Cobra in ambush

Exactly 75 years ago, December 7 1942 of the year, the prototype of the Kingcobra P-63 fighter flew for the first time. From 3300, serial copies of this 2300 machine were sent to the Soviet Union under the Lend-Lease program. Deliveries began in the middle of 1944, and by the spring of 1945, the USSR had already received about a thousand and a half "royal cobras." However, none of them was used on the Soviet-German front. All these cars were kept in reserve.

In the Soviet-Japanese war of 1945, four regiments on Kingcobra participated: the 410 and 888 IAP of the 10 Air Army, which operated from Kamchatka and supported the Kuril landing force, and also the 781 and 940 IAP 12-th Air Army, stationed in Mongolia. In total in these regiments 137 Р-63 was counted. Thus, in World War II, almost 95% of the Soviet "Kingcober" was not involved. It seems that they were specially protected for some other combat missions.

It should be noted that the Kingcobra was the best fighter delivered to the USSR during the war. In terms of flight, combat and operational characteristics of the P-63 surpassed all types of fighters available to the beginning of the 1945 year in service with the Soviet Air Force, both domestic and foreign.

The fact that the Kingcobras remained in service until the 1953 year, despite the fact that due to the deterioration of the engines (the Americans stopped the supply of spare parts after the Lend-Lease), speaks about how valuable this car was considered to be here. 1949-m on P-63 banned the use of afterburner. Interestingly, the last "Kingcobras" were sent to junk almost simultaneously with La-11 fighters, which were developed and put into service after the war.

I think it is easy to guess at what time they kept these American cars. The Soviet command planned to use them against the Americans and the British themselves, if, shortly after the end of the war with Germany, the USSR had an armed conflict with its former allies in the anti-Hitler coalition.

In such a situation, two thousand "Kingcoopers" and one thousand English "Spitfires" Mk.IX, also obtained under Lend-Lease in 1944-45 and also left in the rear, would be a very serious help for "Jacob" and "Lavochkiny". Moreover, not a single Soviet fighter at that time could compare with them in altitude characteristics. And this means that the red star Kingkobra and Spitfire would go to intercept the "Flying Fortress" and the "Superfortress", which walked at high altitudes. But as they say, God spared ...

Bell Aircraft Corporation fighters produced during World War II. From top to bottom: Aircobra P-39, Kingcobra P-63 and Aircomte P-59 jet.

Stream assembly "Kingcoop" at the factory "Bell".

American and Soviet pilots involved in the distillation of "Kingcooper" from the United States to the USSR on the ALSIB highway.

"Kingcobra", prepared for shipment to the USSR, at the airport Fairbanks, Alaska. Photo taken by an American photojournalist in the summer of 1944. Soviet aircraft have already been marked on the aircraft and additional fuel tanks are suspended under the wings. Please note that the vehicles are equipped with radio compasses (a circular antenna over the fuselage), which then was not on Soviet fighters.

The five-thousandth plane sent to the USSR by ALSIB. It is evident that this is "Kingcobra."

"Kingkobra" in double training version.

Late modification of the "Kingcobra" with increased vertical tail. Such aircraft in the USSR have not hit.

The RP-63 "Pinball" manned flying target for training fighter pilots and bomber shooters, made after the war on the basis of Kingcobra.

Comments

[midshipman]

Aviation Marshal E.Ya. flew on the "Cobra" Savitsky. My good friend, I had to participate in a number of operations with him on behalf of our Government in the 80s. He often spoke in good words about this plane. He was a combat pilot and he believed everything. Twice Hero of the Soviet Union. I have the honor.

[Captain Nemo]

Do not confuse the R-39 Aerocobra with its further development of the R-63 Kingcobra?

[Kibb]

Confused. They invested us T34 "Luttshtank"

[Lexus]

And three times Hero of the Soviet Union Pokryshkin Alexander Ivanovich

[Lexus]

Here's a whole galaxy of great Soviet aces who fought on the P-39: Grigory Rechkalov, Alexander Clubs, Nikolai Gulaev, brothers Dmitry and Boris Glinka.

[Kibb]

But nothing, that these are generally different "airplanes"?

[pro100y.belarus]

I read Savitsky's memoirs. As far as I remember, 3 IAK headed by him was armed with Yak-1 aircraft.

[Curious]

Sorry, dear Michman, but Savitsky did not fly on the “Cobra,” or rather he did not fight, because for his life in aviation (and the last flight he spent on June 1, 1974, at the age of 63), he mastered aircraft from I-2 to MiG-21, spent in the air a year and a half and made 5586 landings. But he fought on Soviet aircraft.

[bionik]

Quote: Curious

But he fought on Soviet aircraft.

I looked at several sites "Sky Corner", "Red Falcons", etc. . Not a word is said about "Cobra", La-5 and Yak-3 appear.

[Curious]

Savitsky Yevgeny Yakovlevich wrote the book "Half a Century with the Sky", where he described his path in aviation.
http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/savitsky1/ind
ex.html

[fighter angel]

Dear midshipman, there is another opinion on this.
The exact opposite. Yevgeny Yakovlevich Savitsky, arriving in his IAD in 1942, learned that during his absence, the divisions "mastered" the R-39, the "Aerocobra." As a patriot of the Soviet aircraft industry and a great friend of Alexander Sergeyevich Yakovlev, he assembled personnel, conducted a series of demonstration air battles with the "Aerocobra" - he personally piloted the Yak-1B fighter. He proved to all his pilots the advantages of a domestic car. Parts which he commanded, fought exclusively on AS fighters Yakovleva.
Although he also tested the La-5, he had a very high opinion of this car.
Even after the war, he was the first to perform aerobatics in a group of Yak-15 fighter jets. And being the commander-in-chief of air defense aviation, he personally flew on the Yak-25, with the aim of checking the subordinate duty forces. Veterans remember well his call sign and the famous phrase: "I-Dragon, intercept me!"
Therefore, it is highly doubtful that Yevgeny Yakovlevich spoke so much about Cobras. And about his flights on the "Cobra" ... you do not confuse him with Alexander Ivanovich Pokryshkin by chance ???

