 45mm shell was enough for the bomb, and the ammunition simply did not have time to use up (the goals were ending).

                    Che with Igel's statement about the weakness of the weapons of the Yak9-K it does not fit ...
                    1. yehat
                      yehat April 19 2017 11: 48
                      0
                      the ns-45 gun had 2 pluses - the range of destruction and the effectiveness of the caliber when dealing damage. Everything else is the cons. And there were no less minuses than pluses. Therefore, highly specialized vehicles were produced that were inferior to the same IL-2 in their usual tasks. Because of this, the experiment with 37mm and 45mm guns is not considered successful enough.
                      The only fighter plane that lived more or less normally with a large caliber (37mm) was an aerocobra, but again, only more or less.
                      1. aiw
                        aiw April 19 2017 14: 57
                        0
                        And there are no perfect cars, no one argues. But Igel carries nonsense.
  14. exo
    exo April 16 2017 21: 45
    0
    Interesting topic. Once, the magazine "Gangut", tried to open it.
  15. Vadim Golubkov
    Vadim Golubkov April 17 2017 01: 08
    0
    To us now, Russian-Ukrainians, defense scientists and engineers are moving to Russia.
  16. Old warrior
    Old warrior April 17 2017 09: 38
    0
    Very interesting! good
  17. Petrol cutter
    Petrol cutter April 17 2017 11: 57
    +1
    And I was so fascinated by the polemic battle in the comments that I already forgot, for which the article was actually speaking. repeat
  18. yehat
    yehat April 17 2017 12: 39
    0
    Built and almost ready for a series of attack aircraft

    Didn't you write? And in our country only 1 attack aircraft could be called that
    1. Reviews
      Reviews April 17 2017 13: 14
      0
      Quote: yehat
      Built and almost ready for a series of attack aircraft

      Didn't you write? And in our country only 1 attack aircraft could be called that

      IL-2 serial.
      Well, I’ll reformulate - “torpedo bomber with the possibility of attack.” I'm talking about the Tu-91 "Goby" in its original meaning.
      1. yehat
        yehat April 17 2017 14: 03
        0
        first flight -54 year. This is 15 years after the creation of the Avik project.
        I think the commissioning is not earlier than 56 years. It took another 2 years to debug the machine to the planned one. Total 1960 year.
        A bull-calf would be useful, but ... I think that by the year 60 we could have made a more advanced project
        1. Reviews
          Reviews April 17 2017 14: 30
          0
          Quote: yehat
          first flight -54 year. This is 15 years after the creation of the Avik project.
          I think the commissioning is not earlier than 56 years. It took another 2 years to debug the machine to the planned one. Total 1960 year.
          A bull-calf would be useful, but ... I think that by the year 60 we could have made a more advanced project

          All this is not essential. I just recalled that there were aircraft carrier projects. No more no less.

          ***
          Nevertheless, they planned to get hold of aircraft carrier aircraft by developing specialized carrier-based aircraft.

          / / /
          If it can be called planning. More reminds demagoguery.
          It makes no sense to build aircraft carriers for an air group that does not work but survives on deck.


          If we are engaged in alternative politics, then at the end of the war there were a lot of fighters suitable for "wetting" without any "catapult" (the same would come to someone’s head) Yak-9th. If only because the engine of water cooling in the middle of the sea is idiocy (yes, the British are not a decree to me; however, in the middle of the ocean they used a lot of American airplanes, and the “swords” had “stars”, and not row soldiers), and the motor, really weak. La 9? Why not?
          1. yehat
            yehat April 17 2017 15: 32
            0
            an aircraft carrier should not be considered from the point of view of fighters. First of all, it is a strike complex. And fighters are just for the sake of completeness.
            There were escort aviks, they used disposable fighters, but only for reconnaissance, and it was very rare to drive off the condor ju200, nothing more. These were not pure air defense ships.
            Even if there are a majority of fighters, an aircraft carrier is an attack ship.
            1. Reviews
              Reviews April 17 2017 15: 49
              0
              Quote: yehat
              escort aviks, they used disposable fighters

              Not disposable.
              I did not write anything about the concept of using aircraft carriers. An article about the type of ship Yak-9. I wrote about the fighter.
  19. The comment was deleted.
    1. Reviews
      Reviews April 17 2017 15: 21
      +2
      Quote: Igel

