Military Review

Gray horse P-39

176



During World War II, the Allies supplied the P-39 Aero Cobra to the USSR. Before the war, the Americans announced a competition for a fighter for their army. Within the framework of this competition, the Bell Company created the aircraft. In 1939, he was put into service, for lack of anything better. But the military were dissatisfied with them - an iron, and even dangerous. After the ammunition was used up, the nose was relieved, and the plane showed a tendency to stall into a tailspin. In short, as soon as the opportunity arose, the Aerocra began to be replaced.

Well, naturally, the company began to look for other markets. In 1940, France signed a contract for the purchase of a batch of P-39, but was seized prior to the start of supplies. Bell jumped over and agreed to deliver these planes to England. But the British stated that they would not buy the aircraft in this form. As a result, the Air Cobra was finalized. Among the improvements was installed 37-mm gun and increased engine power to 1150 hp After that began deliveries to England under the symbol Р-400.

In this configuration, the Air Cobra was supplied in the USSR, but under the symbol Р-39. This is where one of the riddles of the twentieth century appears: why, in general, an unremarkable plane in the hands of Soviet pilots covered itself with undying glory. It should be borne in mind that in the USSR they tried not to advertise the bourgeois military equipment supplied under the lend-lease. And of course, we did not hear the official recognition of the Air Cobra as one of the best fighters of the first half of the war. But in fact it was.

Gray horse P-39




Let's try to solve this riddle.

You can often hear, they say, the Russians did not have any standing planes, and for them they are not very good. Without even noticing that this is what supernatural mastery is attributed to Russian pilots. No, guys. The war is an objective judge, you can't catch it on the chaff.

So what's the deal? From the memoirs of the veterans, we know that all the Air Cobras arriving in the USSR before being sent to the units were being finalized:
1. Among the improvements was the "reinforcement" of the rear fuselage frame.
2. A revision was made by moving the center of mass forward to reduce the tendency to spin. But the problem was not fully resolved. What kind of refinement is unknown.
3. Also on all aircraft made engine adjustment.

Parse in order.

Item 1. Why is the gain quoted? Probably none of this is gain. This was the very unknown refinement of paragraph 2. The task was to move the center forward. How can I do that? Lighten the tail? Impossible, everything is already licked there, you will not find an extra gram. Pour concrete ballast in the bow? Not serious. Move the wing back to 200 mm? Not really, as part of refinement. But to move the tail forward, shortening the entire aircraft to 200-250 mm, is quite real. True, this will not solve the problem fully, but at least something.

The people who did the work might not have known what this was done for. We decided that to gain. So the legend went that the Aero Cobra tails fall off every now and then during overloads. Although the Americans fought without revision, and nothing fell off.

Item 3. What is engine adjustment? When you create a new engine, it is placed on the stand, tested and selected mode of operation. Take for example the hypothetical six-liter engine. Having been choked, you can use it to drive a generator. Somewhere in the mountains, at an unattended meteorological station, he, giving out all 50 hp, will work 10 ... 12 for years, without a single failure. Then, make him an overhaul, and will work the same amount. The same engine with other adjustments will work on the tractor 5-6 for years, producing 80 hp. And you can put it on the plane, squeezing 300 hp Only now the resource will drop to 50 hours.

In the USSR, at that time, the situation with engines for fighters looked like this: in order to minimize the weight of the aircraft, they squeezed everything out of the engines. The engine life on the fighters was 100 hours. The military asked at least 200, like the Germans, but the industry could do what it could. No, you can make 200 hours, only power will fall on 300 horses. And there is no point in reducing power, the plane was shot down at the very first departure, and the engine’s engine life would fly into the pipe.

And so, at this very time, the Air Cobra arrives, in which the motor is rather weak, but the 400 service life m. Well, and here it is already quite clear what to do with it. Naturally, tweak, let the service life decrease by 200-220 m. But the power to raise from 1150 to 1480-1500 HP They say, “with a good engine, and the fence will fly,” and with such power, the Air Cobra will really climb into the leaders, pushing through all kinds of Messers and others.

Powerful motor, that's nice. Yes, but you still need to realize its power. But here at P-39 everything is as well as possible. First, the screw with a variable pitch provides coordination with the motor. And secondly, the chassis with a nose strut allowed us to put a three-bladed screw of large diameter (3200 mm), which our Yaks and La could only dream of, since they had difficulty climbing over the three-meter barrier. Yes, in this issue had to fight for every 100 mm. The larger the screw diameter, the lower the angular velocity of the screw must be rotated to get the same thrust. And that means less power loss.

And so it happened that in the USSR there was a completely different Aero Cobra, which everyone knew. On the passport - a little gray mouse, and in fact a fierce and toothed beast.

Author:
Photos used:
from the Internet
176 comments
Ad

Our projects are looking for authors in the news and analytical departments. Requirements for applicants: literacy, responsibility, efficiency, inexhaustible creative energy, experience in copywriting or journalism, the ability to quickly analyze text and check facts, write concisely and interestingly on political and economic topics. The work is paid. Contact: [email protected]

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Lganhi
    Lganhi 3 November 2017 06: 56 New
    13
    I add that on the Western front, the Aero Cobra did not take root due to the fact that it did not perform well at high altitude, the speed was noticeably reduced due to the lack of a turbocharger, and the ceiling was low - only 9500 m, while the Mustang had a ceiling of 12700 meters , which was enough to accompany the American strategic bombers. Air battles in the West were conducted mainly at high altitudes - 9-10 km. On the Eastern Front, almost all the battles were fought at an altitude of 2-6 km, where the Aero Cobra was a very good aircraft, and thanks to its powerful weapons, it pushed forward. Soviet fighters escorted IL-2, Pe-2 and Tu-2, and it made no sense to rise to a great height.
    1. svp67
      svp67 3 November 2017 07: 12 New
      24
      Quote: Lgankhi
      On the Eastern Front, almost all the battles were fought at an altitude of 2-6 km, where the Aero Cobra was a very good aircraft, and thanks to its powerful weapons, it pushed forward.

      The success of “Aerocobra” is largely due to the WHO who flew on it, and these were not young pilots of line units, but the best pilots of the Red Army Air Force from the “Guards Regiments”, who had already learned to fight before, with the enemy on the “irons” - LaGGs and "fragile" - Yak. And this experience was worth a lot. And as a result, they squeezed out of "Aerocobra" everything that she was capable of. And in our sky this plane from a "gray horse" turned into a "good horse."
      Yes, and if you recall Pokryshkin, then, talking about the battles on this plane, he noted the following positive qualities that helped to win:
      - EXCELLENT radio communication, allowing you to manage the actions of both a single aircraft and its large groups. A "bead more beautiful and daddy bits" ...
      - EXCELLENT view from the cockpit, which was determined not only by the design itself, but also by the fact that the American engine did not throw oil onto the windshield of the flashlight.
      - EXCELLENT armament. A volley from which ANY German plane turned into a pile of debris, for which the same Pokryshkin asked to combine all the buttons of the trigger in one ...
      Yes, it’s worth remembering our engineering and technical personnel, who by this time had gone through a VERY HEAVY school for servicing foreign aircraft in our reality. As a result, effective measures to fight for cleanliness of both engine oil and foreign weapons were thought out. All this provided reliability.
      And of course, with all due respect, but airplanes are still CONSUMABLES. The main thing pilots and this is already understood in the second year of the war.
      1. Lganhi
        Lganhi 3 November 2017 07: 25 New
        15
        In fact, Kozhedub, the second after Pokryshkin, fought the whole war on La-5 and La-7. So it is not necessary to argue that the best pilots flew foreign cars, and the domestic "trash" was fused to beginners.
        1. svp67
          svp67 3 November 2017 07: 38 New
          14
          Quote: Lgankhi
          So it is not necessary to argue that the best pilots flew foreign cars, and the domestic "trash" was fused to beginners.

          I won’t say anything about all the “foreign cars”, but the “Cobras” went to the guard units and this is a historical fact.
          Quote: Lgankhi
          Actually, Kozhedub, second after Pokryshkin

          Actually, it is FIRST in terms of effectiveness. But compare the list of GSS and especially twice GSS, who flew what and see an interesting picture.
          .
          Quote: Lgankhi
          fought the whole war on La-5 and La-7
          “Lavochkin” in the La-5fn and La-7 versions is an EXCELLENT aircraft, but it appeared a little late, when many units already fought on the “Cobra” and successfully fought, and “do not change horses at the crossings”. Moreover, the “Kobrovsky” units were assembled by people who knew how not only to fight well on these machines, but also to serve them well, achieving “clean water” operating rooms, oiling planes through double clean filters, sticking gun trunks with percussion before takeoffs, so that dust does not fall into it and there are no failures, etc., etc.
          1. Lganhi
            Lganhi 3 November 2017 07: 44 New
            +1
            So why did Kozhedub fly on La-5 and La-7? Although he also served in the guards regiment. You ukrotroll and specially arrange provocations?
            1. svp67
              svp67 3 November 2017 07: 58 New
              14
              Quote: Lgankhi
              So why did Kozhedub fly on La-5 and La-7?

              Because "horses at the crossing do not change." Lavochkin is a great car, starting with La-5fn.
              Quote: Lgankhi
              Although he also served in the guards regiment.

              Our many guards regiments fought on Yaks and WHAT? It only says that we had much more such units than the "allies" supplied us with "Cobra" under Lend-Lease.
              Quote: Lgankhi
              You ukrotroll and specially arrange provocations?

              It is a pity that the "robot" does not miss the word in the letter "D", which very clearly describes you in connection with this statement, but you are an adult and understand what I wanted to tell you ...
              1. Lganhi
                Lganhi 3 November 2017 09: 04 New
                +1
                By the word "D" do you mean "doctor" or "associate professor"? Unfortunately, I do not have a degree what
                Our many guards regiments fought on Yaks and WHAT?

                What did not please Yaki? Yak-3, by the way, is recognized as one of the best fighters of the Second World War. By the way, pilots of the Normandy-Neman flew at them, and they praised the fighter very much, and after the victory, Stalin presented these fighters to the French pilots who fought on it.
                1. faiver
                  faiver 4 November 2017 06: 10 New
                  +2
                  the letter "d" means at least a duduk laughing
            2. evil partisan
              evil partisan 3 November 2017 11: 22 New
              +3
              Quote: Lgankhi
              So why did Kozhedub fly on La-5 and La-7? Although he also served in the guards regiment.

              The type of equipment is not determined by the pilots.
          2. hohol95
            hohol95 3 November 2017 08: 32 New
            17
            ... gluing gun trunks with percussion before takeoffs ...
            That’s how they started to do it when the British Charitons were exploited !!! Browning machine guns were very sensitive to dusting !!!
            Golodnikov about Safonov -
            He shot down more. Safonov shot excellently and, in one battle, shot down two, three German planes in one battle. But Safonov had a rule - do not write yourself more than one person who was shot down during a battle. He “gave away” the rest to the followers. I remember one battle well, he shot down three German planes and then he ordered that one - him, one - Semenenko (Petr Semenenko flew as a wingman at Safonov) and one to someone else. Petya gets up and says: “Comrade commander, but I didn’t shoot. I don’t even have percale. ” (On the "Hurricanes", after re-equipping the machine guns, their loopholes were sealed with percale, struggled with dusting. - A.S.) And Safonov said to him: “You didn’t shoot, but I shot, but you provided me with shooting!” And Safonov had such cases more than once. ”
            1. svp67
              svp67 3 November 2017 08: 36 New
              +1
              Quote: hohol95
              So they started to do it during operation

              And I don’t deny this ... We studied, by trial and error, and by the time the Cobra appeared, we already had experience.
              1. hohol95
                hohol95 3 November 2017 08: 59 New
                +6
                About the "Cobra" in the Guards Regiment -
                The Germans could scroll around us like this and not attack at all. They're not stupid, intelligence worked for them. “Red-nosed“ cobras ”- 2nd GIAP Navy KSF. Well, are they completely headless with an elite guards regiment to mess with? These can bring down. Better to wait for someone simpler. Very prudent.
                1. IL-18
                  IL-18 3 November 2017 15: 25 New
                  +9
                  Kozhedub started shooting down on La-5, Pokryshkin on MiG-3, Rechkalov on I-153, Safonov on I-16. After the beginning of perestroika, they “remembered” about R-39, R-40, and other “Shermans”. Perhaps with tz justice is correct. But the pilots, crews, people "at the open-hearth furnaces" fought.
                  Siberian GSS Anatoly Kozhevnikov managed to fight on the "Hurricane", and successfully. But reseeding on the Yak-7, was glad to change. And at the end of the war, when after the b / p was used up, there was a choice between a battering ram or an imitation of attacks and the leadership of the battle: “Yakovlev” should not be changed to “shimtta”. Here he is cunning in his memoirs, perhaps. There was even an order to use a ram only as a last resort. In a duel with an enemy spy on Hurricane, he was immediately ready to ram it if the ammunition was not enough to complete the task.
                  I emphasize once again, people fought. And ours were shot down not only by Me and Fw. All Hungarians and Slovaks with Romanians at the beginning of the war fought against us and on Italian biplanes, keeping accounts of our downed planes. Once again, people are fighting, using the equipment that they have at the moment.
              2. NIKNN
                NIKNN 3 November 2017 20: 31 New
                +4
                Quote: svp67
                We studied by trial and error, and by the time the Cobra appeared, we already had experience.

                The British used to start sticking, apparently this was not a secret ... wink And so everything is correct, the R-39 was able to perform miracles in skillful hands, the volley was really powerful, which is valuable. At Yak-9T, K, large-caliber guns 37 and 45 were installed (did not go), but this is an improvement i.e. the increase in volley weight was at the expense of flight performance, which was standard on the P-39 ... hi
                PS ^ Well, yes, the connection is high-quality, and even during that period of the war when it was in short supply, and control in battle, as well as guidance, undoubtedly increased the effectiveness of the work. hi
          3. Dooplet11
            Dooplet11 5 December 2017 11: 06 New
            0
            I won’t say anything about all the “foreign cars”, but the “Cobras” went to the guard units and this is a historical fact.

            What to do with this fact: the "non-guard" 508 IAP The 205 IAD was rearmament from Yak-7 to Cobra. 30.07.43 passed Yaki and retrained for Cobra 1,5 of the month in Ivanovo, with 08.10.43 began combat sorties. Guardski became a year later, in October, 44-th (renamed 213ГвИАП).
            It turns out that your "historical fact" is not a fact at all! hi
        2. San Sanych
          San Sanych 3 November 2017 11: 00 New
          +2
          Quote: Lgankhi
          In fact, Kozhedub, the second after Pokryshkin, fought the whole war on La-5 and La-7. So it is not necessary to argue that the best pilots flew foreign cars, and the domestic "trash" was fused to beginners.

          Ivan Kozhedub shot down 62 aircraft, Alexander Pokryshkin shot down 59 aircraft, Nikolai Gulaev shot down 57 aircraft, Grigory Rechkalov shot down 56 aircraft, this is the first four Soviet aces. Ivan Kozhedub fought on Lavochkin’s planes, the rest of the four on Aero Cobra. Just the facts.
          1. Lganhi
            Lganhi 3 November 2017 20: 58 New
            +3
            Pokryshkin fought from the first day of the war, no doubt, he had more enemy planes shot down, he just gave part of his victories to his wingmen. In addition, in 1944 he was the regiment commander, and in 1945 he was the division commander, so he rarely flew on combat missions. Pokryshkin’s contribution to the Victory is undoubtedly greater than the contribution of Kozhedub, who met in 1945 as deputy commander. This is the same as saying that Zhukov or Rokossovsky contributed more to the Victory than Stalin or Beria.
            1. Bask
              Bask 4 November 2017 10: 13 New
              +4
              Read the statements of some veterans about Pokryshkin and you will no longer write that he was giving away his victories. Even if it’s at the rumor level, but there aren’t such rumors about Kozhedub. Pokryshkin was a very selfish person according to reviews of his fellow soldiers. that not all those shot down were counted to him and claimed that he had more than a hundred shot down. Kozhedub did not behave like that.
              You yourself wrote that Pokryshkin had fought since 1941, but modestly kept silent about Ivan Nikitovich. Kozhedub began to fight on the 43rd, if he fought on the 41st, he would have achieved nothing less. So you're not right about the contribution to the victory, each fought as best he could and ordinary infantry Vanya did no less.
              1. Lganhi
                Lganhi 4 November 2017 10: 19 New
                +2
                Private infantry Vanya could conquer the whole war and kill 1-2 Germans. Whereas the marshal, by his right decision, could either save half a million of his soldiers from the boiler and total destruction, or defeat the enemy by welding hundreds of thousands of Germans in boilers, as was the case, for example, in Stalingrad and Belarus in the summer of 1944.
                As for Pokryshkin, I read his memoirs in the book "Know yourself in battle," where he writes that he distributed the victories to the followers in order to cheer them up. After all, the leader is covered by the slave, and it is thanks to the slave that the leader can not be afraid for his rear and completely concentrate on the attack, without wasting time looking back.
                1. Yeah
                  Yeah 7 November 2017 08: 35 New
                  0
                  Then read the book of his slave, "Paired with the hundredth!" Golubev, I honestly didn’t see Tires “hand out” ... BUT Tires introduced new ways of fighting with PAIRS (before that they flew in triples), while the follower flew behind to the left or to the right of the leader and, accordingly, if the leader did not shoot down, then the plane fell under the wingman’s fire!
            2. Yeah
              Yeah 7 November 2017 09: 26 New
              0
              The death of the leader acted on the follower. He abruptly turned his back on
              side. The second lieutenant Chistov, led by the second pair, became his
              pursue, but soon turned away and took his former place in the ranks. He knew
              Pokryshkin’s strict order: the slave pair attacks the enemy only in case of
              necessary at the command of the leader. Golubev “Paired with the hundredth” - Pokryshkin’s slave. For example, the host made an attack and began to leave it. Covering
              him, I am at this moment 150-200 meters from his car in the bearing or
              on the front. If the situation allows, I, by permission of the host, will attack
              unfinished enemy. At this moment I need to fire, and mentally
              imagine what evolution the leader will continue his way out of the attack
              so that in a minimum period of time I could take my place.
              -Let's say he went downhill, then turns the car over to the wing.
              I’m eyeing which way he went. And not to come off, having finished
              my attack, I, too, go from the hill to him in the inside due to
              shorten the way. And in order not to jump forward the command vehicle, later
              in a few seconds I turn to the outside.
              So, I am in the same place, again in a favorable position for cover.
              The pair acts again as a whole.
      2. Negro
        Negro 3 November 2017 10: 29 New
        11
        It seems that this is some kind of new style. Illiterate, not read by people in the subject texts.
        In 1939 he was adopted, for lack of anything better.