[svp67]

Quote: fighter angel

Veterans remember well his call sign and the famous phrase: "I-Dragon, intercept me!"

Especially those who failed to intercept, recall the "rainy day" in their careers until their death ...

[fighter angel]

It is possible that someone was hurt. Savitsky's temper was cool. With Eugene Georgievich, Eternal flight to him! (Pepelyaev) they started a training aerial battle on two MiG-15s, they turned it around for a long time, as a result Pepelyaev won. Savitsky - without saying a word, without having made a debriefing, even just- without saying a word, flew away. They didn’t meet anywhere else, although Georgievich somehow said somewhere that several times in the higher headquarters of the Air Force, his ideas were “inhibited”. People warned: none other than Evgeny Yakovlevich Savitsky “wrapped” them in the “second round”.
But at the same time, all Savitsky’s colleagues were unanimous in favor of their commander. I never gave my subordinates an insult. I helped people to achieve ranks, receive well-deserved rewards, apartments, cars, dachas. He outlived his soul for his personnel.

[svp67]

Quote: fighter angel

It is possible that someone was hurt.

Alas, the list is extensive.

Quote: fighter angel

But at the same time, all Savitsky’s colleagues were unanimous in favor of their commander.

Well, my experience says that this NEVER happens, even the most excellent commanders have ill-wishers and envious people. And such a thing, with a sharp temper and quick decisions, so certainly they could not have been.
By the way, he was very fond of Su aircraft, which had excellent speed qualities at that time. So try to catch him on the MiG-17 ...

[fighter angel]

Yeah, on the MiG-17 for the Su-9, Su-11, and even for the Su-7B you do not really chase ... Here the MiG-19 is needed. Well, as for the co-workers, there is a good saying: "Wherever you kiss, there will be ass all over!"

[svp67]

Quote: fighter angel

"Wherever a subordinate kiss, everywhere the ass will be!"

This is a common statement, not very smart commanders, about their relationship with subordinates. How many he served, he did not understand why they were trying to do this ... maybe their orientation was not that ...

[svp67]

Quote: fighter angel

Yeah, on the MiG-17 for the Su-9, Su-11, and even for the Su-7B you do not really chase ...

Yes, the trouble is that the MiG-17 of the “P”, “PF”, and “PFU” modifications was for a long time the “workhorse” of our air defense units and internal districts ...

[Amurets]

It should be noted that the Kingcobra was the best fighter delivered to the USSR during the war. In terms of flight, combat and operational characteristics of the P-63 surpassed all types of fighters available to the beginning of the 1945 year in service with the Soviet Air Force, both domestic and foreign.

So that on the R-63 “Kingcobra” planes there would be no defects characteristic of the R-39 “Aircobra” in the USA, our test pilots would fly: Andrei Kochetkov and brother of S. Suprun, Fedor Suprun. Here is a quote and books by And And A Shelest “I fly with a dream:“ There were also “shortcomings” in the “cobra”. One of them, very significant, was that this plane could act cunningly in a tailspin, especially when the pilot accidentally got into a tailspin when returning from battle: the ammunition load of shells was expended, and the nose of the aircraft was much lighter.
By 1944, the Bell company launched the serial production of a new, modernized “cobra”, the R-63 model and called the “kingcobra”. The deliveries of these planes to the USSR were expected, and our aviation command, not wanting the “royal cobra” to have the same serpentine character with respect to the corkscrew, decided to send a test pilot to the USA in order to try on the goods in the shop, so to speak. In the early spring of 1944, this pilot, accompanied by an engineer, flew to Washington.
The next day, a local Buffalo newspaper reported: “Russians are arriving in Buffalo, at the Bell Aircraft Corporation factories — Mr. Kochetkov and Mr. Suprun, with the intention of experiencing the pride of the American cobra king fighter aircraft.

[Monarchist]

Amurutsu, thanks for the quote "come in handy for general development

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Amurets

there were no defects of the characteristic P-63 "Aircob" on the R-39 "Kingcobra" aircraft

“I heard” such an “opinion” about the history of the appearance of “Kingcobra” .... The “basis” for the construction of the P-63 was the “complaints” received from the USSR to the “address” of “Aerocobra”

[Amurets]

Quote: Nikolaevich I

“I heard” such an “opinion” about the history of the appearance of “Kingcobra” .... The “basis” for the construction of the P-63 was the “complaints” received from the USSR to the “address” of “Aerocobra”

Yes, there was such and British claims too. If interested, you can download and read it calmly.
https://www.litmir.me/bd/?b=545301

[Nikolaevich I]

Thank you for the link, be sure to take advantage!

[Alf]

Quote: Amurets

Quote: Nikolaevich I

“I heard” such an “opinion” about the history of the appearance of “Kingcobra” .... The “basis” for the construction of the P-63 was the “complaints” received from the USSR to the “address” of “Aerocobra”

Yes, there was such and British claims too. If interested, you can download and read it calmly.
https://www.litmir.me/bd/?b=545301

Did the laminar wing on the P-63 also appear due to complaints from our pilots?

[Amurets]

Quote: Alf

Did the laminar wing on the P-63 also appear due to complaints from our pilots?