      And I have the right to have you here verbally until I get tired, but it’s pleasing to have people like you. Let me into your slop where you have your rightful place — at the bucket — that’s why I’m here — I’m the doctor — I put in place those who are impudent, for people love when they are sent to X ... send is sobering them

      Everything that you burped here exists only in your sick imagination. You lack knowledge, literacy, and the ability to articulate your thoughts clearly.
      But you can entertain yourself with your hallucinations, I do not mind.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. Reviews
          Reviews April 17 2017 18: 24
          +1
          Quote: Igel
          Duck did you kindly read what I sent you? -You demanded links-I gave you links-I'm waiting for apologies and compensation for insults to my address. Guy with a turbocharged ass

          I didn’t receive anything in the mail, you sent it to the wrong place; however, this is just not surprising - you are from birth. But this does not matter. You are either not able to understand what is read, which disproves your nonsense, or you deliberately fool around. Most likely the first.
          Including, you roll, you nerd, to any habitual obscene address ...
          1. Hedgehog
            Hedgehog April 17 2017 18: 38
            0
            Well then, go to the owl with a turbocharged cow-you can’t get used to it. Your turbines seem to be everywhere. Even on the asses of carburetor ... with superchargers ... as much as about 2 steps ...
            1. Reviews
              Reviews April 17 2017 18: 54
              0
              Quote: Igel
              Your turbines seem to be everywhere. Even on the asses of carburetor ... with superchargers ... already about 2 steps ...

              Here you really debil with "voices" and other glitches.
              1. The comment was deleted.
  20. Reviews
    Reviews April 17 2017 19: 13
    +1
    Quote: Igel
    There was a debate about super turbines and duper superchargers

    What "turbines", what "superchargers" ...
    Yes, from the fact that I repeat to you once again that I’m insane, you still won’t understand. Ido ray ... read everything from the beginning. Only the orderlies wait, Ipanuy. Maybe an injection will help.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  21. Looking for
    Looking for April 18 2017 21: 50
    -1
    Not only that. The comments are very far from the main topic, so even some "doctors of the near-milking sciences" are trying to impose the opinion that the MOST MASSIVE Soviet fighter, WWII-YAK-9, was an unusable aircraft.
    1. yehat
      yehat April 19 2017 12: 47
      0
      Yak-1 in 41 I do not like.
      Yak-9 at 43 is the same Yak-1, created without resource limits and with a large list of improvements. This is a normal car, but again - for what?
      He was good at guarding stormtroopers, in defensive combat, in barrage, in tying up in combat, in reconnaissance, but the offensive qualities left much to be desired - weapons, survivability, armor, vertical maneuver, radio communications and a radio compass.
      The boom zoom on the Yak-9 was difficult to execute. There were questions to the Yak-9 and not a few.
      just if you focus only on its minuses - there will be a shitty plane. If we talk only about the pros - there will be an pepelats from star wars. Many speculate, considering it one-sidedly.
      I believe that the Yak-9 allowed to perform aviation tasks at a sufficient level, no more, but no less. Compared to modern airplanes - I would call influenza.
      Here is an approximate analogue of the Yak-9. The plane is not for records, but for utilitarian affairs.
      1. aiw
        aiw April 19 2017 14: 55
        0
        Kozhemyakin openly says - the Yak is the ideal aircraft to accompany the IL-2. They were released as follows - one Yak for two Silts. And they tried so hard to use, another thing that sometimes had to be used as something else - and here the problems started.
  22. Reviews
    Reviews April 20 2017 07: 41
    0
    PPD,
    Dear, please use the generally accepted norms when communicating in a public place. Rude is not necessary.

    So, before you write that stupid posting to which I replied, that was exactly what I had to say, standing in front of the mirror. Repeatedly, with expression and leisurely.
    And generally refuse to write that posting.
    The rest of the stream of consciousness about Be, catapults and aircraft carriers - no comment.
  23. Viktor Afanasev
    Viktor Afanasev 22 March 2021 15: 16
    0
    Very interesting article, thanks to the author.
    It is a pity that many people remain who do not understand the importance of aircraft carriers in the Navy.
    And they continue to be mistaken, thinking that they are needed only for the delivery of aircraft "to the other side" ...
    Forgetting or, most likely, not having a clue about the anti-ship and anti-submarine POSSIBILITIES of the aircraft carrier, and even more so the AUG.