        In the 39th there was an order. The plane began to arrive at the beginning of the 41st. The main army aircraft was Hawk all the way. In the 41st there was already a Mustang and airplanes on a double wasp.
        As a result, the aerocobra was finalized. Among the improvements, a 37 mm gun was installed and engine power was increased to 1150 hp. Then began deliveries to England under the index P-400.

        Nonsense. The cobra was originally made around the Oldsmobile gun, hence the perverts with the layout. Limes were asked to change the gun to their own, 20mm Spanish.
        This is probably not an enhancement. This was the very unknown revision from point 2. The task was to shift the alignment

        It seems that the author himself came up with it. The cobra tail lengthened after blowing. Reinforcement is reinforcement, there were complaints about the deformation of the tail during flight. Balance shift - ballast in front or underfill in the tail tanks (it seems that they had a cobra, I can confuse).
        large diameter screw (3200 mm),

        3150 at the beginning, 3360 at the end. In the course there were experiments with 3530, but it did not go.
        1. fedotow
          12 November 2017 23: 49 New
          0
          Hello. I am the author of the article. I want to answer your criticism:
          "In 39, there was an order. The aircraft began to arrive at the beginning of 41."
          As you saw, I did not describe the history of the aircraft in detail - and without me much has been written about it. Wikipedia says it has been adopted by 39, and deliveries have begun at 41. But I can’t presume. This is not the topic of the article.
          "It seems that the author himself invented it."
          Yes, in the article I expressed my opinion. The most realistic and rational way to shift the centering of the aircraft forward under those conditions was to shorten the plane by cutting out part of the fuselage. This restored the original strength, and partially solved the alignment.
          The mystery of Aerocobra exists, it is often mentioned in publications and discussions. So I tried to find the most plausible explanation. Only I did not think to indicate that the refinement of military equipment could only be carried out according to the drawings approved accordingly. And in no case at the initiative of technicians in the units. Well, these drawings and the instructions for changing the engine could be created in TsAGI or in one of the aviation design bureaus.
          By the way, you mentioned the ballast in the bow. To solve the balancing problem, for Aerocobra, the weight of the ballast should be from 200 to 350 kg.
          Thanks to the diameter of the screw for clarification.
          1. Dooplet11
            Dooplet11 5 December 2017 11: 20 New
            0
            Wikipedia says it has been adopted by 39, and deliveries have begun at 41. But I can’t presume. This is not the topic of the article.

            Wikki, as the source for the article, it is better to double-check ten times. Even if the data from it is not the topic of the article. For kosyachny data spoils the impression of the article.
            Yes, in the article I expressed my opinion. The most realistic and rational way to shift the centering of the aircraft forward under those conditions was to shorten the plane by cutting out part of the fuselage. This restored the original strength, and partially solved the alignment.

            The method is completely unreal, and, moreover, not rational.
            By the way, you mentioned the ballast in the bow. To solve the balancing problem, for Aerocobra, the weight of the ballast should be from 200 to 350 kg.

            The weight of the balancing weight depends on its location. And therefore, it can change by an order of magnitude.
            The "answer" to criticism at the level of the criticized "article".
      3. Negro
        Negro 3 November 2017 11: 29 New
        +6
        Quote: svp67
        in many respects is connected with who flew on it

        You're right. Similarly, Finnish fokers 21. But the truth is that the best pilots were given the best (until the 44th year) cars.
        Quote: svp67
        EXCELLENT radio communication,

        This is the theme of all LL technology. More precisely, the trouble is Soviet.
        Quote: svp67
        American engine did not throw oil on the windshield

        Because it was behind))). And so the American engines were all sorts. Corsair's oil on glass was one of the main complaints.
        Quote: svp67
        EXCELLENT armament

        Full shit American weapons. But there are nuances
        A) it was mainly central, not wing, in contrast to the same hokers and spits. For Soviet tactics, this is more convenient.
        B) the caliber made it possible to bring down the German with one shot at point blank range. From any angle, including going to the forehead of Foke, which was extremely dumb.
        Quote: svp67
        which by this time passed a VERY HEAVY school of servicing foreign aircraft

        Cobras went to the USSR in the first place - the British wanted to get rid of them. The first - August 41st already in the USSR. By the end of the year, 669 were shipped, not all sailed.
        Quote: Lgankhi
        no need to argue that the best pilots flew foreign cars

        3 out of 5, 4 out of 10 first Soviet aces flew on cobras
        Quote: Lgankhi
        Yak-3, by the way, recognized as one of the best fighters

        Summer 44 is the first aircraft in the Air Force.
        Quote: inkass_98
        By the way, with the Mustang, too, at first everything was not going smoothly with the Americans, the plane saved the Rolls-Royce engine and the flashlight from Spitfire, and then it turned out to be an excellent R-51.

        Mustang with Alison was an excellent mid-range fighter. But the Americans needed a high-rise, which they already had - Thunder. Mustang with Merlin was better than Thunder, first of all, at a price.
        1. hohol95
          hohol95 3 November 2017 12: 01 New
          +2
          Oily on the WINDSHIELD - or rather for "Khariton" and "Tomahawk"!
      4. Left shot
        Left shot 12 November 2017 15: 17 New
        0
        "learned to fight, with the enemy in the" irons "- LaGGs and" fragile "- Yaks" - it was very easy to fly in the Lags, Yak is generally the simplest aircraft for a pilot. The most sophisticated aircraft to master and control during normal flight operations were the I-16 (there was a statement - "who learned to fly on the I-16, learns to fly on everything") and the MiG-3.
        You, before it is important to throw in principle the right things in general, would have learned the materiel yourself.
        The "superior weaponry" on the P-39 was specific. When used ineptly, it was much worse than the standard on Yaks 2 * UB + 1 ShVAK or 2 ShVAK for La. Because the 37 mm gun had only 30 rounds of ammunition. When firing a burst already after the 3rd shell, the plane drove and the sight went astray. That is, for the average pilot it was the wrong weapon. And those who could go the distance of shooting at an enemy aircraft tens of meters and shoot at point blank range for sure - this is a pilot out of a hundred, if not out of a thousand. A plane designed for the special skills of one in a thousand is a poorly suitable plane for war.
        It could be added here that this car took many good aces to the grave because of its "love" for a flat corkscrew and an inverted corkscrew. Among other things, she killed many with her stupid door, when the pilot leaving the parachute was killed about the tail.
      5. mister-red
        mister-red 25 September 2019 18: 18 New
        0
        EXCELLENT view from the cockpit, which was determined not only by the design itself, but also by the fact that the American engine did not throw oil onto the windshield of the flashlight.
        Just an excellent overview was due to the design - where should the oil come from in front if the oil cooler and engine were under / behind the pilot
    2. svp67
      svp67 3 November 2017 08: 34 New
      +2
      Quote: Lgankhi
      I will add that on the Western front, the Aero Cobra did not take root due to the fact that it showed itself poorly at high altitude

      Actually, they immediately began to use it there as a fighter-bomber. And for their actions of great height it is not necessary
    3. Looking for
      Looking for 3 November 2017 23: 03 New
      -1
      Lord. Yes how much can this point of view be procrastinated.
  2. inkass_98
    inkass_98 3 November 2017 07: 10 New
    +5
    The Western Allies had a choice of aircraft and a good resource base, so they could be sorted out by grubs. In the first half of the war, our pilots had to fight on what they gave. So they adapted everything that could fly to existing realities. Sometimes masterpieces were obtained, as is the case with P-39.
    By the way, with the Mustang, too, at first everything was not smooth with the Americans, the plane saved the Rolls-Royce engine and the flashlight from Spitfire, and then it turned out to be an excellent P-51 car.
    1. Fast_mutant
      Fast_mutant 3 November 2017 07: 53 New
      0
      However, something does not particularly hear about the "horses" on our fronts. I read about many, but I never heard of the Mustangs. Did they even come to us?
      And somewhere else I read (namely memoirs) about the “Cobras” that our pilots liked the rear position of the engine: the rear protection was better and the Americans didn’t like it (weight distribution), it made it more nimble.
      1. inkass_98
        inkass_98 3 November 2017 08: 00 New
        +4
        They were not delivered to us; there was no longer any need. Its main purpose was accompanied by long-range bombers at high altitudes, and we had it unnecessarily, there were no great distances from the airfield to the target. In addition, there were already enough of their own aircraft.
        But Ivan Kozhedub on La-7 two “Mustangs” near Berlin failed, it was the case.
      2. venik
        venik 3 November 2017 08: 51 New
        +3
        Quote: Fast_mutant
        However, something does not particularly hear about the "horses" on our fronts. I read about many, but I never heard of the Mustangs. Did they even come to us?

        ========
        Experienced parties were ported in 41 or early 42 years. In fact, the Yankees delivered us almost everything for “familiarization” (at least a lot of the fact that they had both Mustangs and Tomogavks, etc.). And our choice puzzled them frankly ..... And the "chest simply opened: the most distant" high-altitude escort fighters "Such vehicles" by definition "CANNOT be light and maneuverable! Accordingly, their tactics were" unusual for us "- A swift attack from above, a flurry of fire (conventional weapons - 8 heavy machine guns) and going up (using tremendous speed and climb) ...... In" dog fights ("dog fight"), they tried not to get involved. Our pilots, like the Germans and the British, practiced just maneuverable combat (the same "dog fight"), therefore, the Mustangs and Tomogavki and Thunderbolts did not take root here, and they were expensive for us .. ...
        1. sivuch
          sivuch 3 November 2017 09: 53 New
          +2
          8 is only a thunderbolt, and even then sometimes they took off a couple to increase the ammunition of the rest. Usually -6 for 12.7 with BZ 350-400 rounds per barrel
          1. venik
            venik 3 November 2017 13: 17 New
            0
            Quote: sivuch
            8 is only a thunderbolt, and even then sometimes they took off a couple to increase the ammunition of the rest. Usually -6 for 12.7 with BZ 350-400 rounds per barrel

            ======
            Not only!!! On 8 “browning” was on the “Mustangs” and “Thunderbolts” and “Tomogawks” and on others!
            1. Alf
              Alf 6 November 2017 19: 22 New
              0
              Quote: venik
              On 8 “browning” was on the “Mustangs” and “Thunderbolts” and “Tomogawks” and others!

              This is what P-40 was 8 barrels? Maximum 6.
              There were 8 machine guns on the Mustang, but only on version "A". B machine guns were 4, on the D-6 trunks.
              Which others?
              Teach materiel.
        2. DimerVladimer
          DimerVladimer 3 November 2017 10: 02 New
          +2
          Quote: venik
          Our pilots, like the Germans and the British, practiced just maneuverable combat (the same "dog fight"), therefore, the Mustangs and Tomogavks and Thunderbolts did not take root here, and they were expensive for us .. ...


          Why would the Germans practice a dog dump? BOOM-ZOOM for most of the war.
          1. venik
            venik 3 November 2017 13: 20 New
            +1
            Quote: DimerVladimer
            Why would the Germans practice a dog dump? BOOM-ZOOM for most of the war.

            =========
            Learn the "materiel", Dear! It was the "dog dump" that the Germans used! Read at least the memoirs of Kozhedub and Pokryshkin ("Sky of War") and OTHER !!! (including the German "aces")!
            1. Bask
              Bask 3 November 2017 14: 04 New
              +3
              Your opponent is right, the Germans preferred to attack unexpectedly. From above from behind or from below, in case of failure they went up and could use the advantage in height and speed to repeat the attack or leave if the pilot saw that the situation was not in his favor. Many veterans note the prudence of German pilots. Thrift, which “cheers patriots” take for cowardice. But of course there were group maneuver fights. The same Lippert liked to spin or Krupinski. It’s stupid to say that the Germans fought only with a boom zoom, but if I may say so, it was their favorite technique . Hit-run away. At Pokryshkin- "height, speed, maneuver, fire."
              1. shuravi
                shuravi 3 November 2017 16: 37 New
                +3
                We and the Germans had a fundamental difference in the use of front-line IA.
                1. Bask
                  Bask 3 November 2017 20: 40 New
                  0
                  Forgive the difference? The task of gaining air supremacy was faced by both Soviet and German pilots. Bombers accompanied both of them. Different tactics, yes. But what is the difference in the use of aviation?
                  1. Lganhi
                    Lganhi 3 November 2017 21: 02 New
                    +2
                    You, dear, read the “10 myths of the Second World War” by Alexei Isaev, the chapter on fighters and how Hartman’s path leads to defeat. Then all questions will disappear.
                  2. shuravi
                    shuravi 3 November 2017 22: 26 New
                    +5
                    The Soviet concept was based on two principles:
                    - so that its own strike aircraft worked on the enemy
                    - so that enemy strike aircraft do not work on their troops
                    And these priorities remained even when the task of gaining air supremacy appeared.
                    Wherein. if it was possible to simply prevent the enemy bombers from reaching the target, and the enemy fighters to their bombers, while not having shot down any, the task was considered completed.
                    For Germans, IA built priority on the destruction of aircraft in the air.
                    As a result, their tactics turned out to be flawed.
                    1. Lganhi
                      Lganhi 3 November 2017 23: 08 New
                      +3
                      An Il-2 squadron escorted by fighters will destroy an infantry regiment, killing and injuring hundreds of Germans, even if they did not bring down a single German aircraft, while German aces will knock down a couple of Soviet aircraft. Which approach is more effective is clearly visible.
                      1. shuravi
                        shuravi 4 November 2017 00: 16 New
                        +5
                        Exactly! There is a wonderful film, "Baltic Sky". Quotes:
                        - Do not mess with the Messerschmitts! For some "Junkers" do not chase! The main thing is to prevent them from aiming their bombs!
                        Rassokhin repeated this ten times. Having finished speaking, he asked:
                        - Do you understand everything?
                        “That's it,” Chepelkin answered.


                        “Come in, come in, Major,” said Rassokhin. - Let's have lunch.
                        He smiled with every wrinkle of his freckled face.
                        But Lunin hesitated.
                        “It seems that I didn’t do everything right, Comrade Captain,” he said.
                        “That's it,” said Rassokhin.
                        - What all?
                        “It's all wrong,” said Rassokhin. - Come on in.
              2. DimerVladimer
                DimerVladimer 7 November 2017 14: 26 New
                0
                Quote: Bask
                It is foolish to say that the Germans fought only with a boom zoom, but if I may say so, it was their favorite technique.


                For the dog landfill, the Germans needed to create a significant advantage - then of course they could fight without risk and on the horizontal - this was taught to them at aviation schools and training aviation regiments.
            2. DimerVladimer
              DimerVladimer 7 November 2017 14: 11 New
              0
              Quote: venik
              Learn the "materiel", Dear! It was the "dog dump" that the Germans used! Read at least the memoirs of Kozhedub and Pokryshkin ("Sky of War") and OTHER !!! (including the German "aces")!


              Come on - didn’t read anything more about the Western Front or the actions of German fighters?

              For the dog-fight, the Germans had to have at least a double advantage.
              You have to be an idiot if you engage in bends and lose speed - the most important advantage of Bf109 - when you can dictate the conditions of the battle, being constantly above the enemy and constantly threatening him with an attack.

              Both Kozhedub and Pokryshkin have a very different description of fights.