No irony. There were many defects on Cobra that needed to be fixed. The most dangerous ones were the destruction of the fuselage tail and an unintentional breakdown in a tailspin.
“It all started with an attempt by Bell Aircraft designers to significantly improve the flight performance of the Airacobra fighter. Modification of the P-39E was supposed to be the first one with significant changes. One of the ways seemed quite traditional - to increase engine power. Instead of the standard for Airacobra. engine V-1710 in the project of "model 23", as it was called by the company, laid the V-1430. But the second approach in those years looked like a clear novelty: the aerodynamic drag was going to be reduced by the introduction of a wing with a laminar flow. In comparison with the wing profile used on Previously, the Cobra had a pointed toe and a rearward maximum height. While giving the benefit of reduced drag, such a wing, on the other hand, reduced lift, which should have a negative impact on takeoff and landing. In addition, the laminar wing only worked with strict adherence to the profile.Therefore, the designers actually had to design a new wing with a different a sludge set. " Kotelnikov V.R. Fighter R-63 "Kingcobra." The V-1430 engine did not reach the "Kingcobra", but it took quite a lot of work with the laminar wing.

[Dooplet11]

On that business trip, Kochetkov on Kingcobra kicked the tail in an "air battle" to an American on the P-51 and parachuted from the corkscrew Kingcobra over Niagara Falls. For this jump in difficult conditions he was awarded by the Americans:
“Here, in the hangar, the Russians saw the“ royal cobra, ”which they were about to test. Together with Hesler, they made a flight test program: four familiarization flights, then flights to determine the maximum speed at different altitudes, ranges, climb rates, flights to corkscrew, shooting at air and ground targets.For aerial combat it was very important to determine the radius of the turns and the maneuverability of the aircraft, so we decided to conduct several air battles with fighter P-39, P-51 B, F-4 F and P-38 . Clear, without shooting, total - 61 flight.
...
And the engineer pilot Suprun also wrote in his pocket notebook that he saw in America, that he was surprised, that he was discouraged. Major Suprun loved order in everything, was always punctual and accurate. It is not by chance that all his records have been preserved, although half a century has passed. Of course, you can’t decode everything without an author, it’s not all clear that you thought it important for yourself to mark Fedor Pavlovich, however, the dynamics and tension of those old days are not hidden behind the mean lines of his notes.
6.4.44. The meeting with Rogers is not an aviation specialist. Correspondent. Niagara Falls ... The policeman led the boys to school. Phonograph. Talk about the Jews ...
13.4.44. The first day is beautiful weather. Weapon classes M-4. Views on fighter aircraft.
15.4.44. Acquaintance with factory engineers and the military. Toasts for Stalin, the USSR, the Red Army Air Force. For us.
18.4.44. Flying on a C-78 aircraft with a Wasov engine. I got acquainted with the area. Check P-39.
21.4.44. Organized a flight on the P-63 all day. At the end of the day A.G. made the first flight. All is well.
28.4.44. Aerobatics, corkscrew (25,7% SAX).
29.4.44. Today, again, a flight to a corkscrew with 27,2% SAX. Flat corkscrew. A.G. jumped with a parachute. Well done. Happily. I was very worried. Meeting on this.
What kind of conversation the policeman had with Fred about the Jews - who knows. But the record about the M-4 cannon of the 37-mm caliber clarified something. The fact is that the Americans on all serial fighters installed machine guns of the caliber 12,7 mm - with the exception of the P-39, P-63 and P-61. They believed that from a long range it was impossible to conduct targeted fire from a cannon, and if you hit it from a close range, they would get it. Therefore, Wright Field insisted on the removal of the M-4 from the "royal cobra."
And then test pilot John Werner died - when firing at a ground shield. Then it turned out that the cause of the disaster was the separation of the propeller blade during the withdrawal from the dive, and the M-4 gun had nothing to do with it. But how was it to explain to Bell and the US Department of War that our fighters for air combat were more suited to a powerful 37-millimeter cannon rather than machine-gun rattles, and our battle tactics are completely different.
April flew by. The Niagara Falls was no longer an exotic curiosity for Pilot, but simply an aerobatic zone - a place where it was to tame the King Cobra. When Kochetkov took off and landed, Suprun was certainly at the starting command post - he led the flights. Radio communications were conducted in Russian. But soon Andrei Grigoryevich got accustomed to the requests of American dispatchers - randomly or not - he briskly replied with his famous phrase: "Russian pilot okay!"
The Russian pilot didn’t get too okay in flight on Saturday afternoon, 29 of April. At that time, it was decided to fly without ammunition - as if after combat work. At the front, our air fighters, as they say, tested the character of the "cobra" in their own skin. A pilot will pass through the enemy anti-aircraft fire, work off a tank column or cut off a Messer in a duel - he returns home with victory, exulting, and suddenly - on you! - somewhere on the way, or even right above the airfield, the ground crashes with the "cobra" ...
As it turned out, it was a violation of the alignment of the aircraft. Loaded with ammunition, the “cobra” flies and wags its tail, and the soldier fired shells - the “cobra” fell into a tailspin. Yes, not simple, but flat! It turned out that it’s better not to shoot at all. Roll that gun across the sky with its shells - it seems to be busy. However, such a lend-lease was not suitable for Ivan - Russia was burning ...
That’s what the test pilots Suprun and Kochetkov thought and calculated on the ground, to then test the car in the air and eliminate the losses of our air fighters.
On April 29, in Kochetkov’s flight, at first everything went well, as planned: the car obeyed the rudders and, by the will of the pilot, got out of the tailspin. But Alexander Grigoryevich reported that he would perform three turns to the left, and radio communication on that ceased ... Such moments at the airport seem like an eternity, courageous pilots from such a saddle in front of our eyes ...
- The plane is falling! - finally heard Suprun someone's alarming message. In a minute: - A pilot with a parachute. Sector…
A line of cars immediately moved towards the crash site. And on the radio (as it turned out later, the policeman kept in touch), there was a clarification:
- I'm with the pilot. Says: "Russian Pilot!"
"Cobra" snobbed near Niagara Falls and shattered into smithereens ...
On the same day, a meeting was held at the Niagara Falls airfield. Andrei Grigorievich reported in detail about what had happened. About how, after the third round of the corkscrew, the “cobra” stopped listening to the rudders and started spinning, somehow unusually, frantically throwing its nose to the horizon itself. The pilot did everything he could to get the car out of a tailspin, even used engine thrust, but to no avail. Only after the twentieth round did he decide to leave the uncontrolled plane ...
Needless to say, not often Russian Ivan hovered with a parachute over Niagara Falls. So the Irving company celebrated this event with the solemn reception of our testers, at which Andrei Grigoryevich was awarded a personal badge with his name and date - 29.4.44. "
From here: https://profilib.net/chtenie/23214/stanislav-grib
anov-khronika-vremen-vasiliya-stalina-46.php

[tasha]

Deliveries began in the middle of the 1944 of the year, and by the spring of the 1945 of the USSR it had already received about one and a half thousand "royal cobras" .... I think it’s easy to guess what case these American cars were kept in. planned to use them against the Americans themselves and the British.

The version is interesting, but controversial. We need to look at the delivery time, improvements, the speed of development of this aircraft by Soviet pilots, and then draw conclusions ..

Here is another quote:
For all these reasons, we have imposed many restrictions on piloting the Kingcobra: for fear of overloads, we were banned from abruptly withdrawing from diving and entering vertical figures; piloting was generally permitted only by smooth movements of the rudders. Performing figures without ammunition or ballast was strictly prohibited.

[Monarchist]

You pulled my tongue: "the version is interesting, but controversial." If with regard to the “royal cobras” one could still assume that it was reserved for “dayX”, the “spitfire” did not have such characteristics.

[Amurets]

Quote: tasha

For all these reasons, we have imposed many restrictions on piloting the Kingcobra: for fear of overloads, we were banned from abruptly withdrawing from diving and entering vertical figures; piloting was generally permitted only by smooth movements of the rudders. Performing figures without ammunition or ballast was strictly prohibited.

Here is another supplement based on the results of those tests: As for the “kingcobra,” Mr. Henry, I assure you, we will most urgently develop a series of measures to shift the center of gravity forward. The first deliveries of “kingcobra” to the USSR will continue until the previous form, but we will strictly stipulate in the restrictions that the oil tank, which is placed in the tail of the aircraft, not be completely filled, but only half. There is enough oil, and the alignment will be within 28 percent. The company is grateful to you for the trials and intends to give you a photo album about the time you spent here with us. "

A. G. Kochetkov in the cockpit of the “Kingcobra” before the corkscrew test. USA. Buffalo. 1944 year. Next to the test pilot is Bell Bob Pierce.
And here is a link to the album in question in the text. http://rsu.livejournal.com/19676.html

[AshiSolo]

How I love such materials and such comments. Looking at the story from the perspective of an ordinary person is very interesting. Broadens the mind. Thanks to both the author and you.

[andrewkor]

The Soviet aces, who had previously mastered the super-maneuverable I-16, really liked the Cobras, especially their powerful weapons and portable radio (Pokryshkin). And Beregovoi (attack aircraft) after the Second World War, remaining in the Army, fell into the regiment, which was armed with the P-63 and flew them very well.

[bionik]

Female workers preparing to operate the Bell P-63 Kingcobra fighter at Great Falls airbase, view from above. 12 exhaust pipes on each side are a clear sign of “Kingcobra” (for R-39 “AeroCobra” - 6 pipes). On the fuselage are the star-marks of the Soviet Air Force - the aircraft is intended to be sent to the USSR under Lend-Lease.

[Monarchist]

The author made a very controversial version. Kamrad Tasch below cited, in my opinion, a weighty argument

[svp67]

In terms of the combination of flight, combat and operational characteristics, the R-63 exceeded all types of fighters that were available to the Soviet Air Force by the beginning of 1945, both domestic and foreign

The question is VERY controversial, and many have their own answers to it. Each plane is a tool and it all depends on who uses it and how. In some circumstances, the battle with the Yak-3, Yak-9u and La-7, could be very fatal for the “Cobra”, ANY

The fact that the Kingcobra remained in service right up to 1953, despite the fact that due to worn out engines

These motors we have learned not only to operate and maintain well, but also to repair. And the long service of this aircraft was connected, in addition to all other factors, by the fact that:
- they were METAL, unlike ours, which had a MIXED structure, and whose wood rotted pretty quickly at field airfields, especially in Primorye
- These aircraft lived for a long time in the Far East, that is, in the SECONDARY Direction, where I-16, I-153 and Lagg-3 lived to the VICTORY. Western districts carried out the change of technology much faster.
- the aircraft had a FRONT landing gear and therefore were used to train pilots who already had jet aircraft during retraining.

And this means that the Red Star Kingcobras and Spitfires would have gone to intercept the Flaming Fortresses and Superfortresses that traveled at high altitudes.

It depends on where, in the western direction, the main role in this process, of course, would be played by the Yak-15 and MiG-9

[Reserve buildbat]

Ay-yai-yay ... Shame on you, young man ... The author wrote such an ode to Kingcobra, composed such a conspiracy thesis, and you ... Eh ... I have to call you on an educational conversation. In the "Headquarters". Together with Partizan

[verner1967]

Quote: svp67

The question is VERY controversial

Quote: svp67

In some circumstances

and if without them, then how?

Quote: svp67

And the long service of this aircraft was connected, in addition to all other factors, by the fact that:
- they were METAL, unlike ours, which had a MIXED design

from which exactly? La-9 and La-11 were already metal, and we are talking about the post-war years

Quote: svp67

whose wood rotted rather quickly at field airfields, especially in Primorye

Quote: svp67

these aircraft lived for a long time in the Far East, that is, in the SECONDARY Direction, where I-16, I-153 and Lagg-3 survived until VICTORY.

so did our planes rot in the seaside or not?