              In most pilots' memoirs, the German “fell” hit and went upstairs or came under attack and left the battle by diving.
              So read more than Kozhedub and Pokryshkin.
      3. Lganhi
        Lganhi 3 November 2017 09: 11 New
        0
        Mustangs were not supplied to the USSR. They did not particularly like the Soviet pilots, and the Yangkes Mustangs themselves were needed to escort strategic bombers.
        1. hohol95
          hohol95 3 November 2017 12: 19 New
          +4
          At the beginning of 1941, the serial NA-83 (Mustang I) had already appeared, and soon they started shipping them to the UK. After tests of one of these aircraft in England in the summer of 1942, the Royal Air Force command concluded that the Mustang was not suitable for military operations in Europe, because due to the characteristics of the V-1710-39 engine, its characteristics quickly dropped above 4000 m
          They began to look for where to get the cars that were already being built in bulk. Part was used as high-speed low-altitude photo reconnaissance, and then as attack aircraft. And the British transferred the batch of ten planes to the Soviet Union.
          The first two Mustangs went for loading on December 16, 1941, the last vehicles of this batch arrived in the USSR on May 14, 1942. One of the first aircraft in June-July 1942 passed the test program at the Air Force Research Institute. Flew V.E. Golofastov. In short-term forced modes, the speed was quite high, although the pilot was unable to cross the 600-kilometer line, as his American and English colleagues, but at nominal speed the Mustang was 7-10 km / h behind the Yak-50B. In terms of rate of climb, the American fighter was much worse than both Soviet and German aircraft. By the turn time at low altitudes and especially by the turning radius, he also lost. Plus “Mustang” could put powerful weapons — eight machine guns, four of which were large-caliber.
          Most of the received aircraft of this type were sent to the 6th reserve brigade of Colonel Shumov. where they served for training purposes. For example, in the summer of 1942, five Mustangs were used in the process of training the personnel of the 1st Distillation Division, which had to be introduced to the peculiarities of American aircraft. Three fighters were operated in the brigade for a long time. They were based at the airport in Ivanovo.
          Three "Mustangs" in August 1942 sent for military tests in the 3rd Air Army, on the Kalinin Front. They were sent from Ivanovo on August 22. Two vehicles entered the 5th Guards Fighter Regiment, armed with LaGG-3. The regiment commander flew twice American Hero of the Soviet Union V.A. Zaitsev, but pilots Popkov (later also twice Hero) and Onufrienko also tried these aircraft. According to Popkov, the impression of American fighters was sharply negative. Although the car was notable for its high speed, it was "heavy as an iron." Her maneuverability left much to be desired. I did not like the prolonged take-off. Not a single sortie was made on the Mustangs. Soon, the propellers were damaged on both fighters and, for lack of spare ones, the planes handed back.
          One "Mustang" went to the training regiment of the Air Force Academy. Zhukovsky. It was operated back in 1946, and then served as an exhibit. Another machine was on display at the TsAGI Bureau of New Technology.
          The Germans write that at the end of April 1943 they allegedly shot down a pair of R-51s over Karelia, but this is only a mistake in recognizing the types, which were many in wartime.
          1. Negro
            Negro 3 November 2017 12: 56 New
            0
            Quote: hohol95
            Although the car was notable for its high speed, it was "heavy as an iron." Her maneuverability left much to be desired

            A bit strange. The normal take-off weight of the Mustang 1 is less than that of LaGG-3. In England, they say, at medium heights he won against sleep, although there were problems with altitude.
            1. hohol95
              hohol95 3 November 2017 13: 03 New
              +1
              And did cars get into the USSR directly from the USA? No! FROM ENGLAND ... Cars would NOT FIRST FRESHNESS!
              . and a batch of ten planes the English handed over to the Soviet Union.
              The first two Mustangs went for loading on December 16, 1941, the last vehicles of this batch arrived in the USSR on May 14, 1942.
            2. Alf
              Alf 6 November 2017 19: 27 New
              +1
              Quote: Negro
              In England, they say, at medium heights he won against sleep, although there were problems with altitude.

              And what was the Mustang? A or B? And what is sleeping? 5th or 14th?
              Quote: Negro
              A bit strange. The normal take-off weight of the Mustang 1 is less than that of LaGG-3.

              Wing, dear colleague, wing .. On Mustang there was a wing with a laminar profile, which worked best at high altitudes.
              1. Negro
                Negro 7 November 2017 00: 56 New
                0
                Quote: Alf
                And what was the Mustang? A or B? And what is sleeping? 5th or 14th?

                At the AAEE trials, Mustang was the very first, Mk I, machine guns and Alison. Sleeping in time (end of the 41st) could be, at best, the 5th, it is possible that the 1st.
                Quote: Alf
                On the Mustang stood a wing with a laminar profile, which worked best at high altitudes.

                Yes, the laminar profile reduces maneuverability. Nevertheless, both the Americans and the British at first tried to use the Mustang as a low-altitude aircraft, emphasizing, inter alia, its maneuverability and good aerobatic characteristics. At least words like
                Although the car was notable for its high speed, it was "heavy as an iron." Her maneuverability left much to be desired

                I didn’t have to meet before.
                There are no questions about bad HPV.
                1. Alf
                  Alf 7 November 2017 21: 38 New
                  0
                  Quote: Negro
                  Nevertheless, both the Americans and the British at first tried to use the Mustang as a low-altitude aircraft, emphasizing, inter alia, its maneuverability and good aerobatic characteristics.

                  So the first Mustang was a “troechnik” airplane — not bad, but not a fountain. At that time, the British were sorely lacking precisely fighters, and even if they used Mustang as an IS even during the time of the famine, it indirectly confirms this.
                  And then, depending on what to compare. After testing, the LII found that "a Mustang fighter with an Allison engine gains a height of 550 meters in one combat turn, which is much lower than the Yak-1 and ME-109." And in the British and US Air Force maneuverability always stood in second place after speed.
        2. venik
          venik 3 November 2017 13: 26 New
          0
          Quote: Lgankhi
          Mustangs were not supplied to the USSR. They didn’t particularly like the Soviet pilots,

          =========
          Well, you contradict yourself! “Didn’t like it” - So “Tried” .... And I wrote WHAT about ???? Oh the same! The "experienced" parties came - "TESTED" - "I didn’t like it" ("the topic is closed"). We and Spitfires had- LIKED it (by the way !!), but the Britons couldn’t supply them in the NECESSARY quantities - we didn’t have it ourselves!) .....
      4. tolancop
        tolancop 4 November 2017 03: 39 New
        0
        Quote: Fast_mutant
        However, something does not particularly hear about the "horses" on our fronts. I read about many, but I never heard of the Mustangs. Did they even come to us?
        And somewhere else I read (namely memoirs) about the “Cobras” that our pilots liked the rear position of the engine: the rear protection was better and the Americans didn’t like it (weight distribution), it made it more nimble.

        In Tyrnet I met a mention that a dozen Mustangs from the British came to the North. And the engines on them were not "merlins", but "allison", i.e. TTX were not too high. But that is all.
      5. mister-red
        mister-red 25 September 2019 18: 20 New
        0
        Mustangs were offered, but ours refused. Large weight and low maneuverability at low and medium altitudes.
  3. avia12005
    avia12005 3 November 2017 07: 56 New
    +3
    And Pokryshkin ordered all onboard weapons - cannon and machine guns to bring on one trigger. After that, according to him, when hit, any enemy aircraft immediately turned into trash. In addition, the P-39 had a center of mass strictly in the center of the center section, which, again, according to Pokryshkin, ensured excellent maneuverability.
    1. San Sanych
      San Sanych 3 November 2017 10: 25 New
      0
      Awesome aircraft in skillful hands
  4. parma
    parma 3 November 2017 08: 00 New
    0
    The aerocobra was not a standard airplane, it was necessary to invent something for it, so the allies threw it away, so there were plenty of aircraft with characteristics that were no worse! But in the USSR in the early years of the war there wasn’t much choice! We flew on everything that was, as far as possible modifying a file right in the units. But we must pay tribute to the same American manufacturers, the necessary changes for the equipment going in Lend-Lease are most often made in the next batch.
    1. venik
      venik 3 November 2017 13: 29 New
      +1
      Quote: parma
      the erocobra was not a standard airplane, it had to be invented for something, so the allies threw it away, so there were plenty of planes with characteristics no worse!

      ========
      Yes, you are NOT RIGHT !!! HE ("Aero Cobra") - Just DIDN'T FIT THEIR tactics of conducting Air Combat! And the plane was NOT BAD !!!!!
  5. tasha
    tasha 3 November 2017 08: 16 New
    0
    How not to mention powerful weapons in such an article? And the well-known fact about the characteristics of the aircraft at different heights?
  6. andrewkor
    andrewkor 3 November 2017 08: 32 New
    +2
    Just because of the extreme rear centering, American and British pilots did not like the Aero Cobra, despite the other positive qualities. But the Soviet, who thoroughly mastered the “over-maneuverable” I-16, fell in love. Further development in the form of Kingcobra was made exclusively for deliveries to USSR. By the way, the German Ases, who studied exchange planes within the framework of the Pact, fought mercilessly on the Ishaks!
    1. venik
      venik 3 November 2017 13: 31 New
      0
      Quote: andrewkor
      By the way, the German Asy, who studied exchange planes within the framework of the Pact, fought mercilessly on the Ishaks!

      =========
      Why didn’t I understand ????? This is what the "Fritz" "Ishaki" used ????? WHERE????????
      1. andrewkor
        andrewkor 3 November 2017 14: 29 New
        +1
        Dear Venik, carefully read your quote “under the Covenant” on non-aggression. Soviet experts studied German aviation technology, Soviet Germans, this is well known. Shavrov’s reference book on Soviet aviation from 1938 to 1955 has all the types and motors.
  7. hohol95
    hohol95 3 November 2017 08: 42 New
    11
    ... According to one American pilot, the "cobra" was an aircraft "suitable for large, low and slow circles." Moreover, judging by the directories, the Cobra was even inferior to the Bf-109F in terms of maximum speed, not to mention the later German fighters. Its allies also removed it from armaments because it was impossible to fight against it with the “Messer,” and even more so with the “Fokker”. Neither the Americans nor the British held her for the fighter.
    Golodnikov - Well, I don’t know. With us, she showed herself very well. Pokryshkin fought on it, does this mean something? Apparently, it all depended on what you wanted to receive. Either you knock down Messer-Fokers, or you have Allison producing 120 hours. As for the speed of the “cobra” and “messer”. I had a Q-25 cobra with reconnaissance cameras. Behind the engine was the planned AFA-3s and two promising AFA-21s. I easily walked away from the Bf-109G group, though with a reduction. Maybe a single “Messer” would have reached out to me, but left the group.
    The main difference in assessing the combat capabilities of an aircraft comes from the fact that we and the Allies operated aircraft in completely different ways. They have - that's how it is written in the instructions, and operate, away from the letter of the instruction "no, no." For us, as I said above, the main rule is to take everything you can from the car, and a little more. But about how much of it, this “all” will not be written in the instructions? Of the true capabilities of the fighter often even the designer himself is not aware. It is only revealed in battle. By the way, all of the above applies to the "aerocobra". If we were flying in the regimes that the Americans indicated in the instructions, we would have killed us right away - in the “native” regimes this fighter was not. And in our modes, they normally fought even with the “Messer”, even with the “Fokker”, but there were 3-4 such air battles and that’s all - change the engine! ”
    1. venik
      venik 3 November 2017 13: 50 New
      +3
      Quote: hohol95
      ... According to one American pilot, the "cobra" was an aircraft "suitable for large, low and slow circles." Moreover, judging by the reference books, then the Cobra was even inferior to the Bf-109F in maximum speed,

      ========
      Well, in general, judging by the directories, I DID NOT TIRED AT ALL (648 km / h - this is Not very "low" speed! Even in the middle of that War!)
      Well, and also, I would like to quote the words of one of my Father’s colleagues (then already a “senior citizen”, Colonel of the Naval Aviation (it was about “pawns”): “Remember, young man - THERE IS NO PERFECT PLANES, THERE WAS NEVER! Amen! ! There are Good pilots who know how to use All the Best qualities of "their" car, and reduce its shortcomings to "MINIMUM" .... And there are "Bad" pilots who DO NOT BE ABLE "neither one nor the other" !!!!! So it was, it IS, it WILL BE "forever and ever," once again, "Amen" !!!!! (There was a cheerful and witty man!)
      PS "So, let’s drink for / GOOD Pilots !!!!
      PPS Alexander Pokryshkin, by the way, flew on the MiG-3 (by the way - it was well evaluated!), And on the Yak-1, on the "Aero Cobra" and even on the La-7 (though a little) .....
      1. hohol95
        hohol95 4 November 2017 00: 06 New
        +1
        On May 30, 1943, 8 “kittyhawks” of the 191st IAP took part in repelling the raid of 48 German bombers He-111 and Ju-88, which covered about 20 Fw-190A-5 fighters. True, the main battle was conducted by the pilots of the 240th and 275th IAD, flying on "yaks" and "shops".
        In the Shlisselburg area, Major Mitrokhin destroyed two Heinkels within 15 minutes and entered the fray with the Fw-190. The P-40K was significantly inferior in speed to the German fighter, however, it had an advantage in maneuvering horizontally. An experienced German pilot made a clear mistake by accepting a bend in bends, for which he paid. The line of a heavy machine gun hit the Fokke-Wulf motor, which, breaking out, went to the ground. Hauptman Herbert Erdmann (34 victories) from the staff staffel escaped by parachute and was captured.
        During interrogation at the headquarters of the 13th VA, Erdmann said that “the main disappointment for him was a mistake in the battle with the outdated“ kittyhawk ”, six of which he easily shot down, fighting in Africa as part of the JG27.”
        The German pilot somewhat calmed the track record of his opponent: Major Mitrokhin participated in battles from the first days of the war, destroying 19 aircraft and another 6 in a group with his comrades.
        It all depended on who sat in the cockpit of the destroyer!
        Here we are all writing about Pokryshkin and Kozhedub, and we will take another Hero of the Soviet Union - A. Gubanov!
        I flew to Finnish on I-15bis! In World War II he flew on I-16, Yak-1, LaGG-3, La-5, La-7.
        After the war he mastered and flew on the Yak-15, La-15, MiG-15/17/19, MiG-21 and Su-7B!
        Or here’s the GSS Baklan A. Ya. - I-153, Yak-1, Yak-7B (on this fighter in the first flight he shot down the Mackey MS-200), La-5FN, La-7!
    2. fedotow
      13 November 2017 00: 37 New
      0
      hohol95, please, where did such a beautiful quote come from?
      Golodnikov practically confirms my version that the American Aerocobra and Lendlizovskaya after completion are a big difference.
  8. Dooplet11
    Dooplet11 3 November 2017 09: 40 New
    +7
    Parse in order.
    Item 1. Why is the gain enclosed in quotation marks? This is probably not an enhancement. This was the same unknown revision from paragraph 2. The task was to move the alignment forward. How can I do that? Lighten the tail? Impossible, everything is already licked there, you won’t find an extra gram. Pour concrete ballast into the bow? Not seriously. Shift wing back by 200 mm? Not really, as part of the revision. But to move the tail forward, shortening the whole plane by 200-250 mm, is quite realistic. True, this will not solve the problem in full, but at least something.
    The people who did the work might not have known what this was done for. We decided that to gain. So the legend went that the Aero Cobra tails fall off every now and then during overloads. Although the Americans fought without revision, and nothing fell off.

    Item 3. What is engine adjustment? When you create a new engine, it is placed on the stand, tested and selected mode of operation. Take for example the hypothetical six-liter engine. Having been choked, you can use it to drive a generator. Somewhere in the mountains, at an unattended meteorological station, he, giving out all 50 hp, will work 10 ... 12 for years, without a single failure. Then, make him an overhaul, and will work the same amount. The same engine with other adjustments will work on the tractor 5-6 for years, producing 80 hp. And you can put it on the plane, squeezing 300 hp Only now the resource will drop to 50 hours.

    Replace one "legend" with another?
    From the Cobra Corkscrew Testing Act at the Air Force Research Institute, 1943 :

    1. Dooplet11
      Dooplet11 3 November 2017 09: 52 New
      +8
      2. A refinement was made to shift the center of mass forward, to reduce the tendency to spin. But the problem could not be fully resolved.
      What kind of revision is unknown
      .

      Very well known. From the instruction for the pilot on piloting the Cobra from 1944:

      1. Dooplet11
        Dooplet11 3 November 2017 09: 56 New
        +5
        So what is known about the strengthening of the fuselage, and about the methods of shifting the centering forward. You just need to know where to look for answers, comrade fedotov ! wink
        1. fedotow
          13 November 2017 01: 16 New
          0
          It is not strange, but the information you provided is known to Fedotov. And they do not contradict my version. Perhaps you were not careful. The article says that according to the memoirs of veterans, all planes were revised before they arrived at the unit. So the instructions given by you are related to already modified aircraft.
  9. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 3 November 2017 09: 44 New
    +3
    Bosh what.
    I thought a serious article - and here is a hunch at a hunch. Dilettanian assumptions, far from reality.
    So much has been written about the P-39 that you don't have to invent anything.
    1. Dooplet11
      Dooplet11 3 November 2017 10: 07 New
      +1
      At one time, people who were not very close to aviation made cliches, not understanding and not understanding how those who flew about Cobra spoke about and what those flying had in mind when speaking about the cobbleish characteristics of Cobra. Now these stamps are roaming the Internet. request
      1. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer 3 November 2017 10: 27 New
        +2
        Quote: Dooplet11
        At one time, people who were not very close to aviation made cliches, not understanding and not understanding how those who flew about Cobra spoke about and what those flying had in mind when speaking about the cobbleish characteristics of Cobra. Now these stamps are roaming the Internet.