Quote: svp67

in the western direction, the main role, in this process, of course, would have played the Yak-15 and MiG-9

there were not many of them and they were extremely unreliable, and the time spent in the air was already very limited. In the western direction, here information went to the VO, Ta-152 was kept for this.

[svp67]

Quote: verner1967

from which exactly? La-9 and La-11 were already metal, and we are talking about the post-war years

There were also they went on staffing the Red Army Air Force, quite numerous at that time, and not only were they supplied to the allies.

Quote: verner1967

so did our planes rot in the seaside or not?

Rotting and this is no secret. But just these from the number that were easily restored, the fabric, and the carpentry workshop, this is in relation to Polikarpov’s machines, and VERY many were produced. Like LaGGi. But the trouble is that after such repairs their LTH fell. By the way, IL-2 and Yaki very quickly after the war went on cancellation, but Po-2 flew for a long time

Quote: verner1967

there were not many of them and they were extremely unreliable, and the time spent in the air was already very limited.

Nevertheless, they were very much counted on. Especially on the MiG-9, with its two engines and very powerful weapons.

Quote: verner1967

In the western direction, here information went to the VO, Ta-152 was kept for this.

Do not tell, of course they were there, as part of the BF aviation, but there were several dozen of them, and so many armada of American strategists could not be stopped ...

[Amurets]

Quote: svp67

Rotting and this is no secret. But just these from the number that were easily restored, the fabric, and the carpentry workshop, this is in relation to Polikarpov’s machines, and VERY many were produced.

I agree and fully, 100%. Your opponent does not take into account that in the first; at the beginning of the war, the main aluminum production capacities were lost, and if it were not for the composite construction of our aircraft, it is still unknown how it would all end. Duralumin coming from the USA at the beginning of the war had unknown characteristics due to the fact that passports for metals and materials were lost, some of the items were damaged during transportation, different systems of measures were used. Secondly; the aluminum torpedo boats Sh-4 and D-5, in the conditions of Primorye, perfectly rotted and, according to the rules of operation, after each exit to the sea, the boats climbed the wall and washed with fresh water. An example of torpedo boats is given because they were made from aircraft-grade aluminum alloys. You can give many examples about the advantages and disadvantages of wooden and aluminum aircraft construction of the time. The same Mosquito company De Heviland had a solid wood construction. It is incorrect to simply compare airplanes of pre-war and post-war construction with a military one. Because it simply was not possible to dry and process the wood as it should. Here it is appropriate to refer to the books of Yakovlev, Shakhurin, Novikov and a number of industry leaders which difficulties they had to overcome with raw materials and materials due to the loss of raw materials in the western regions of the USSR

[verner1967]

Quote: Amurets

Your opponent does not take into account that in the first; at the beginning of the war, the main aluminum production capacities were lost, and if it were not for the composite construction of our aircraft, it is still unknown how it would all end.

So we are discussing not the problems with aluminum production in the USSR, but the issue of wood resistance to decay. And to compare torpedo boats with airplanes is extremely incorrect.

[Amurets]

Quote: verner1967

So we are discussing not the problems with aluminum production in the USSR, but the issue of wood resistance to decay. And to compare torpedo boats with airplanes is extremely incorrect.

I specifically made an explanation that the Sh-4 and D-5 boats were made of the same aluminum alloy that was used in aviation. "An example with torpedo boats is given because they were made of aircraft aluminum alloys." Tupolev did not work with other AGOS alloys. Torpedo boats of the listed types, this is the brainchild of his design bureau.
And rotting aircraft wood during the Second World War is caused by poor drying and wood impregnation with antiseptics. Moreover, according to the memoirs of both Shakhurin and Yakovlev, the lack of airlift was such that it was necessary to select wood for aviation even at those logging and timber processing enterprises that had not previously been engaged in airlift.

[verner1967]

Quote: Amurets

And rotting aircraft wood during the Second World War is caused by poor drying and wood impregnation with antiseptics.

and? what are you doing this lecture about the tree, what does it have to do with the all-metal Cobras and Lavochkin?

[svp67]

Quote: verner1967

And to compare torpedo boats with airplanes is extremely incorrect.

When weapons are made with one hand, and under the same conditions and from the same materials, then why not?

[verner1967]

Quote: svp67

When weapons are made with one hand, but under the same conditions and from the same materials

only used in different conditions, they also compared sea water and air

[svp67]

Quote: verner1967

only used in different conditions, they also compared sea water and air

Yes, you do not seem to know how our aircraft were operated ... from which airfields.

DISEASES OF 1943
A typical defect of the IL-2 during operation was rotting, delamination and lagging of the wooden skin from the power frame both in the consoles and in the rear of the fuselage. At the same time, there was a poor gluing of the frames to each other and their connection with the frame, as well as insufficient strength of the frames themselves. Cracks and delamination were observed on the frames. For these reasons, the strength of the tail of the fuselage was low. In combat units, there were frequent cases when during the takeoff and landing at field airfields with a full bomb load even the insignificant jump of the tail destroyed the 14th and 15th frames, sometimes the 13th frame. As a result, the fuselages were broken. The indicated defect appeared already during a raid at 20-40 hours. In most cases, this defect was noted on the aircraft manufactured by plants No. 1 and No. 30, and to a lesser extent on the aircraft of factory No. 18.
As a preventive measure, with the help of PARM-1 and the technical composition of the parts, the rear part of the fuselage was reinforced by setting additional pads and squares, which fastened the 14th and 15th frames to the fuselage veneer. Strengthening was carried out immediately after the arrival of the aircraft in the unit.
As noted in the report of the Chief Engineer of the 5th Air Army, General A. G. Rudenko, "the technical staff and employees of PARM-1 spent a lot of effort and money on this work."