        Absolutely.

        When I was a schoolboy and the Internet was not in principle - and it was possible to find information on the P-39, its tests and activities.
        And here people are just too lazy to dig around, they write stupid articles.
  10. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 3 November 2017 09: 53 New
    +5
    2. A revision was made by moving the center of mass forward to reduce the tendency to spin. But the problem was not fully resolved. What kind of refinement is unknown.


    This is known from the memoirs.
    The oil tank (N12 in the diagram) was not completely filled with oil - (oil was poured so that there would be enough for the flight). This somewhat changed the alignment.

    Dooplet11 has posted the full instructions - comprehensively describing measures to re-center.
    1. Negro
      Negro 3 November 2017 11: 37 New
      +1
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      Oil tank (N12 in the diagram)

      Yeah, thank you and the doublet.
  11. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 3 November 2017 10: 15 New
    +3
    But the military were unhappy with him - an iron, and even a dangerous one.
    Tales again.

    P-39 fighters in the South Pacific
    On the last day of April, 13 R-39 fighters left on a combat mission, the planes were to strike at Lai and Salamaua airfields located on the northern coast of New Guinea.
    The advent of American aircraft took the Japanese by surprise. In the first run, AeroCobras unhindered a blow to the fuel storage, radio station, warehouses and three seaplanes anchored in the bay. To repel a raid from the Lai airfield, the Japanese Zero took off. The result of the ensuing air battle turned out to be a draw: four to four, but three American pilots eventually returned to Port Moresby.
    Three of their four downed Zeros were credited to Lt. Col. Boyd D. Buzz Wagner, the first American Pacific ace. Flying on the P-40E as part of the 17th squadron, Wagner shot down five Japanese aircraft over the Philippines in December 1941. In the spring of 1942, Wagner served as chief of staff of the V Fighter Command; he made a great contribution to the organization of effective fighter forces of the US Air Force in New Guinea. Under the command of Wagner were two squadrons (35th and 36th), armed with fighter R-39 / R-400. The chief of staff was a fan of the Bell company fighter.
    Wagner decided to take the chance to lead the Cobra group on a combat mission on April 30, 1942, in order to increase his combat score. P-39D fighters plunged 180 miles into the airspace of the territory occupied by the enemy. The group commander wrote in a report:
    “We walked Lai 50 miles more sea to avoid the premature discovery by the Japanese.” We flew at a height of 100 feet. Four fighter jets climbed 20 miles from Lai to repel a possible attack by the Japanese Zero patrolling over Lai. However, there were no enemy fighters in the air. During the attack, only indiscriminate machine-gun fire was noted. We struck, attacking with links in three fighters in the formation of the right bearing, along a line of 13-15 bombers.
    - After the attack, several Zeros attacked us from above. Additional fuel tanks were immediately dumped, and the gas sector handles moved forward to the limit. We were almost detached from the pursuers when the closing four R-39s turned on the enemy with the intention of entering into a duel. At that time, there were still "Zero", now in the air were 12-13 Japanese fighters. I decided to deploy the whole group to help our four. About 30 miles from the coast, a fierce battle broke out between an approximately equal number of ours and Japanese aircraft.
    As already mentioned, four Zeros were shot down in an air battle, the losses of the AeroCobra were also considered not very high. Three downed Americans on foot reached Port Moresby, the fourth was taken prisoner. Three “Zero” shot down by Wagner increased his personal score to eight victories, as a result of which Wagner became the most successful fighter pilot in the United States Air Force in the Pacific. The fourth downed Zero was credited to the commander of the 35th Squadron, Major George Green.
    May 1942 was a watershed for operations in New Guinea and the northern coast of Australia. Defending Port Moresby from the Japanese raids, the pilots of two Cobra squadrons shot down 20 enemy aircraft, losing 12 people.

    (General Charles "Chuck" Eager, the first in the world to break the sound barrier, wrote in his autobiography: "I flew on the P-39 for about 500 hours and consider it the best of all the planes I flew on.")
    1. DimerVladimer
      DimerVladimer 3 November 2017 10: 15 New
      +2
      The US Air Force’s first evaluation of the use of R-39 fighters in air battles was given by Lieutenant Colonel Boyd Buzz Wagner a few days after the first contact with Japanese Zero fighters. Some of the ace's comments were at least a surprise in the light of the numerous negative ratings of the aircraft that were made later by pilots who fought on a Bell fighter.
      - “Zero” surpasses the P-39 in its characteristics, especially with regard to maneuverability and rate of climb. At the same time, the P-39 without hanging tanks can easily come off the Zero. Zero is able to hold on to the P-39 to an instrumental speed of 290 mph. At a speed of 325 mph on a device near the water itself, the R-39 slowly leaves the Zero.
      - The acceleration characteristics of the Zero are better than those of the R-39. The transition from cruising speed to maximum speed at the Zero takes several seconds, the P-39 accelerates much more slowly. As a result, the Zero is capable of throwing the P-39 with a throw, but then the latter will slowly come off at full throttle and at high engine speeds.
      - It is believed that the R-39 is a good "anti-bomber" fighter at altitudes of up to 18 feet. Above - the characteristics of the aircraft are falling, especially - climb. The 000 mm gun is an extremely effective weapon. However, it is necessary to eliminate a number of its disadvantages. Delays in firing often occur in the air, and cannon reloading is difficult. The destructive effect of the gun on enemy aircraft is huge.
      - We can assume that in terms of its characteristics the R-39 fighter exceeds the R-40 fighter in absolutely all respects by about 10%, only from the point of view of the P-40’s maneuverability is slightly better than the R-39.
      Wagner noted the eight shortcomings of "Aero Cobra", probably these shortcomings were the reason for the recall of this type of aircraft from the Pacific Ocean. Among the shortcomings noted by Wagner: lack of armor protection for the liquid cooling engine, knocking out oil from the mechanism for changing the pitch of the propeller blades, knocked out oil splashes on the windshield of the cockpit lantern, frequent weapon failures, insufficiently robust chassis design, outdated radio equipment, short flight range, and unsatisfactory flight characteristics above 18 feet.
      http://www.airpages.ru/us/p39_3.shtml
      1. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer 3 November 2017 10: 16 New
        +2
        Wagner's optimism regarding the R-39 fighter was not shared by another ace of the 5th Air Army - Charles King of the 39th Squadron. The pilot held an air battle on Cobra on July 4. Then three Cobras from the 39th Squadron were shot down (all the pilots eventually returned to the airfield), the losses of the opposite side amounted to one downed Zero and four damaged ones. King found the link of the Japanese below himself. With a half-turn, King hit the tail of one Zero and fired a good shot. King won no other victories in air battles on the R-39.
        Many years later, Charles King tried in print to clarify criticism of the R-39 fighter:
        - The R-39 fighter (as well as the R-40) is not the plane on which one could fight on equal terms with Japanese fighters in the initial period of the war in the Pacific Ocean. At the same time, one should not forget that our pilots at that time were very much inferior to the Japanese in relation to combat experience. Aircraft, both ours and Japanese, had both advantages and disadvantages. In fact, the ratio of losses in air battles was one to one. Since our fighters did not have a clear advantage over enemy fighters, many of us, including myself, were bad about the P-39. We all wanted to fight in a fighter capable of prolonging our lives.

        - The handling of the P-39 has also been criticized more than once. However, I want to say that the aircraft did not tend to lose control, as is often claimed. For "Cobra" was characterized by an inverted flat corkscrew. If you remove the gas, then the plane lowered its nose, turning into a normal corkscrew, from which it could easily be pulled out. Loss of height in a flat corkscrew is minimal. The danger lay in the pilot's loss of spatial orientation, in addition, pilots often mistakenly began to consider the aircraft uncontrollable. The plane in a flat corkscrew slowly lowered and raised its nose relative to the horizon. Some pilots mistakenly interpreted these fluctuations as a loss of control.
        - As a young officer, I flew on the “Aerocobra” a year before my squadron, one of the first to use the R-39 / R-400, was sent to the theater of operations. In two months I completed 25 sorties and often fought with enemy fighters. During this period, nine downed Japanese aircraft were brought into the account of the 39th squadron. Nine of our aircraft were also lost, but all the pilots survived. Other squadrons armed with R-39 fighters suffered more heavy casualties, but their pilots shot down more enemy aircraft. In my opinion, the results of the combat work of the squadrons that fought on the R-40 fighters were slightly better. A good example in this regard is the activities of the air group in China and the 49th air group in Darwin.
        http://www.airpages.ru/us/p39_3.shtml
        1. DimerVladimer
          DimerVladimer 3 November 2017 10: 18 New
          +2
          The Japanese view of the P-39 can be considered arrogant. Translated Japanese documents indicate that most of the American fighters encountered in the skies of China and the Pacific are inferior in all respects to the Zero. Pilots fighting the R-39 over New Guinea spoke of this American fighter in a similar way. In a strange way, the Japanese assessments of the R-40 fighter were even more negative, although the R-40 could have dived from the Zero while the veterans of the Varkhokov considered it a normal result when there were five downed Japanese planes for one downed R-40.
          The main drawbacks of the R-39, according to Japanese sources, were poor maneuverability, relatively weak structural strength and low initial dive speed. In most cases, the speed of the Zero and P-39 at sea level was approximately equal, but the weapons of the Aero Cobra had an exceptionally high lethal effect in the case of simultaneous salvo.
          1. DimerVladimer
            DimerVladimer 3 November 2017 10: 38 New
            +1
            Paul Bitchell spoke very well about "AeroCobra":
            - I had some experience flying on "Aero Cobra" - the first time I flew on the YP-39 on February 28, 1931 at the Patterson Field air base, pc. Ohio. I served in the 39th Squadron, the first in the US Army Air Corps to receive such fighters. I continued to fly the Cobra after a memorable battle on Christmas Day 1942, training newcomers who arrived at the 12th squadron.
            - Of all the aircraft on which I had to fly, “Cobra” liked the most. I liked it for its good “volatility”, ease of steering at taxiing, excellent visibility from the cockpit, and very powerful weapons. I liked the ability to fire simultaneously from all barrels with the click of a button.
            - The 37 mm cannon was not very reliable, at least the cannon of the plane I was flying on. We longed for the opportunity to replace the 37 mm guns on our planes with 20 mm guns as quickly as possible. The 20 mm caliber Ispano cannons were the standard armament of the R-400 fighters (R-39 variant for the British Air Force). They have established themselves as reliable weapons.
            http://www.airpages.ru/us/p39_3.shtml
            1. Dooplet11
              Dooplet11 3 November 2017 12: 00 New
              +1
              1931, - a typo? wink
              1. DimerVladimer
                DimerVladimer 7 November 2017 14: 15 New
                0
                Quote: Dooplet11
                Yp-39


                Sure, thanks.
                Obviously 1941. The prototype made its first flight in 1940.
      2. Dooplet11
        Dooplet11 3 November 2017 10: 45 New
        0
        Comparative tests of Zero and Cobra on climb:

        From "Informational Intelligence Summary No.85. Desember 1942"
      3. Negro
        Negro 3 November 2017 11: 48 New
        0
        Quote: DimerVladimer
        probably these shortcomings were the reason for the recall of this type of aircraft from the Pacific Ocean.

        As far as I am in the subject, in the 42nd Cobra was simply outdated by American standards, as was Hawk. Although just for the Pacific theater of operations, the mid-altitude machine was better than Thunder with Mustang D.
        1. hohol95
          hohol95 3 November 2017 12: 17 New
          +1
          OPERATION DIFFERENCE -
          “The main difference in assessing the combat capabilities of an aircraft comes from the fact that we and the allies operated planes in completely different ways. For them, as it is written in the instructions, so do they operate, away from the letter of the instruction“ no, no. ” As I said above, the main rule is to take everything that is possible from the machine and a little more. But how much does it mean, will this not be written in the instructions? Often the designer himself doesn’t even know the true capabilities of the fighter. This is only By the way, everything said above applies to the “aerocobra.” If we flew in the regimes that the Americans indicated in the instructions, we would kill us right away - there were no fighter in the “native” modes. the battle, at least with the Messer, at least with the Fokker, but there were 3-4 such air battles and that’s all - change the engine! "
          1. Negro
            Negro 3 November 2017 13: 53 New
            +1
            Quote: hohol95
            The main difference in assessing the combat capabilities of an aircraft comes from the fact that we and the Allies operated aircraft in completely different ways. They have - that's how it is written in the instructions, and operate, away from the letter of the instruction "no-no"

            With all due respect to his grandfather, his reasoning about the operation of aircraft by the Americans is not relevant. He chopped with the Nazis, and not with samurai.
            The cobra was inferior in boom to new American planes, had insufficient range for TO, insufficient range and altitude for the escort. In addition, the first violin but TO was played by the ILC, and these have their own planes.
            Cobra weapon against zero - minus, not plus. This 37 mm is not needed, .50 cal is enough, but the rate of fire and ammunition are needed higher
            1. hohol95
              hohol95 4 November 2017 00: 13 New
              0
              No one argues about this! The war on the Pacific Ocean and the war on the Eastern Front had enormous differences!
              But to reveal the potential of "AeroCobra" could only Soviet pilots!
              She PERFECTLY SUITED FOR OUR Air Force!
              But we were supplied with “Spitfaers” (used truth), but they were quickly transferred from the front to the regiments of the Air Defense Forces, where their altitude came in handy (MiG-3s were not produced then)!
              1. Negro
                Negro 4 November 2017 03: 28 New
                +1
                Could you reduce the caps and vzlzn? You are hard to read.
                Quote: hohol95
                But to reveal the potential of "AeroCobra" could only Soviet pilots!

                I do not understand these “buts” and “onlys.”
                Naturally, the potential of Cobra was revealed on the Eastern Front, if it was here that it got into the suit. In addition to the specifics of the theater, there were other circumstances that are difficult to consider flattering. They are partly already mentioned.
                1. Crap engine. By Soviet standards, it’s quite normal.
                2. Shitty weapons - an unreliable gun with poor ballistics, mediocre machine guns (Browning did not like synchronization) - similarly. Plus, Soviet tactics involved short-range shooting, tight rapprochement, while American tactics involved 400 meters (you’ll get close to horseradish on a wildcat), so let the curved but heavy gun that could solve any issue with one shot was much more welcome.
                3. Rapid aerobatics - by the standards of the I-16, everything is fine.
                4. Problems with navigation equipment - not relevant for the USSR
                5. Excellent connection - it doesn’t matter for Anglo-Americans - they all have it, but for the USSR a huge plus.
                Cobra was a Western aircraft, created (by chance) to the needs of the Eastern Front, and developing (already realized) taking into account Soviet requirements. Racial plus to technology, racial minus because of secondary importance for Americans. The balance turned out to be very attractive to the USSR.
                If the Americans had an urgent need for a front-line fighter, they wouldn’t bother with Cobra. They would have demanded from the industry Corsairs - low-altitude Mustangs - Birkety. And they would have received it without a doubt.
                Quote: hohol95
                But the Spitfaers supplied us (second-hand truth), but they were quickly transferred from the front

                You see, when a friend of Churchill fused American junk into the USSR, for him it’s so free, for some reason he was not at all as kind as at first. So sleeps were delivered to the USSR in 2 versions:
                Fives - version of the end of the 40th year, in part arrived in the spring of the 43rd. It was created to fight Frederick, at the 43rd year it was nothing special. Although the climb is phenomenal, of course.
                Nines - went into battle in July 42, 3 months earlier than the production of Soviet namesake (Yak-9), which they humiliated as they wanted, began. But in the USSR they were circled in the fall of the 44th, and they were no longer compared with the Yak-9, but with the La-7. The spits were stronger than La-7, but not at the bottom, even in the low-altitude LE modification. So they did not consider it necessary to drag them to the front; in 45, there was no shortage of aircraft.
                On the other hand, if Churchill was generous on Spit of the 44th year - the 14th, La-7 would have looked paler. Or maybe the same - I don’t know anything about the low-altitude version of the 14th.
                1. hohol95
                  hohol95 4 November 2017 10: 36 New
                  0
                  And if yes, if Churchill had given them company, they were generous with the Thunderborts and other Typhoons ... There would have been "darkness" with Soviet planes!
                  Only here, what is interesting - and how Soviet pilots on SUCH "wretched" planes shot down both the Me-109 and Fw-190! But logically, well, no matter how they should not have done this! That's a mystery ...
                  1. Negro
                    Negro 4 November 2017 14: 08 New
                    +2
                    Quote: hohol95
                    if Churchill had them a company generous with the “Thunderborts” and other “Typhoons” ... It would be absolutely “darkness” with Soviet aircraft!
                    Only here, what is interesting - and how Soviet pilots on SUCH "wretched" planes shot down both the Me-109 and Fw-190! But logically, well, no matter how they should not have done this! That's a mystery ...