But soon the main defect manifested itself, which jeopardized the combat effectiveness of the Soviet Air Force at the height of the fighting on the Kursk Bulge. On many airplanes, layers of paint, sheeting and plywood began to crack and peel. The enormous extent of the problem was evidenced by the number of cars affected by it - 573. Of these, the linen sheathing had to be completely replaced by 77 Il-2, 42 Yak-1, 56 LaGG-3 and six La-5, and partially by 149 Il-2, 99 Yak-1, 77 LaGG-3 and 67 La-5. The reason was simple - at the end of 22, without the permission of the developer V.V. Chebotarevsky and without preliminary tests, one of the scarce components was replaced by another with the company that produced the ASH-1942 primer based on nitrocellulose for coating the aircraft before painting. As a result of this unauthorized substitution, a thin layer of paint under the influence of climatic temperature changes began to crack, and cracks went into the overlying layers of paint, opening the way for moisture. The destruction of linen sheathing, glue, which fastened plywood on the wing and tail units, as well as on other power structural elements of the aircraft, began. A case was recorded when, due to this, the La-5 just fell apart in flight.

S. Ilyushin, V. Kokkinaki and A. Kuznetsov in a letter to the People’s Commissar of the Aviation Industry A. Shakhurin dated 08.12.1943/2/37 indicated that "... The bulk of these aircraft currently stand idle without any use and proper care, subject to its wooden parts to rot. ... In order to prevent the currently inactive aircraft from being further destroyed, we propose the immediate transfer of IL-XNUMX aircraft with XNUMX mm guns to the active parts ... ", having formed on their basis special anti-tank regiments, which include, "one third regiment", in the structure of the assault air divisions of the Red Army.

[verner1967]

Quote: svp67

rotting, delamination and lagging of wood cladding

Quote: svp67

poor gluing of frames between each other and their connection with the frame

Quote: svp67

layers of paint, linen sheathing and plywood began to crack and peel.

Quote: svp67

ado was to replace linen sheathing

Quote: svp67

destruction of linen sheathing, glue, which fastened plywood on the wing and tail

Quote: svp67

rotting in its wooden parts

again about veneer, plywood and canvas with wood, but what does aluminum have to do with it?

[Dalailama]

Quote: Amurets

Duralumin coming from the USA at the beginning of the war had unknown characteristics due to the fact that passports for metals and materials were lost, some of the items were damaged during transportation, different systems of measures were used.

It was impossible to inquire by telegraph? An embargo was applied on the supply to the USSR of natural anticorrosive material for it.

[Amurets]

Quote: DalaiLama

It was impossible to inquire by telegraph?

If they managed to mix steel for various purposes, produced in the USSR, then what about imported aluminum hire.
"Evidence materials were received quickly.
When I was in the stamping shop, a carriage with steel billets was brought there. I went up and asked:
- What kind of metal did you deliver?
- "She-ha-fifteen."
Unloading has begun. I saw how the workers loaded steel blocks onto carts and drove them to the heating furnaces, stacking them in stacks.
But one of the workers laid two steel billets on the trolley and moved with them to the next span, to the second press, where the gear disks were stamped, and laid these bars on the billets already there.
I went to the worker and asked:
- Why did you put these blanks there?
- And a lot has already been delivered to other furnaces, now we will carry them here.
- But this is a different metal, this metal cannot be added here, it will not work.
- How not good ?! The size is the same - what is there, what is here.
New workers worked in the transport department of the plant. Nobody really explained to them where and how to deliver the blanks coming to the workshop, but there was no control over their work. "
This is an example from the production of tanks, such a mess was at aircraft factories
If this happened in factories, then what about discharge ports, where different batches of metal simply mixed Emelyanov "How did it begin." Shakhurin "Wings of Victory." And you can bring many more sources

[Dalailama]

Telegraph urgently to the White House Roosevelt, what kind of metal delivered. Then look for the ends. And was it all by chance, of course? Wasn’t they shot for this?

Quote: Amurets

Duralumin coming from the USA at the beginning of the war had unknown characteristics due to the fact that passports for metals and materials were lost, some of the items were damaged during transportation, different systems of measures were used.

What about different systems of measures?
Anticorrosive theme is ignored. The Brazilian pro-Nazi "Standard Oil" did not sell natural varnish that was kept on duralumin, and according to which it was a monopolist. Without it, fighters from duralumin rusted in a month. Soviet bombers made thick heavy sheets of alcled for which anticorrosive was not needed. Nazi Germany, imagine all this was bought through neutral countries, as well as high-quality American motor oil. And rubber with tungsten at several times reduced prices.

[verner1967]

Quote: svp67

By the way, IL-2 and Yaki very quickly after the war went on cancellation, but Po-2 flew for a long time

Well, the IL-2 was a replacement for the IL-10, and Yak he was not at all adapted to a new war, they were written off as unnecessary. There was no substitute for-2, especially in the difficult post-war years.

Quote: svp67

Nevertheless, they were very much counted on. Especially on the MiG-9,

so there was nothing more to count on

Quote: svp67

but there were several dozen, and so many armada of American strategists could not be stopped ...

as they say, what they are rich ... there were no other options, especially since they were kept mainly against scouts. But they were, so the fact itself.

[svp67]

Quote: verner1967

so there was nothing more to count on

You seem to poorly understand the Russian language, apparently for you it is not native. Rummage around in Russian dictionaries, find out what meanings use the word "especially"

Quote: verner1967

But they were, so the fact itself.

Does anyone dispute him?

[verner1967]

Quote: svp67

You seem to understand Russian poorly

You know, I have the same opinion about you

[svp67]

Quote: verner1967

You know, I have the same opinion about you

Well, we’ve talked ...

[verner1967]

Quote: svp67

Well, we’ve talked ...

yes yes, the conversation of the blind with the deaf

[svp67]

Quote: verner1967

yes yes, the conversation of the blind with the deaf

Well, you know better, and how to improve your health, then come back ...

[verner1967]

Quote: svp67

and how to improve your health, then come back ...

I wish you the same)))

[svp67]

Quote: verner1967

I wish you the same)))

And thank you

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: svp67

Each plane is a tool and it all depends on who uses it and how.

It's right ! Maybe the story is familiar, how the famous Japanese ace in one air battle on an outdated "zero" shot down several significantly newer American fighters ... ("thunderbolts" or "hellcat" ...)?

[fighter angel]

Yes, only a few other circumstances.
And far from the outdated “Zero”, and the exact number of all victories of this Japanese “ace” is not known for certain ...
However:
Kinsuke Muto on the N1K2-Shiden, in February 1945, alone against 12 Hellkets, not only survived, but also shot down 4 of them. The remaining representatives of the "chosen nation" left in disgrace.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: fighter angel

it is not known for certain ...

Yes, perhaps so ...
A brave and aggressive pilot, non-commissioned officer Kinsuke Muto shot down at least four huge B-29 bombers. Only a few pilots could boast a downed B-29, while Muto had several such aircraft on his account.
In February 1945, a fearless pilot single-handedly took off in his old Zero fighter to battle 12 Forsign Corsair aircraft attacking from a low-flying target in Tokyo. The Americans hardly believed their eyes when, flying like a death demon, Muto in short bursts set fire to two Corsairs one after another, demoralizing and upsetting the order of the remaining ten. The Americans were still able to pull themselves together and began to attack the lone Zero. But the brilliant art of aerobatics and aggressive tactics allowed Muto to remain at the height of his position and avoid damage until he shot the entire ammunition. By this time, two more Corsairs collapsed down, and the surviving pilots realized that they were dealing with one of the best pilots in Japan. Archives indicate that the four Corsairs were the only American aircraft shot down over Tokyo that day.
By 1945, the Zero had already been left far behind by all the Allied fighters attacking Japan. In June 1945, Muto still continued to fly the Zero, remaining faithful to him until the very end of the war. He was shot down during the attack on the Liberator, a couple of weeks before the end of the war
For example, the Japanese ace Kinsuke Muto, who flew on the Side, in 1945, shot down four Hellcat in one battle over Tokyo.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Nikolaevich I

to fight with 12 F-4U Corsair aircraft attacking from a low-flying target in Tokyo.

Well, if the enemy got to such an extent that he uses the “Corsair” - the embodiment of the idea of ​​boom-zoom - on a low-level flight, but does not look around (and he would have looked - the speed and rate of climb of the late Corsair did not leave Zero any chances) - then yes, you can even bring him down to Zero. Perhaps the I-16 cannon would have shot down.

[fighter angel]

Some inconsistencies. If he was such a "fan" of the A6M Zero and I quote: "... still continued to fly on the Zero, remaining faithful to him until the very end of the war ....", then why in February of 45th moved to " Syden "- Kawanishi, one of the best Japanese fighters of the end of the war ???
In general, the actions of Japanese aces in WWII, their effectiveness, victories and defeats - often do not even make out where the facts that took place to be, and where the "legends" ...
But a fight with 12 Hellkets is a FACT! And four shot down is also a fact. Even the mattresses themselves confirmed.

[Nikolaevich I]

“Somewhere, once” the information was distorted. From here in different sources there is a disagreement. Moreover, I can’t “find out” the name of the Japanese ace ... “Zero” - I remember .; 12 "hellcat" - it seems to be "remember" ... but name-surname, in my opinion, consisted of other letters.

[AKC]

It should be noted that the Kingcobra was the best fighter delivered to the USSR during the war. In terms of flight, combat and operational characteristics of the P-63 surpassed all types of fighters available to the beginning of the 1945 year in service with the Soviet Air Force, both domestic and foreign.
Of course the statement is controversial! but there is progress - there is no longer a definite YAK3 BETTER USER! my opinion is the problem of Soviet aviation in the absence of an engine of similar power! a very good article to familiarize people with the history of aviation! I will add about a red airplane for training pilots. he himself did not compose and did not remember, since there is a lot of information on the net:

As you know, the main strike force of the US Air Force during the Second World War was strategic aviation. Thousands of Flying Fortresses and Liberators made massive daily raids on German military-industrial centers, being exposed to mortal danger from both anti-aircraft fire from the ground and German interceptor fighters. And if the probability of defeat from anti-aircraft fire depended only on the skill of the gunners, then the effectiveness of enemy fighters could be significantly reduced due to the counteraction of air shooters from bombers.
The US Air Force training program for shooters during the war years was given priority. They spared neither time nor money. However, shooting at a cone towed behind an airplane, according to some experts, was not very effective in terms of combat training of cadets. It was believed that only actual fire on a real aircraft going on the attack would help to qualitatively improve the training of personnel.
And then the idea came up to create a special armored target aircraft based on Kingcobra. The appearance of the R-63 - the target has not changed. But it was a new plane. RP-63 Pinball (this name was given to this “flying tank”) was covered with armor from a special heat-treated aluminum alloy. The thickness of the skin became 5-10 times greater than on the usual R-63, the maximum - in the area of ​​the pilot's cabin, engine and fuel tanks. The mass of armor plating was about half a ton. So that the plane could fly normally, not only all weapons, but also some equipment had to be removed from it. In addition to a full reservation, thick bulletproof glass was installed in the lantern and the cabin doors, and the rear glazing was removed and tightly closed with metal plating.
To protect the radiators of the engine cooling system, steel bullet catchers were installed in the air intakes, and the air intake of the supercharger, so that bullets could not get into it, was completely removed or was made very small. Sensitive sensors were attached to the skin, picking up impulses from bullets that hit the plane. These pulses were recorded by devices, and could also be transmitted to a simulating device located in the screw hub, which gave a bright flash and thereby signaled to the shooter that his turn had reached the target. True, the shooting was carried out by special fragile lead-plastic bullets, which, although they had exactly the same ballistic characteristics as ordinary ones, could not penetrate the skin of the aircraft.
The first five RP-63A-11 aircraft were assembled in August 1944, and on September 1 the first flight was completed. The test results of the RP-63A-11 were unsatisfactory. Design changes caused a significant shift in alignment. The defect was corrected by moving the equipment. 95 RP-63A-12 aircraft were converted from the R-63A-10. Next came the 200 RP-63C-2 with an Allison V-1710-117 engine and 674-kilogram coating, and then 32 RP-63G-1 with a V-1710-135 engine (1200 hp) and 980 “armor” kg! At the same time, type G machines became the last P-63s that were mass-produced.
In 1948, the designation of target aircraft was changed to QP-63A, C and G, respectively. Among the units that used the Pinballs in the training process were the Air Shooter School in Hume (Arizona) and the 79th training fighter wing. Most RP-63s served as target towers. Widespread use for its intended purpose was prevented by the Pinball vulnerability in the lower fuselage.