                    Colleague, your post is either enchanting stupidity, or fat trolling. If you count on answers, it would be better to refuse both that, and another.
                    Thunder D - a unique car. In its tactical niche - 10 km, vertical combat is the best aircraft of its time. It was also used as an attack aircraft, and proved to be no worse than others - the load is twice as much as the IL-2, decent protection, high survivability. The USSR is not needed in either of these roles. It costs almost twice as much as a cobra.
                    Typhoon is simply an unsuccessful aircraft, which, in addition, is absolutely not a pearl.
                    Quote: hohol95
                    and, like Soviet pilots in SUCH "wretched" planes, they shot down both the Me-109 and Fw-190!

                    Bad shot down. Out of hand. See the ratio of forces and the ratio of losses.
                    About the wretched aircraft.
                    I greatly appreciate the efforts of Soviet designers. By the 44th year, they had built aircraft from shit and sticks, which in their niche — front-line aviation — were stronger than any others. Speaking of fighters, these are the Yak-9U, Yak-3 and La-7. By sticks, I mean the use of wood, by shit - Soviet engines. ASH-82FN in the 44th caught up with the very first double-vaspas, VK-107 - the 45th merlin of the same sleep 5s, the 40th year. In this regard, Soviet aircraft can be compared with Zero in terms of industry / result ratio, except for the timeliness of their appearance.
                    As for the Americans, most of the technology was made either in a hurry, or out of the blue, and in either case, under the slogan "the third grade is not marriage." I recall only two cars made with all the money, with full use of the technologies available at that time - these are Corsair and Superfortress. Both times turned out outstanding aircraft, a cut above any foreign counterparts.
                    Nevertheless, we should not forget that in the end the Americans guessed to put up a full-fledged Negro to the writing contest: in February of the 45th, the units located in the USA began to master the P-80A Shooting Star. Where is the place Yak-9U, Yak-3 and La-7 decide for yourself.
                  2. DimerVladimer
                    DimerVladimer 7 November 2017 14: 22 New
                    0
                    Quote: hohol95
                    Only here, what is interesting - and how Soviet pilots on SUCH "wretched" planes shot down both the Me-109 and Fw-190! But logically, well, no matter how they should not have done this! That's a mystery ...


                    Group combat suggests that the aircraft’s maneuverability does not play a decisive role, unlike martial arts. If someone sits at 6, then the group has a follower or a second pair, which will repulse the attack.
                    That is, a certain loss in the maneuverability of the aerocobra did not mean much.
                  3. Looking for
                    Looking for April 2 2018 17: 09 New
                    -1
                    Actually pronounced and spelled - "sandebolt"
                    1. hohol95
                      hohol95 April 3 2018 08: 05 New
                      0
                      Republic P-47 Thunderbolt (eng. Republic P-47 Thunderbolt).
                      Where is the letter S or C ???
          2. DimerVladimer
            DimerVladimer 7 November 2017 14: 17 New
            0
            Quote: hohol95
            If we were flying in the regimes that the Americans indicated in the instructions, we would have killed us right away - in the “native” regimes this fighter was not. And on our modes, they normally fought even with the “Messer”, even with the “Fokker”, but there were 3-4 such air battles and that’s all - change the engine! "


            Yes, the reserve of heights and powerful weapons - do their job.
            1. hohol95
              hohol95 7 November 2017 15: 58 New
              0
              Nikolay Skomorokhov
              "Reserve height"
      4. fedotow
        13 November 2017 01: 28 New
        0
        “Some of the ace’s comments were at least a surprise in the light of the many later negative airplane ratings made by pilots who fought on a Bell fighter.”
        - Sorry, I do not understand how this contradicts what I wrote in the article
  12. Dooplet11
    Dooplet11 3 November 2017 10: 21 New
    +3
    Dear Comrade fedotov !
    So as not to produce new legends and not to speculate.
    Cobra Corkscrew Tests at the Air Force Research Institute:
    https://cloud.mail.ru/public/NFSn/cD48qL8vK
    Instructions for piloting Cobra from 1944g:
    https://cloud.mail.ru/public/6f1w/ezdJT9rhM
    1. fedotow
      13 November 2017 01: 47 New
      0
      Dear Dooplet11,
      The cobras began to be delivered in 1941, at the same time work was carried out to select the engine operating mode and drawings for revision to offset the alignment.
      The documents you have indicated are dated 1944 and apply to aircraft that have already been finalized. Please be careful and do not mess up in vain.
  13. kig
    kig 3 November 2017 10: 23 New
    0
    read here

    http://www.airpages.ru/us/p39_3.shtml
  14. San Sanych
    San Sanych 3 November 2017 10: 38 New
    0
    Its among strangers, a stranger among its
  15. Yeah
    Yeah 3 November 2017 10: 55 New
    +5
    the article is not awful, even the analysis of the problems of the airplane is not just amateurish, but at the level of OBS (one grandmother said), well, to everyone, and especially to the author, an article to help www.airpages.ru/uk/p39_2.shtml, but what about the comparison with Soviet aircraft you need to look at the years and modifications, it is stupid to compare it with the I-15 or I-153, it is difficult with the Yak-1, but with regards to the rest, everyone has their own drawbacks and advantages. Yes, I forgot where I read it, but according to the recollections of the technicians, the aerocobra was "treated" in parts with lead ingots placed in the pilot's leg area and fixed after test flights. With regards to the “tail”, it curled up under large overloads, a PLAN was also developed to eliminate this defect, and even SENT to the manufacturer.
    1. Dooplet11
      Dooplet11 3 November 2017 11: 22 New
      0
      Overall 100500 +
      But here it is:
      but according to the recollections of technicians, the aerocobra was "treated" in parts with lead ingots placed in the area of ​​the pilot’s legs and after test flights were fixed.

      Either these are tales, or you do not quite accurately quote from memory.
      Firstly, what if during an “test flight” an unsecured load moves?
      Secondly, no technician in their right mind will experiment with centering at random. All modifications to the aircraft only by the Operational Bulletin or by Order. With the obligatory fixation of the amendments to the Aircraft Form.
      1. Yeah
        Yeah 3 November 2017 13: 38 New
        +2
        By order of the chief engineer of the Air Force, restrictions were placed on the alignment of the aircraft, and it was forbidden to put covers and tools in the rear part when relocating. Aerobatics without ammunition or equal ballast weight was strictly prohibited. So what I quoted from memory is by no means tales, but in each part they were “creative” in this part-in various parts, on my own initiative, introduced other amplifications into the fighter’s glider. So, in the 273rd division they put pads on the stabilizer spars. Just read the article that I suggested
        1. Dooplet11
          Dooplet11 3 November 2017 15: 11 New
          0
          I do not argue with the article. I disagree with the emphasis. wink
          1. It is not in the competence of the technician to decide what and where to add, and what and where to shoot to change the centering.
          By order of the Air Force Chief Engineer introduced restrictions on the alignment of the aircraft, it was forbidden to put covers and tools in the rear part when relocating. Aerobatics without ammunition or equal ballast weight was strictly prohibited.
          - You wrote.
          2. Loose load in a “test flight” - do you understand that at the slightest overload during a flyby, this load will shift itself and shift the alignment? Not only is it unclear what is being tried in this case, but it is also a Prerequisite for a Flight Accident. Imagine, somewhere under your feet 16-kg lead ingot went? And the pedal, God forbid, jammed?
          1. Dooplet11
            Dooplet11 3 November 2017 15: 19 New
            0
            Above, I cited a document with regulated methods for changing the alignment on Cobra. Under the signature "technician" in the rank of major general and the post of "Acting Chief of the UTE Air Force" (Technical Operation Department). Here is such a technician who decided how to properly load the plane .. hi
            1. Yeah
              Yeah 3 November 2017 17: 59 New
              +1
              firstly, do not cling to the words It is clear that the technician Ivan Petrov will not decide, but I'm sorry at the regiment level (if you already read the article that I recommended, then Pokryshkin sold the decision on the trigger for guns, unlike you, HARRY on any orders ...), so and for the rest, it is natural that this decision was made not just like that and was tested as a RULE in combat units and only THERE is reported to Moscow (which I think is correct in conditions of war), which concerns an unsecured BALLAST cargo (I understand that you are NOT TECHNAR), but you can fix it in different ways (TIME) - on a wire, on an electrical tape, on an adhesive tape (on a modern one), so that THEN there would be an opportunity to CORRECT the placement, but USE IT SO EVERYDAY .... do you really think they are FOOLS? and then when found the "golden section" fasten to bolts, rivets, welding and then EXPLAIT! Moreover, I’ll say I worked in the Ministry of Railways of the USSR and I myself saw how in violation of ALL the rules diesel locomotives were issued per line (there was simply nothing to go, but the ORDER on the form signed by the deputy for the depot DEPARTED), and you want to say that in the conditions there was no "kulibin" war ???
              1. Dooplet11
                Dooplet11 7 November 2017 09: 40 New
                0
                Firstly, I, just like you, are a techie, though not MPS nickname, but MAP sheep. ;)
                Secondly, for TU, TO, RLE, words and accents are important, they are "written in blood."
                Thirdly, apparently, you have little idea how alignment is considered, how it is ensured, how controllability is checked. Therefore, you can believe the memoirs and interpret as you please, but let me disagree with you. hi
                1. Dooplet11
                  Dooplet11 7 November 2017 10: 02 New
                  0
                  The centering of the Cobra, indeed, was treated including lead ingots, including in parts. This was done according to a pre-calculated scheme, in accordance with the instructions or the operational bulletin, the cargo was accordingly secured immediately. All under the supervision and guidance of the engineering service of the unit. And the subsequent flight is a normal phenomenon after any work with the aircraft. Accents, dear, accents ...
                  And yes, some improvements were made on the initiative from below. But in this case they bore a single and experimental character, without the approval of the relevant services, they could not acquire a mass character and legal force.
                  1. Yeah
                    Yeah 7 November 2017 14: 45 New
                    0
                    Erlin.
                    The enemy fiercely resists. But it is clear to us: nothing will save him. The collapse of the Nazi empire is inevitable!
                    In the meantime, our thought is busy searching: to bring victory closer, we must beat the enemy as hard as possible. What to do to make our blows more tangible?
                    I have already said that innovation, invention are vivid traits of Pokryshkin’s character and that the spirit of search has always been inherent in him.
                    Analyzing somehow the air and ground conditions, our divisor unexpectedly suggested:
                    - And what if instead of hanging gas tanks hang two hundred and fifty kilogram bombs? ..
                    The offer is tempting! After all, a fighter simultaneously becomes a bomber, and then it will be possible to strike at the strongholds of the Nazis.
                    Together with the regimental and divisional weapons engineer Major Pronin, Alexander Ivanovich is developing a suspension system and a device for folding the fuse of chickenpox. The bomb can be dropped both from horizontal flight and from a dive. The angles of discharge for long-range bombing were calculated and the risks incurred on the hoods of aircraft.
                    In a short time, two fighters were equipped with the new system, and we began to test it. The site was located at a safe distance from the airfield. Placed a circle, inscribed a cross in it - and the target is ready.
                    The first run was performed by Pokryshkin. Bombing is carried out from horizontal flight. The system worked flawlessly, the bomb fell into a circle. I come in second. The bomb lays next to the first.
                    The second flight - dive bombing at an angle of 45 °. Accuracy is good!
                    On the same day, the division commander assembled the entire flight crew and told how to approach the bombing, how to aim, depending on the dive angle, and then instructed the weapons and technical engineer to equip some of the aircraft with a new device.
                    The technicians of our squadron, Pavel Ukhov, Ivan Yakimenko, together with the mechanics in armaments - Viktor Korotkov and others, quickly mastered the novelty, and when flying out on a mission to the Berlin area, we often hung bombs under the wings of a fighter.
                    Especially many sorties with bombing cargo were made on the processing of an enemy group, which part of the forces left the encirclement in the Cottbus region and rushed west along the forest, which is 100-120 kilometers south of Berlin. Golubev "Paired with the hundredth" Arrived, reported. The commander studied the map, and then ordered: by assault to destroy enemy columns. But the attack did not give sufficient effect, because with the approach of the aircraft the enemy rushed into the forest. Then bombs were hung under the wings. The effectiveness of our flights immediately increased.
                    We learned how to bomb from a dive at an angle of 60-70 degrees. Making a coup, a couple or a link at the command of the leader entered into a dive and, on command, dropping bombs followed by exiting the pike and becoming a cover group, while the next couple or link covering us repeated our maneuver and launched a bomb attack.
                    So, thanks to the initiative and ingenuity of A.I. Pokryshkin, the firing volley of our fighter increased significantly, from which the enemy - not only air but also ground - suffered heavy losses.
                    1. Dooplet11
                      Dooplet11 7 November 2017 15: 49 New
                      0
                      A good example, just great!
                      And?
                      Was this technician invented and organized? or
                      division commander
                      With regimental and division engineer in armament
                      ?
                      Hooked bombs to all planes, or
                      .developing a system pendants and a device for winding down the fuses of chickenpox ... In a short time two fighters were equipped with the new system, and we started her test
                      ?
                      Immediately hitched bombs to everyone, and forward, or:
                      division commander assembled the entire flight crew и told how you need to go on bombing, how to aim - depending on the angle of the dive, and then instructed the weapons and technical engineer equip part of the aircraft with a new device
                      ?
                      The scheme is as follows: proposal / calculation / test / final decision by an authorized person (divisional commander, Twice GSS in this case) / briefing / technical support / training / applied
                      Eden. There is an initiative, but no anarchy.
                      1. Yeah
                        Yeah 7 November 2017 17: 11 New
                        0
                        firstly, do not cling to the words It is clear that the technician Ivan Petrov will not decide, but I'm sorry at the regiment level (if you already read the article that I recommended, then Pokryshkin sold the decision on the trigger for guns, unlike you, HARRY on any orders ...), so and for the rest, it is natural that this decision was made not just like that and it was tested as a RULE in combat units and only THERE is reported to Moscow, I wrote this in past comments, alas, we do not understand each other! I know very well how the rational proposal SHOULD BE PASSED, but in conditions of war and a normal boss (who is ready to take the initiative in his own hands and HELP the rationalizer in the calculations) much has been achieved both in the factories and in the BUILDING units. Therefore, when you talk about instructions (although I agree with you on their implementation), as EXCLUSIVE measures, life shows the opposite ..
                      2. Yeah
                        Yeah 7 November 2017 17: 17 New
                        +1
                        and according to the situation, even the divisional officer is NOT RIGHT to make such a decision without agreement with the manufacturer? I am wrong?
                  2. Dooplet11
                    Dooplet11 7 November 2017 16: 01 New
                    0
                    And amateur performance was not without it. The result is often a drug, accident or disaster, the result (as an example), -
                    By order of the chief engineer of the Air Force, restrictions were placed on the alignment of the aircraft, banned when relocating Tail covers and tools. Aerobatics without ammunition or equal ballast weight was strictly prohibited

                    Someone also decided: why, there’s a place in the tail - we’ll load it at relocation! Centering without BC is extremely rear? And the ballast is not delivered according to the instructions? Bullshit! Twist the loop before landing!
                    There were many non-combat losses. Including due to amateur performances.
                    1. Yeah
                      Yeah 7 November 2017 17: 13 New
                      0
                      I’ll tell you more about that during the Great Patriotic War, not only the property was transported like that, but the technicians were transported like that, such a life was ...
                      1. Dooplet11
                        Dooplet11 8 November 2017 11: 09 New
                        0
                        And?
                        1. Cobra was banned (apparently, after amateur-initiative "unsuccessful" attempts of "rationalizers"). With its close to neutral centering it is not surprising.
                        2. Life was risky. And there were enough fools. But if you go back to the beginning of our disagreements with you, this is not proof that the technicians decided where to hang the cargo, and that this cargo was secured AFTER the flyby. hi
                  3. Yeah
                    Yeah 8 November 2017 17: 12 New
                    0
                    All under the supervision and guidance of the engineering service of the unit. And the subsequent flight is a normal phenomenon after any work with the aircraft. Accents, dear, accents ... Pay attention to the date 44 year !!!! Well, you need to explain, or guess yourself? (This is a collection of those developments in the parts and sent to Moscow for approval, but the cobra went to the parts in '42, if my memory serves me right), Now let's still coordinate our parameters OFFER - 1 is an initiative (pilot Petrov or technician Sidorov) , 2 to be brought to command 3, technical documentation and calculations are being prepared ------ NEXT according to the RULES it is sent to the manufacturer or to the designer's design bureau (SO MUST according to the RULES) and only then, with the permission of these organizations, changes are made about what Pokryshkin had ( and in other parts, paragraphs 1 and 2 are naturally fulfilled, but NEXT, at your own risk and RISK, the commander (as the RULE OF DIVISION, less often the SHELF to explain that it will not be necessary to lose the car then) gives the go-ahead to the "experiment" and successfully implemented parts and sent this opus to Moscow Now, as far as I understand, this initiative has died and only claims and wishes are sent to the manufacturer, which sometimes go to the following machines for improvements by the designer (and possibly in modern nation on technical documentation sent from the factory in parts or repair plants) -RIGHT wrote? So what I wrote about was that it was not the technician Petrov who secretly or in collusion with the pilot did some kind of modernization and the plane flew away - NO, it was the command of the unit based on the rational proposals of the pilots and technicians who did not send the documents to the plant and tested it, and, based on the results, either sent the results and INTRODUCED into operation. I hope you understand my train of thought and ACCENTS.
                    1. Dooplet11
                      Dooplet11 9 November 2017 08: 55 New
                      +1
                      Now I understand by what you meant by "technicians in parts hung loads" In the extreme interpretation, you can accept the interpretation of memoirs. Accents, colleague! laughing The question remains with "fixed after the flyby." I propose to cross out this phrase altogether. Secured immediately, could not help securing. After the flight, they could adjust the size of the cargo or its location. And it is unlikely that the initiative with the cargo came from technicians and pilots. I think that in the initial period of operation of the cobra, signals about disasters came from the troops. The Air Force Research Institute experienced a corkscrew. The report I cited above. The beginning of the 43. Then the initial conclusions about the reasons and recommendations to the troops in the form of ballots and temporary instructions. Which finally enshrined in the piloting instructions in 44-m.
                      Question to you: to what period do the memoirs about cargo securing belong in the memoirs you read? Just do not claim that to the initial period of operation of the cobra (42). I will not believe . hi
                      1. Yeah
                        Yeah 9 November 2017 10: 01 New
                        0
                        unfortunately I don’t remember where I read it, I’ll even say it more not from Golubev’s book, but I read it somewhere (the interpretation may have been different, quoted from memory, but I think I conveyed the meaning correctly), Well, as far as fixing is concerned (here, I don’t specialist, but knowing that extra work will not be performed, I think my interpretation is POSSIBLE true-, but you can fix it in different ways (TIME) - on a wire, on electrical tape, on adhesive tape (according to the modern one), so that BEFORE there would be an opportunity to ADJUST the placement, but TO USE SO IN DAILY .... do you really think they are FOOLS? And then when found the "golden section" to fasten to bolts, rivets, welding and then OPERATE! Yes, and about the book, it was PEOPLE with a BIG letter, not afraid to take responsibility and initiative into their own hands, how they fought, how they worked (under what conditions it’s honestly not I can imagine myself in them) it’s really a feat,
                      2. Yeah
                        Yeah 9 November 2017 10: 56 New
                        0
                        Vremyanka is not a full-fledged ATTACHMENT, you know very well that even a BOLT connection with a Grover washer is locked with a cotter pin or wire (although from Germany on the "Swallows" they put a nut self-locking without a wire-innovation) THEREFORE I am writing not fixed!
                  4. Yeah
                    Yeah 14 November 2017 11: 28 New
                    +1
                    Cartridge with a crack on the sleeve of the sleeve

                    But he was at "AeroCobra", according to the recollections of S.N. Ikonnikova and another, less well-known flaw - ammunition:

                    “We practically had no complaints about the reliability of the American guns and machine guns. But the ammunition was brought to the Colt-Browning heavy machine guns and the longer they were stored, the more troubles were revealed. The machine guns began to fail due to the bullet falling out of the cartridge case when the cartridge passed through the automatic weapons. The pilot could not eliminate such a refusal in the air, since gunpowder scattered in the receiver of the machine gun, the sleeve and bullet crumpled. To eliminate the failure required the removal of the machine gun, its disassembly and cleaning. Initially, we attributed this weapon failure due to insufficient compression of the bullet at the cartridge factory. They could not do anything to prevent it. Only the number of failures was recorded and reported monthly on a command. But more and more often, one or the other pilot returned from a combat mission, not fully using the power of weapons. Something had to be done. Inspection of cartridges, an attempt to sway bullets to identify and reject defective cartridges, we could not. And during a control inspection of weapons in one of the regiments, a mechanic came up to me and said: “Comrade engineer, look, I found yesterday in the regiment’s ammunition ammunition a cartridge with a crack on the sleeve of the cartridge case. As I did not peer, but could not find any crack. He called technicians from other planes, but they did not find a defect either. The pilots came up. The cartridge passed from hand to hand, but no one could discern the cracks. We go to the room for cleaning weapons, and there I clamp the cartridge bullet in a vice so that the place indicated by the crack technician is clearly visible. I’m starting to put pressure on the cartridge case and indeed - an increasingly noticeable crack of the cartridge case appears ”. And once the drawback is revealed, it must be eliminated:

                    “The armed men removed the machine gun ammunition boxes from the faulty aircraft. They took out machine-gun belts from the boxes and discharged them - cartridges in one direction, links - in the other. These are 400 rounds and 400 links. After thorough wiping, the cartridges were laid out on the tables and started to inspect. Double control - first inspected by an armament master, then - a mechanic. As a result of five hours of work, a cartridge with a noticeable crack in the sleeve was rejected. I instruct the "big-eyed" mechanic to monitor the work performed, and he discovers two cartridges with previously unnoticed cracks in the barrel of cartridges. Ammunition cartridges and the installation of machine gun ammunition on the plane ended at dusk. What to do? The ammunition of machine guns will undoubtedly have to be removed from all aircraft, unload cartridge cartridges, inspect each cartridge, and then again equip them into ribbons. And all this must be done during the day, without reducing combat readiness, since at night in the light of flashlights, of course, nothing can be detected. The work is huge. But even in daylight, we can only detect large cracks, since we do not have loops, and one mechanic has unique vision in this regiment. It is difficult to expect that in other regiments there are people with such visual acuity. How much time will this work take, even if there is at least one such specialist in each regiment? But a hidden weapon failure can be laid on every plane. Aircraft are constantly flying out to combat missions, and it is not known whether machine guns will be fired or because of ammunition they will be refused by firing only a few shots. It made no sense to send telegrams to other regiments, the engineers of the regiments could not understand the essence of the matter, and the flight crew was agitated.

                    The next day, he reported to the division commander and immediately received permission to urgently fly around other regiments, look for people from among both technical and flight personnel who could detect munition defects, and organize work. I had a cartridge with a noticeable crack with me, two cartridges with microscopic cracks, on which, in order not to confuse, I made notes invisible to the prying eye. I also grabbed a dozen conditional cartridges. In each squadron, he laid out ammunition on the table and offered to find defective cartridges. However, no one was able to detect microscopic cracks. But something needed to be done to reject the ammunition.
                    I decided to ask the division commander to give orders to the regiments to send several mechanics to the German houses abandoned by the residents to search for loops, writing them in the travel orders that they are not marauders, but military personnel who carry out the command assignment. He shared his thoughts with the mechanics.

                    “Comrade engineer,” the elderly mechanic asked the question, “maybe the lenses will do for this?”
                    “Where do we get the lenses?”
                    “I’m running off to my capter. After a few minutes, this mechanic, whose love of technology and ingenuity were known to the entire regiment, joyfully brought a rifle scope he had shot from the Messerschmitt.” The sight was immediately taken apart and we had several excellent Zeiss lenses in our hands. They immediately tested their suitability, microcracks were detected reliably. Since at all airfields there were "Messerschmitts" abandoned by the Nazis, the issue of providing lenses was resolved. For three days of hard work, the ammunition of machine guns on all aircraft was checked. When replenishing ammunition, each cartridge was inspected using a lens. Naturally, this lengthened the time for preparing the ammunition, but the Armed Forces were sure that now the machine guns of the pilot would not fail in battle. ”

                    https://www.yaplakal.com/forum7/topic1507637.html
              2. Looking for
                Looking for April 2 2018 17: 17 New
                0
                Well, tell me. Please God. What are you, "railroad" in the air then you climb?
            2. Yeah
              Yeah 7 November 2017 09: 30 New
              0
              The dugout of captain Pokryshkin at the field airfield was jokingly called
              shelf "design bureau". Accurate, playfully thrown by someone word firmly
              came into use. And not by chance. Here in this small dugout chief
              air rifle service of the regiment, who at that time was Pokryshkin, from
              with the soot of the ceiling to the earthen floor, everything was completely hung with schemes and
              drawings of air battles, aircraft models. All the most valuable in tactics
              the air war, which was created by the pilots of the regiment, was clearly presented
              here.
              There was also an album of air maneuvers. This album opened
              catchy slogan: "FIGHTER! SEEK MEETINGS WITH AN ENEMY: NOT
              ASK, HOW MANY ENEMIES, AND ASK - WHERE THEY? "
              The album now and then replenished with schemes of new air combat. In it already
              the tactics of the ascending spiral were well developed, and later here I found my
              mapping the new at the time of the battle, secret Pokryshkin, -
              maneuver associated with leaving under the enemy’s highway in a bend. Soon this
              the maneuver was developed, improved and turned into a weapon of our
              offensive tactics. It was a good reception. Attacked on a turn
              our pilot sharply cleaned the gas, lost speed and controlled downward barrel
              in the direction of the turn went under the belly of the enemy fighter. German
              the fighter at that time was losing sight of our plane and, having
              speed superiority, slipped over him. Now our fighter
              found himself in the tail and in turn pressed on the enemy. Golubev "Paired with the hundredth" -know Pokryshkina
      2. The comment was deleted.
  16. tolancop
    tolancop 3 November 2017 11: 24 New
    +1
    I read this opus with doubt before the phrase: "... to minimize the weight of the aircraft, they squeezed everything out of the engines to the drop ...". There was no point in reading further, since the diagnosis became clear.
  17. sivuch
    sivuch 3 November 2017 11: 35 New
    +2
    All the same, it is necessary to start with the fact that Americans (and Britons) mainly flew on early cobras, including the P-400. Soviet pilots, on the contrary, mainly on late and, accordingly, brought in N and Q.
    By the way, one can note the excellent survivability, despite the engine of water cooling, and the reservation of the Cobra. booking was sometimes even considered excessive
  18. hohol95
    hohol95 3 November 2017 12: 02 New
    +1
    There are a lot of “MISCONTINUES” in the text and therefore it’s better to read -
  19. iouris
    iouris 3 November 2017 14: 01 New
    +3
    Strange discussion. It seems that each new generation will form its own history and a new look at each particular issue. It’s time to understand that it’s not the planes that are fighting, but the people, the American (USA) equipment is much more advanced from the point of view of technology, and the plane is a complex technical system, therefore it is wrong to compare two planes according to individual characteristics; Kozhedub and Pokryshkin are Soviet pilots, not "Ukrainian" and "Russian"; It is impossible to oppose La-5fn with R-39, because they complemented each other; not only pilots "squeezed" out of the P-39, but also ITS due to a decrease in reliability characteristics; air wars on different theater stages during WWII were different, therefore the criteria for evaluating the effectiveness were also different, and the command requirements for LTH also differed, moreover, American, Japanese, German, British, French, Finnish pilots fought differently, not so, like soviet. Only the Americans had the opportunity to make a wide choice of the type of aircraft, the rest fought on what was.
  20. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 3 November 2017 20: 43 New
    +2
    Everything is simple. Aerocobra - front-line fighter. With a small radius of action, and working at low altitudes. Americans did not need such.
    They worked in huge maritime theaters, with transoceanic flights. Where they steered heavy high-altitude fighters.
  21. shuravi
    shuravi 4 November 2017 10: 19 New
    +2
    How many I do not read such articles, the authors, when evaluating airplanes, stupidly run into LTX and all. In this case, the maximum speed is derived a little defining criterion.
    Meanwhile, its importance is greatly overestimated.
  22. Bask
    Bask 4 November 2017 10: 26 New
    0
    shuravi,
    Read Isaev’s book, “Liberation. The War Brought Us From Kursk to Oryol,” which clearly describes how German aircraft acted with numbers and links. German attack aircraft constantly bombed Soviet troops and, with fewer aircraft, acted quite successfully and did not yield quantitatively superior to Soviet aviation. Not tactics were flawed, just German aviation was inferior in quantity throughout the war, and after the start of the bombing of Germany, everything became very bad.
    1. shuravi
      shuravi 4 November 2017 11: 00 New
      +2
      Sorry, but when I studied the tactics of the Air Force, the Isaev you mentioned was still in the sandbox, when you started to put it into practice, he only mastered "mom washed the frame."
      The fact that he defended a dissertation in 2012, so the time is now. When any nerd can formalize his verbiage into a scientific work. But this does not mean that he understands the essence of the issue.
      1. Bask
        Bask 4 November 2017 18: 53 New
        0
        And what does Isaev’s thesis have to do with it? It’s just that a man wrote a book on the basis of archival documents. Isaev cites the numbers of Luftwaffe flights by day by day in the book I cite. He gives examples of bombing attacks on Soviet troops and their consequences. He does not analyze tactics, only application facts German aviation. Believe it or not, this is your own business. Well, I'm sorry, of course, in the history of aviation, I studied the second world amateur and tactics of conducting air battles from the books of veterans, historians. I unfortunately do not have access to the archives. If I understand you correctly, if - would the Soviet Air Force be inferior to the Luftwaffe quantitatively, but act tactically as they act, would they win anyway? Explain the flawed tactics of the German Air Force. They also used direct escort of attack machines, they also tried to prevent their troops from being bombed, the rear and the crossings. How not to rest and what super tactics do not apply, but if the opponent surpasses you quantitatively and quickly replenishes his sweat Here, victory is not to be seen.
        1. rubin6286
          rubin6286 5 November 2017 20: 15 New
          +1
          Dear friend! What you call aviation tactics are, in fact, its tasks. In the war of the opponents, the tasks of aviation (in relation to the branches of aviation) are the same. Roughly speaking, tactics is the science of how to do something at the level of a squadron-regiment-division. How to do this at the level of division - corps - air army - front - these are already issues of strategy and operational art. The tactics are based on excellence in aviation technology and the training of flight-lifting and flight technical personnel. The Germans in the last war greatly excelled us, especially at the initial stage. As the Soviet Air Force gained combat experience, improved the quality and quantity of military vehicles, this superiority was almost completely lost by the enemy.
          1. Bask
            Bask 6 November 2017 10: 39 New
            0
            But there is such a thing as tactical tasks? I spoke about them. Regarding the tactics of conducting air combat, I agree with you in almost everything, all the same, German pilots were more free in choosing tactics for conducting combat and in fulfilling the tasks assigned to them. An example is air battles in the Battle of Britain, when German pilots were ordered to keep close to the bombers. After suffering sensitive losses, young German squadron commanders (Mölders, Galland) were able to prove the destructiveness of such tactics. aviation. 1941-1945 "indicates that Soviet pilots especially in the initial period of the war acted indecisively and without initiative. But by the 42nd year, the situation began to change, with the acquisition of experience by Soviet pilots, the tactics of conducting air combat became different.
          2. Yeah
            Yeah 7 November 2017 09: 18 New
            0
            - Creativity, ingenuity is one of the most valuable qualities
            Soviet pilot, - Pokryshkin told us. And we understood that
            individual mastery gains in quantity a new, even greater force.
            In war, one cannot think only of oneself. Otherwise, you will inevitably fail.
            Cohesion, mutual assistance - the main thing in battle, and in its value is not inferior
            excellent piloting technique.
            The cruel nature of the air battles urged one thing in common
            style in the actions of couples, fours, groups as a whole. Parenting and knocking together
            strong, flown pair Pokryshkin paid special attention. And in the draw
            combat mission, and in training flights, he required the most difficult actions
            a pair of fighters, as the most flexible, maneuverable and easily controlled
            the main combat unit of fighter aircraft.
            Under no circumstances, even the most difficult conditions, the steam should not break up.
            A couple is one.
            So demanded Pokryshkin. He taught us to hold fast to our place in
            I’m building, but always act depending on the current situation in
            air battle time.
            The main thing was to keep the follower in sight all the time.
            the plane of his commander, saw the enemy, knew what was happening around, on
            sharp maneuvers did not break away from the lead and at the right time could come to him on
            help. Golubev "Paired with the hundredth" - a note before that went "troika"
            1. Bask
              Bask 7 November 2017 10: 11 New
              0
              You will forgive me, but Pokryshkin was not the creator of the tactics of conducting combat in pairs, this tactic was used by Soviet pilots around the front when no one knew about Pokryshkin. I do not think that Alexander Ivanovich specifically attributed to himself the creation of separation tactics in height or other methods of conducting air combat. What is attributed to the genius of Pokryshkin was used by pilots in the First World War, in Spain, on Halgin-Gol with the Japanese.
              1. Yeah
                Yeah 7 November 2017 13: 46 New
                0
                I also don’t know who the creators are, but they spied on this reception from the Germans !! And as regards Soviet techniques - (Alas) - flied according to the charter of the TROIKES and all tactics proceeded from this
              2. Yeah
                Yeah 14 November 2017 07: 58 New
                0
                Without attaching much importance to the fraud around his name, Pokryshkin in the spring and summer of 1943 continued to study and analyze the tactics of actions of his fighter aircraft and the enemy. Ace finally refused flights as part of triples, moving to pairs. The battle formation was separated in range and height. The shock link flew down below, above and behind - the cover. The links were also separated in height and range. So the famous “Kuban whatnot” appeared. As a rule, the covering link appeared on the scene suddenly and at the most inopportune moment for the enemy. Pokryshkin preferred vertical to bends over turns - something close to the tactics of Luftwaffe fighters “hit and run,” a swift dive attack. Due to dispersal during a dive, when leaving the attack, the pilot performed the slide more energetically - it became more difficult to “catch” the air arrows of bombers or enemy fighters at the exit from the attack.
                The tactics developed by Pokryshkin were officially approved by the Red Army Air Force Command. Pokryshkin’s tactics turned out to be so successful that even in the 60s, North Vietnamese pilots successfully used them in air battles with American pilots. Pokryshkin began to practice free hunting flights at the 16th GIAP, while fighters of the Red Army, with rare exceptions, performed only two types of combat missions: covering ground forces in a specific place and escorting bombers. Free hunting flights made it possible for pilots to take the initiative, to impose the place and time of air combat on their own, and to take full advantage of the new tactics. By the end of 1943, free hunting tactics began to be widely practiced in the units of the 8th Air Army, and elite fighter regiments appeared for the competition, for which free hunting became the main way to participate in hostilities. www.airpages.ru/us/p39_3.shtml
        2. shuravi
          shuravi 5 November 2017 21: 12 New
          +1
          That is the whole problem. What is trusted in archival documents. But they are made up of people. And when a non-specialist tries to work with them, it turns out cranberries.
          As for German tactics. That tactics are the same everywhere. The question is which ones are in priority.
          The German tactics of IA were based on the calculation: we gain air supremacy, thereby ensuring the safe operation of our attack aircraft. Direct cover was a secondary affair.
          That is, the German fighter pilot was always in priority had the destruction of enemy aircraft. And until the end of the war, this practice was not broken.
          1. rubin6286
            rubin6286 6 November 2017 01: 03 New
            0
            I do not understand. I repeat again, the tactics of fighter aviation is how to do something (conduct a maneuverable air battle, intercept bombers, escort attack aircraft or dive bombers, perform artillery fire adjustment, reconnaissance of the front line, etc., etc.) at the squadron level regiment division. Priorities are assigned to subordinates by the regiment commander when setting up a combat mission before departure. If you are a pilot, then you perfectly understand what I mean. For the performance of a combat mission, commanders of all degrees are accountable upon return, and the command makes an appropriate decision based on the result of the departure. Both the Soviet and the German pilots in the past war and in modern conditions are not entitled to cancel or change the order of the commander (independently prioritize). If instead of covering the attack aircraft or bombers, the pilot got involved in a maneuvering battle and, in fact, threw them away, which led to losses, although he shot down the enemy’s plane, this is a penal battalion (both for us and for them), and if the damage caused is incommensurable (own losses significantly exceed the losses of the enemy), the perpetrator will be shot. The tactics are based on the qualitative and quantitative superiority of aviation technology and the training of flight-lifting and flight technical personnel. There is no qualitative advantage (I-16 is weak on the verticals against the Me-109E) there is one maneuvering battle; there is a qualitative advantage (La-5FN against Me-109 G4) maneuvering combat is different. There are no identical pilots and the one who perfectly knows the machine wins, is better prepared physically and technically. It is not the machine that performs the turn in 22 seconds, but the pilot in it, and this is a very good pilot. Those who are weaker, perform the turn longer and the result of the battle for them may be different. Moreover, there is a “cranberry,” if the forms are stored in the archive and everything is stated accurately. In wartime, they were shot for making false information and deceiving the commanders of new ones. It seems to me that there was no one who wanted to go under the bullet because of this.
            1. shuravi
              shuravi 6 November 2017 10: 07 New
              +1
              You cannot understand in any way. That the German IA’s tactics were built primarily on the destruction of enemy aircraft. Hence the school, and the priority of tactics and technology. And it’s so easy not to break it.
              No matter how much you later set the task to cover strike aircraft, but if the pilot is not properly trained and his mind still has the priority of a personal account, then do not expect much success.
              The Germans tried to somehow change the situation by transferring the pilots from the "pieces" to the "Phoke-Wolves", believing that this option will allow you to have two in one and can do without cover.
              But alas, again, the school and mentality of the bomber pilot was not good.
              1. rubin6286
                rubin6286 6 November 2017 17: 30 New
                +1
                The training system for a fighter pilot in almost any country is almost the same, but it’s almost impossible to teach everyone to fly both ground and air targets equally well and skillfully, and, as in any business, there will be better people who are weaker. To say that in the Luftwaffe they gave preference to air combat, and in the USA or the USSR this was not the main thing - ordinary civil and “school” amateurism. All pilots were taught the same thing, but they learned everything in different ways. In addition, the course of hostilities and the dynamics of air losses often made adjustments to the timing of pilot training, and this did not always have a positive effect in the future. There is no time to specialize in war: this one will fly on a “free hunt”, this one should accompany the bombers, but this one will be engaged in aerial reconnaissance. You never know what the pilot’s mentality is. The rule applies: They taught - that means you should be able to and your personal opinion at the front does not interest anyone. Your life depends on what and how you learned. Having received the task of a higher headquarters, the unit commander issues and submits to the subordinates a combat order that defines and sets the priority: to whom and what to do in a specific situation. Such an order is the law. For deviation from the requirements of the order or its non-performance in wartime, strict liability is established. I already mentioned this in my comments.
                Among the rules there are exceptions. In the past war, the formation of reconnaissance air regiments that carried out tactical and strategic reconnaissance of the enemy’s territory, air defense fighter aircraft engaged in the reflection of day and night air raids, special types of fighter aircraft equipped with radar and powerful weapons were created, but the terms for retraining pilots of this profile on this technique (bombers, transporters, etc. etc.) were minimal.
                1. Bask
                  Bask 6 November 2017 18: 44 New
                  +1
                  You were right, it seems, you taught one thing, but the approaches to training are different. The total flight time of Soviet pilots is about 30 hours, at best (on all types of aircraft, including U-2 and UTI-4). For the Germans, the main fighter only has a flying time of 250 hours not counting training machines.
                  1. rubin6286
                    rubin6286 7 November 2017 01: 58 New
                    +3
                    Son!

                    In the 90s, I had to be in Germany and talk with German veterans of the past war, including and Luftwaffe pilots. They told me very unpleasant and insulting stories about our army, aircraft and other things, in a word something that can not be read everywhere today. I did not argue with them, because they told the truth, the “theirs” truth about the war in which they themselves participated and how she was seen. None of the beaten “warriors” praised us, including and this Schwabedissen, who wrote his own nonsense, along with our “liberals," out of stupidity, who let it go to print.

                    The state of the Soviet Air Force in the initial period of the war is devoted to many publications. Today they can be found not only on bookshelves, but also on the Internet.
                    In the initial period of the war, aviation schools were able to train a large number of pilots, even with such a low level of training. Many were killed, but those who survived became real air fighters. In 1942, the first ZAPs were formed - spare aviation regiments, to which graduates of schools were sent to improve flight skills and master new aviation equipment, and only after that they went to the front. This made it possible to improve the quality of pilot training, to finish learning that they did not have time in school. Before arriving at the front, the ZAP pilot had a raid on the fighter for at least 50-70 hours and there was a steady upward trend. In 1944, at the Yeisk Aviation College, they were even able to switch to training pilots on the Yak-7UTI and La-5UTI planes before being sent to the front for higher and difficult aerobatics.

                    The Germans had a similar picture. While the level of losses in the East was relatively low, the units were in no hurry with applications for replenishment and flight schools could train pilots longer and better. After school, graduates fell into training air squadrons (the prototype of our ZAPs) or directly into combat units, where more experienced pilots were attached to them to improve flight skills. Commissioning, on average, lasted 6-8 months and ended with the first air victory. Later, the war on two fronts, led to a weakening of industrial potential, increased losses and depletion of human reserves. In the Luftwaffe came less and less trained pilots. During the period from December 1944 to April 1945, more than 2/3 of the dead pilots before their deaths made no more than three sorties. Under these conditions, the Luftwaffe could not be transferred completely to jet equipment and the Me-162,163,262, Arado-234 aircraft were never massively mastered by the troops.
                    1. Bask
                      Bask 7 November 2017 10: 22 New
                      0
                      Listen, let’s leave that tone and we will conduct a dialogue normally and with respect to each other, not rude. Moreover, I can’t adequately respond to your dismissive son as we are far from each other. To conduct a dialogue in a similar tone in the distance is not masculine. Or have you not been taught this?
                      1. rubin6286
                        rubin6286 7 November 2017 13: 21 New
                        +1
                        From the content of your comments, I realized that you are still very young. Do not be offended, youth has always been a plus. I am 65 years old, which is why I wrote "Sonny". I don’t know why you didn’t like the tone of my comments and where rudeness is.
                2. Yeah
                  Yeah 7 November 2017 09: 14 New
                  0
                  Throughout all classes Pokryshkin, as a rule, asked one,
                  then the other pilot theoretical questions that should have been given
                  an exhaustive answer based on a combination of theory with practical
                  actions.
                  Especially much was practiced in introducing aviation tactics
                  enemy: fighters, bombers, scouts, even
                  spotters and balloons. Typically, these introductory entries were created on
                  a certain background of the air environment, tied to terrain, time,
                  space.
                  Having spread out the flight cards in front of us, we received a combat mission with
                  an indication of a specific area of ​​hostilities, time, weather, which gave
                  the ability to substantively study the ground and air conditions. Some layouts have
                  we were represented by enemy bombers, others - their cover, others -
                  fighters covering the battlefield. Pokryshkin set a task for everyone. we
                  made a decision and holding models of their fighter planes in their hands,
                  made various evolutions: “went on the attack”, “maneuvered”, “left the
                  battle, "occupying a better position," knocked down the enemy. "This is so
                  It fascinated us that for days on end we did not part with the mock-ups of airplanes and,
                  as soon as free time was given out, we played it ourselves
                  invented aerial combat. And then they reproduced the battle just held
                  comrades who flew in from the assignment and immediately discussed it.
                  Pokryshkin, controlling us in the course of action, made comments, gave
                  advice, pointed out errors.
                  Immediately showed the right maneuver so that we remember it and could
                  apply in battle. Coached us for a long time on this, ensured that everyone
                  the decision we made was what it should be in combat
                  setting.
                  We trained for a long time and thoroughly in shooting. On special
                  installation learned the accuracy of aiming from different angles, fast
                  aiming. In fact, it looked like this. Here comes the enemy’s plane.
                  Its flight speed is 450 kilometers per hour. You take a sight, you determine
                  camera angle, move the aiming point forward, start tracking, holding
                  "enemy aircraft" in sight. Accurately pointed - electric flashes
                  light bulb.
                  All this was done with rapid speed in order to educate us
                  energetic, well-aimed shooters. In battle, the enemy will not wait until you take aim!
                  This preparatory work on the ground and in training flights had
                  great benefit to us. In the necessity and significance of the work done by Pokryshkin
                  labor, we later became convinced, during the days of flights to combat missions, during the most
                  fierce battles with the enemy.
                  Classes were always lively, interesting, often hot flashed
                  disputes over any method or element of the attack or in general
                  aerial combat.
                  From the first lessons, Alexander Ivanovich began a certain system
                  to develop prudence, attention, and, most importantly, taught us quickly
                  make a competent decision. Sometimes, she conducts classes with us, and suddenly,
                  unexpectedly for all, ask the question: "Where does the plane fly?". Of course we
                  keen on studying and not having enough training in
                  caution, sometimes did not even hear that somewhere nearby flies
                  plane, and immediately could not find it in the sky. It took us to search for him
                  a lot of time. But having trained, we subsequently solved such problems
                  fast and accurate. Notice the enemy first, covertly build your maneuver so
                  to put him at a disadvantage, to pounce on him from a height,
                  having an advantage in speed, and destroying with a marked queue - these are
                  elements that are, at a minimum, necessary to achieve victory.
                  In the process of air battles, the famous Pokryshkin formula was born:
                  "Height - speed - maneuver - fire." And he sought as much as possible
                  decode it so that we understand the essence of the matter.
                  This formula instilled in each of us an offensive spirit, activity,
                  the will to win. Golubev "Paired with the hundredth" - slave Pokryshkina
              2. Yeah
                Yeah 7 November 2017 08: 57 New
                0
                you are both right and both are not - “Together with the hundredth,” Golubev is the follower of Pokryshkin, if you fought and studied in 41-42 (by the way, the Germans introduced actions as a couple, unlike the authorized troika, etc.), then 43 were escorting attack aircraft and bombers, already this tactic has been implemented everywhere, but in 44-45 it is already changing, FREE HUNTING has been introduced, so the introduction of tactics also did not stand still!
    2. Looking for
      Looking for April 2 2018 17: 22 New
      -1
      What. Sorry about that.
  23. Snakebyte
    Snakebyte 4 November 2017 11: 23 New
    +2
    Nonsense.
    1. There was no tail shortening. Indeed, the tail was reinforced, and the manufacturer, according to the results of operation in the USSR.
    2. This "refinement" is unknown only to those who do not want to know. Centering conservation measures are described in any P-39 Murzilka, for example, World Planes No. 1.
    3. In fact, and without "field adjustments", the power of the Allison V-1710 increased from 1050 hp. in 1940 to 1450 in 1943.

    It’s just that in the West they exploited “Cobras” of early modifications, with a weak engine.
    In the USSR, they used lightweight, with more powerful engines modifications.
  24. pro100y.belarus
    pro100y.belarus 5 November 2017 03: 21 New
    +1
    “Cobra” reluctantly went to the vertical. Bf-109G and FW-190 easily left the “Cobra” slide. Therefore, Pokryshkin came up with his "Kuban whatnot." It was necessary to have at least one pair higher than the enemy .. La-5FN worthily fought with the Germans on the verticals thanks to its motor, despite the wooden structure. Kozhedub has no memories of “whatnots”, everything by standard is an attack group, above it is a cover group.
    The large accounts of the downed enemy planes among the pilots who controlled the "Aero Cobra" are explained by the use of the correct tactics of battle and powerful weapons. After a second volley, the enemy bomber did not "descend with a smoky trail", but fell on our territory and was fixed as if shot down.
    For the "dog landfill" "Aerocobra" - an unimportant car. There are no slats, a tendency to stall into a tailspin, a weak engine. La-5FN and La-7 are much better.
    By the way, Pokryshkin liked La-7. In 1944, while at the Gorky Aircraft Plant, he flew around this car and said that finally our aircraft would receive a plane capable of fighting on equal terms with the Messers and the Fokers. About "Cobra" he did not say that.
    "Aerocobra", like any other aircraft, has its pros and cons. Pros: powerful armament, excellent radio communications, good visibility at taxiing and lack of bonding due to the nose wheel, a comfortable cabin by the automobile principle - doors with power windows, a stove and heated windshield, duralumin glider design ... Cons: tendency to stall into a tailspin due to the rear position of the engine, the engine is relatively weak and, as a result, the connecting rods overheat and break, high-octane gasoline not produced by Soviet refineries, a long drive shaft of the screw between the pilot’s legs passing through the tunnel and, as a result, vibration, and if the projectile hits winding up the entire "economy" of the pilot, the inability to leave the car with a parachute without injuries due to car doors (when leaving the car, the pilot was hit by a stabilizer) ...
    I think the R-39 is a good machine, but I would have fought better on La-5FN. (It's my personal opinion).
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 5 November 2017 17: 38 New
      +1
      "It was necessary to have at least one pair above the enemy .." ///

      The Americans always had that. Part of high-altitude fighters constantly
      barraged at a height, keeping the sky "clear" from the enemy. And the part is unhindered
      snooping closer to the ground, destroying bombers and ground targets.
      This is the tactic of pure air supremacy.
      1. hohol95
        hohol95 5 November 2017 20: 45 New
        +2
        N.G. Golodovnikov - fighter pilot -
        We knew about the need for separation of battle formations before the war, for this it is enough to look at Soviet pre-war textbooks on tactics. I don’t know how in 1941, and when I got to the front in 1942, separation was not used for only one reason - the lack of aircraft. And it would be necessary to separate, but nothing. And all the same, if we fly with a six, then we are already in flight: a four is flying, and a couple is higher or vice versa, a couple is below, a four is above.
        A.P. Anosov - pilot of the Pe-2 -
        When I started in 1943, then there was almost always cover. Still, it was not 1941. In any case, if there are nine bombers. The three could go without cover, and the nine was always covered. Usually our nine was covered by eight fighters. Two fours Yak-1 or LaGG-3. Basically, the Yak-1, LaGGi is rare. One four in the direct cover group, the second in the “battle group”.
        Of course, against 8-12 German fighters - “Fokkers” or “Messers” - that was not enough. Moreover, the Germans tried not to enter the battle directly with the fighters. Tactically, the Germans acted very competently. Sneaking up either from the side of the clouds, or fell down from the side of the sun. The attack was always carried out at high speed - one, two, down-up - and you're done! The fight is over.
        Then we learned to deal with this German tactic. First of all, they increased the number of fighters in cover. Only in the immediate cover did the eight begin to cover us, usually the four on the right and the four on the left - that is, almost one to one. At the end of the war, direct cover became regiment to regiment. Imagine, in our three nines, three or four squadrons of fighter jets. Immediate cover usually consisted of “yaks” - ours, from the fleet. If the regiment went to the regiment, then the fighter was usually led by the commander of the fighter aviation regiment, in extreme cases, his deputy. It was convenient: if the fighters in the cover screwed up, then the command immediately knew who to ask. From the commander, with whom else? I planned it myself, I headed it myself, and answer.
        And in the “battle group” there were at least eight, and usually two or three eights of fighters. At the end of the war and in the battle group there were even more fighters. It used to be that our regiment was marching, and in the “battle group” there was a whole fighter air division — two or even three fighter regiments! Usually on La-5 from army aviation. In addition, our fighters began to echelon in order of height. Imagine, the "air battle group" occupied two, three, or even four echelons. This is up to 6-7 thousand meters (and the "pawns" went on 3 thousand). The “Lavochkins” above - it gave us great confidence! The Germans became very ill - try to break!
        The Germans remained one opportunity: to attack us from below. But this occupation was a losing one without a reserve of speed, then immediately our direct cover group entered the battle, and if we take into account that our fighters ceased to concede in German speed and began to surpass them in the vertical, then the Germans' ability to get bombers greatly decreased. And then, besides the “direct cover” and “battle” groups, a “reconnaissance group” appeared. This is usually a couple of four fighters (with the most experienced pilots), who flew away from the main battle formation, looking for sneaking German fighters. The intelligence group usually did not enter the main battle, it simply warned the "battle group". The Germans poke around, they are beaten off, the Germans dive out of the battle and move away from us at speed (knowing full well that the fighter cover will not follow them - the bombers will not leave). As they broke away from our fighters, they slow down and relax. This is where the "intelligence group" attacks them. Usually there was one attack from the sun at high speed (in the German style). They shoot down one or two and leave without entering the battle. So our fighters beat many German. What did you think? Not all Germans alone!
        What is the usual ratio of our and German fighters was in battle, I can not tell you for sure. We do not see them all, we see only those who broke through to us. In 1943, four or six usually broke through to us, and from the second half of 1944 and in 1945, the Germans almost did not break through. We were very well covered.
        So that and the Red Army Air Force used the echelon.
  25. rubin6286
    rubin6286 5 November 2017 19: 57 New
    0
    The article is good, but the topic is already battered. The author has not discovered anything new. "Cobra" is fairly well described on the Internet and popular literature. In the post-war period, the description of the design was reflected in textbooks for aviation universities, which recognized a number of technical solutions applied by American designers as innovative. Was this plane better than our Yakov and Lavochkin? In my opinion, if there was, then it’s not all and singing praises to him is hardly worth it. My father flew the Cobra after the war, and before it on La-11, he said that the Cobra is better, but this machine is strict in piloting and is suitable for experienced pilots, and not for “yellowheads”. She easily broke into a flat corkscrew from which she did not come out. Thanks to the all-metal construction, the aircraft carried more weapons compared to domestic fighters, had greater survivability and better takeoff and landing qualities. There was a lot of fuss with the “Cobra”, especially since the operating instructions in Russian were initially absent at all, and the few that were hastily translated did not always take into account the opportunities available at the front. The ammunition on the plane was “ours” (from the USA), gasoline too. “Cobra” did not fly on our gasoline. "Ground", not immediately, but still mastered the car. The plane came with a repair kit, from which one could assemble another one. They were not allowed to do this without permission, and those who did it during the war were sentenced to imprisonment and ended up in camps.

    The "Cobras" came to England from the USA, and the engines for them were made in Canada and they had to be transported by sea, and with this Her Majesty's Navy periodically had problems. The aircraft did not have a significant advantage in comparison with German fighters, and the country's production capacities made it possible to provide the Air Force with its own production fighters not inferior to the German ones. In these conditions, the British were able to transfer in 1942 part of the machines in the USSR.

    “Sofa strategists”, as always, started talking about Pokryshkin and Kozhedub, “shooting at point blank range of all their trunks”, etc. etc., climbing deeper and deeper into the “jungle”, going farther away from the topic of the article.
    1. Negro
      Negro 5 November 2017 20: 48 New
      0
      Quote: rubin6286
      “Sofa strategists”, as always, started talking ... leaving further and further from the topic of the article.

      Yes, we are.
      And the topic of the article is what, in your opinion?
      1. rubin6286
        rubin6286 6 November 2017 01: 14 New
        0
        An article about how a fighter released in the USA, which was not widely used, was then finalized and useful on the Eastern Front, where in skillful hands it could fight on equal terms with the Luftwaffe engines.
        1. Bask
          Bask 6 November 2017 10: 46 New
          0
          We are not sofa strategists, we are lovers of sofas. And you will look at articles about aviation of the Second World War, they all slide into the topic-who whom, how, how many times.
        2. Negro
          Negro 6 November 2017 11: 34 New
          0
          Quote: rubin6286
          Article about

          Unfortunately not.
          An article on how the brilliant Zhist revealed a secret red life hack on the up of Cobra
          People who did the work might not know why this is done.

          At the same time, ZhZhist is very poorly familiar with the topic and has more or less distorted everything.
          1. rubin6286
            rubin6286 6 November 2017 17: 37 New
            0
            Son! Explain uncle in Russian:
            - Who is ZhZhist?
            -What this ZhZhist misinterpreted?
            - What is a red life hack on the up of Cobra?

            For rent, a ponte new tarahtelka drifts on an oxime!
            1. Negro
              Negro 6 November 2017 19: 12 New
              0
              Quote: rubin6286
              Who is ZhZhist?

              Livejournal
              Quote: rubin6286
              What did this ZhZhist misinterpret?

              Thread read zapadlo?
              Quote: rubin6286
              What is red cobra uphill life hack?

              Parse in order.
              Item 1. Why is the gain quoted? Probably none of this is gain. This was the very unknown refinement of paragraph 2. The task was to move the center forward. How can I do that? Lighten the tail? Impossible, everything is already licked there, you will not find an extra gram. Pour concrete ballast in the bow? Not serious. Move the wing back to 200 mm? Not really, as part of refinement. But to move the tail forward, shortening the entire aircraft to 200-250 mm, is quite real. True, this will not solve the problem fully, but at least something.
              The people who did the work might not have known what this was done for. We decided that to gain. So the legend went that the Aero Cobra tails fall off every now and then during overloads. Although the Americans fought without revision, and nothing fell off.
              Item 3. What is engine adjustment? When you create a new engine, it is placed on the stand, tested and selected mode of operation. Take for example the hypothetical six-liter engine. Having been choked, you can use it to drive a generator. Somewhere in the mountains, at an unattended meteorological station, he, giving out all 50 hp, will work 10 ... 12 for years, without a single failure. Then, make him an overhaul, and will work the same amount. The same engine with other adjustments will work on the tractor 5-6 for years, producing 80 hp. And you can put it on the plane, squeezing 300 hp Only now the resource will drop to 50 hours.
              1. rubin6286
                rubin6286 7 November 2017 02: 41 New
                +2
                Son!

                You wrote a lot of things to me. As an aeronautical test engineer, I don’t understand the terms “reinforce the tail”, “change the alignment” and something about adjusting the engine. I advise you to independently study the following questions:

                1. What is the static stability of the machine, how is it determined, what does it affect? What are modern methods for increasing the static stability and controllability of a machine?

                2. What is the longitudinal and lateral stability of the machine, what does it depend on? How do wing profiles, fuselage and tail dimensions affect the longitudinal and lateral stability of an airplane?

                3. Why do I need to adjust the piston engine and how does the pilot in the cockpit carry it out in flight?

                4. How does air discharge affect the traction characteristics of the engine, fuel consumption, range and duration of flight?
                1. Negro
                  Negro 7 November 2017 20: 15 New
                  0
                  Dad!
                  If text is in quotation marks
                  so here

                  then this is a quote. In the case under discussion, a quote from an article at the very top of the page. Do you find her illiterate? So do I.

                  Do you find me illiterate? This is the case. However, I would be grateful if I were presented with claims for my words, and not for strangers. As far as I can tell, I did not go into technical issues.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  26. Yeah
    Yeah 7 November 2017 09: 09 New
    0
    The 84th IAP began to rearm on "aero cobras". We sat down to study
    the material part of the new aircraft and engine. Time to master new
    equipment - barely enough. I had to study from morning to evening. Two weeks later
    we passed the tests for the materiel of the aircraft, engine, equipment and proceeded to
    flying.
    Difficulties began immediately. And above all, the nose wheel ... This one
    The aircraft’s third wheel is located not in the rear, but in the bow. And action
    at takeoff are very different from those to which we are accustomed.
    The mass of instruments, the large take-off weight of the new machine, the complexity in technology
    piloting - all this required increased attention from the pilot. By
    moreover, the first flight on the "aerocobra" we carried out almost without freight.
    The first impression is unimportant. The plane seems heavy to us
    maneuverable against the brisk I-16. But when we began to remove the chassis and walk
    into the zone, then immediately appreciated the new car. We especially liked
    the radio station. Still would! For the first time in our flying life, we were finally able
    to maneuver not according to evolutionary signals, but according to commands from the ground. we
    listened to these commands on the air like music. Well, Messers, now we are with you
    stretch out! ..
    Aerobatics on the "cobra" demanded that the pilot precise coordination.
    The slightest negligence on a deep bend, combat turn or at the top
    point of the loop - and the plane fell into a tailspin, and often went into a flat
    corkscrew. This was one of his main shortcomings. Golubev "Paired with the hundredth" - slave Pokryshkina
  27. John22
    John22 7 November 2017 11: 43 New
    +1
    Pokryshkin mentioned in books that to reduce rear alignment, batteries installed behind the engine were removed from Cobra and the amount of oil in the oil tank installed in the same place was reduced. And most importantly, when piloting the Cobra, monitor the speed and angle of attack. Those. remember the features of the machine. The main advantage (in addition to communications, visibility and weapons) - the Cobra was an all-metal aircraft compared to the Soviet ones. And this is a big overload and resistance to precipitation. Covers - covers, and moisture and wood are incompatible.
    1. Yeah
      Yeah 7 November 2017 13: 49 New
      0
      The cobra was an all-metal airplane! and moisture and wood are incompatible. Do you really choose wood or metal ???
    2. Dooplet11
      Dooplet11 8 November 2017 11: 49 New
      0
      to reduce rear alignment, batteries installed behind the engine were removed from Cobra

      About batteries poorly trusted. How to power a radio station and other electrical equipment of an airplane? Here is what was removed and installed:
      From the instruction for the pilot on piloting the Cobra from 1944:


      And pay attention to p5!
    3. Dooplet11
      Dooplet11 8 November 2017 12: 19 New
      0
      batteries installed behind the engine were removed from Cobra

      Before you answer, I checked my memory. She did not deceive me. The battery at Cobra is between the screw gear and the ammunition of the gun. FORWARD the cab, not behind the engine. Apparently, memory brings you in terms of what Pokryshkin mentioned in books. repeat
    4. Dooplet11
      Dooplet11 8 November 2017 13: 04 New
      0
      The cobra was an all-metal aircraft compared to the Soviet. And this large overload и resistance to precipitation.

      The second is not always true. Sometimes electrolytic vapors of metals in the presence of moisture destroy the metal structure faster than the same moisture will allow the wood to rot.
      The first is wrong. Destructive overloads are set by the strength standards, and they are the same for aircraft of the same purpose, but made of different materials (metal vs wood, for example). Available overload, it may happen, a wooden plane suddenly has more than a metal one.
  28. Bask
    Bask 7 November 2017 22: 39 New
    +1
    rubin6286,
    I am 42 and two children, you see, it’s a little offensive when a stranger calls an adult man a “son.” I apologize for the harshness, I’m probably wrong that I didn’t figure it out. Once again, I apologize to you.
  29. Dooplet11
    Dooplet11 8 November 2017 11: 02 New
    0
    Yeah
    "Yes, and according to the situation, even the commander is NOT RIGHT to make such a decision without agreement with the manufacturer? Am I wrong?"
    ,
    I spat it on you. Regarding the use of tank suspension components for bomb suspension according to the procedure described in the citation, Pokryshkin made a risky, but justified and prepared decision. But, nonetheless, leading to the cancellation of the warranty obligations of the plant, moreover such a decision will reach the plant.
    As for alignment and its adjustment. A competent specialist at the level of an engineer will count the alignment and its displacement during the application of goods with an accuracy of hundredths of a percent. And if it does not go beyond the limits stipulated in the RLE, there is no problem immediately securing the cargo permanently (the first contradiction in your interpretation of the memoirs). But
    in the event of any drug or accident, responsibility is on the unit commander. A drug or an accident is possible, since an additional load affects not only the alignment, but also the moments of inertia and strength. And without extensive flight tests, such a change is very risky. The second contradiction is that no one will fly a plane with an unloaded cargo (I’m repeating this, or I’m finding fault with laughing ).
  30. Dooplet11
    Dooplet11 8 November 2017 13: 35 New
    0
    The peculiarity and complexity of the Cobra is not so much the ease of insertion into the corkscrew (it really depends, among other things, on the alignment, but also on the heightened efficiency of the elevators, for example, the I-16 was also easily inserted into the corkscrew), but in another. The Cobra’s trick is that when it was centered backward, it had a tendency to spin in a flat corkscrew, for which it was necessary to get out of it: a greater margin of safety, –– times, a strict order and a certain dosage of control actions, –– two, highly qualified pilot (based on “two”) , - three.
  31. Dooplet11
    Dooplet11 9 November 2017 14: 45 New
    0
    Quote: yeah
    unfortunately I don’t remember where I read it, I’ll even say it more not from Golubev’s book, but I read it somewhere (the interpretation may have been different, quoted from memory, but I think I conveyed the meaning correctly), Well, as far as fixing is concerned (here, I don’t specialist, but knowing that extra work will not be performed, I think my interpretation is POSSIBLE true-, but you can fix it in different ways (TIME) - on a wire, on electrical tape, on adhesive tape (according to the modern one), so that BEFORE there would be an opportunity to ADJUST the placement, but TO USE SO IN DAILY .... do you really think they are FOOLS? And then when found the "golden section" to fasten to bolts, rivets, welding and then OPERATE! Yes, and about the book, it was PEOPLE with a BIG letter, not afraid to take responsibility and initiative into their own hands, how they fought, how they worked (under what conditions it’s honestly not I can imagine myself in them) it’s really a feat,
    Reply Quote Complaint yes
    0 Yes Today, 10: 56 ↑
    Vremyanka is not a full-fledged ATTACHMENT, you know very well that even a BOLT connection with a Grover washer is locked with a cotter pin or wire (although from Germany on the "Swallows" they put a nut self-locking without a wire-innovation) THEREFORE I am writing not fixed!

    I’m sure that there was all this tramp with loads not earlier than the end of 43. And on the basis of instructions from the Air Force Research Institute or engineering services of the UTE Air Force, and not on the initiative of technicians or pilots, even though they are not stupid at all.
    Apparently you in the Ministry of Railways are far from aviation. To adjust the alignment, it is not necessary to “look for the golden ratio” by the method of approximate cargo setting, trial circuits and subsequent adjustment. Anyone who understands that the reason for the difficulties with corkscrew characteristics is precisely in the centering, has estimated the amount of necessary adjustment, found a way to correct it — he will find the location of the cargo, determine the required weight and the change of centering from this weight to the nearest hundredth. Without "test flights" to adjust the seats. And they will immediately fix the load on the bolts. And with lock. Even if then unscrew. For there is no guarantee that with 3 "same" 16 kg of cargo, turning into 48, did not stretch or break your wire.
  32. The comment was deleted.
  33. Left shot
    Left shot 12 November 2017 15: 21 New
    0
    Quote: svp67
    I won’t say anything about all the “foreign cars”, but the “Cobras” went to the guard units and this is a historical fact.

    Because in 41-42, for the best pilots, the lights seemed something against the background of the existing Yak-1, LaGG-3 and I-16 (the release of the MiG-3 was almost stopped). So it was just a tradition, by inertia
  34. fedotow
    14 November 2017 00: 48 New
    +2
    I thank all the participants in the discussion. From your comments, you can make an unambiguous conclusion that the article was unsuccessful. The arguments and arguments I have cited are too brief and therefore not understood by many. At the same time, the number of comments surprised me. Obviously, this topic is interesting. Thanks for the comments.
  35. avaks111
    avaks111 18 March 2018 22: 00 New
    0
    shuravi,
    There is a wonderful book "Baltic Sky"!
  36. PilotS37
    PilotS37 28 March 2019 02: 01 New
    +1
    But to move the tail forward, shortening the entire plane by 200-250 mm, is quite realistic.

    Well, the author is definitely not an aerodynamic ...
    Shortening the “tail”, we reduce the stability of the aircraft in the longitudinal channel (and it is already not stable enough!). The solution was to lengthen the tail, but I had never heard of such a thing - with reference to the Aero Cobra.
  37. mister-red
    mister-red 25 September 2019 18: 42 New
    0
    Quote: Negro
    the load is twice as much as the IL-2, decent protection,

    The load is more exactly the weight of the reservation IL-2)
    The engine is good.