A number of Kingcobras were used by the Americans for advanced training for fighter pilots. However, after the appearance of two-seat jet training aircraft, the service of these machines soon ended. Together with the Pinballs, they arrived at Kingman Base (Arizona), where they were initially mothballed and then dismantled for scrap.

[Monarchist]

Declare that the most Yak will be the most stupid and not fair: in addition to the "boxes" the "shopkeepers", the German "fokers" and the bodies of the same "cobras" have proved themselves very well. Translated "The Great Patriotic War" ("Unknown War") Pokryshkin generally spoke positively about it, read somewhere: Mustangs were also good. Each aircraft has its own +, but there is a "-"

[dauria]

The fact that the Kingcobra remained in service until 1953 is evidence of how valuable this machine was in our country.

What to do with it? They kept "in reserve", like old women groats in case of war. The Eastern Front, grinding 70% of fascist aviation, also grind the aviation of the USSR.
Cobra P-39 turned out to be useless except us (just an average machine). Also with Kingcobra. A Bell company would have been left on the beans without "unexpected" luck - deliveries to the USSR. We saved motor resources, not the plane - there would be nowhere to take motors.

[Amurets]

Quote: dauria

The cobra P-39 turned out to be useless to anyone but us (just an average machine). Also with Kingcobra. A Bell company would have been left on the beans without "unexpected" luck - deliveries to the USSR. We saved motor resources, not the plane - there would be nowhere to take motors.

You can agree and disagree. All the same, the first Lend-Lease Cobra deliveries went to England, but for a number of reasons the British “Cobra” did not work. Here I agree with you completely that in the USSR "Cobra" gave a second life.

[verner1967]

Quote: dauria

The cobra P-39 turned out to be useless to anyone but us (just an average machine).

Wow, then what about the entire US aviation, if their average, unnecessary machine in the USSR Air Force was the best fighter.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: verner1967

Wow, then what about all US aviation

Needless to say, USAAC worked in other tactical niches. An imbalance in the direction of the Srategov, neglect of front-line aircraft and direct support vehicles. This cant persisted until Vietnam.
The USSR, on the contrary, did not have strategic aviation at all, but the front-line aviation was quite on the level.

[verner1967]

and nevertheless, a "mediocre plane" of a country that had

Quote: Cherry Nine

neglect of front-line aviation and direct support vehicles.

turned out to be the best fighter in a country in which

Quote: Cherry Nine

front-line was quite on the level.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: verner1967

turned out to be the best fighter in a country in which

Exactly. Therefore, the Cobra did not enter the United States, but entered the USSR. American aircraft made under the conditions of the eastern front.

The American plane in a comparable niche was Corsair. A much more advanced car, of course.

[verner1967]

Quote: Cherry Nine

A much more advanced car, of course.

Americans generally had advanced aviation, all. Actually, I’m talking about this, that their “average airplane” turned out to be the best in our aviation. By the way, in the Far Eastern Theater, he also occupied his niche.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: verner1967

Americans generally had advanced aviation, all

Unfortunately not.
American pre-war aircraft on the Alison engine - Cobra, Tom Hawk and Lightning - were very mediocre. Leroy Grumman generally engaged in sabotage. And in the future - with the exception of strategists - things went neither shaky, nor roll. Perhaps we can talk about leadership from Shutingstar. And then with reservations and interruptions.

[verner1967]

Quote: Cherry Nine

American pre-war aircraft on the Alison engine

Actually, we are not talking about the late 30s, but about the mid-40s. In addition, in the late 30s, our aircraft were in a more deplorable state. The I-16 and I-153 top of our aircraft industry were already hopelessly outdated machines.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: verner1967

Actually, we’re not talking about the end of the 30s, but about the mid-40s

Why do we need the mid-40s? Cobra 39th year, Mustang and Corsair - 40th. The Soviet aircraft of the 40th year is the Yak-1. Not god knows what, but not "hopelessly outdated."

Quote: verner1967

our aviation was in a worse state.

You see, I'm a famous anti-adviser. For me, "it was worse in the USSR" is not an argument.

[verner1967]

Quote: Cherry Nine

For me, "it was worse in the USSR" is not an argument.

this is not my argument, this is just an addition, and who was then more advanced in aviation? And then, you compare finished products, and what was in development? Yak-1 remained with them until the end of the war, with the same engine and a modified glider. Compare the instruments and radios installed on aircraft in the USA and the USSR. There’s nothing to argue about.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: verner1967

and who was then more advanced in aviation?

Kakbe is not such a secret. Great cars came across the Germans, the British, even Italians, even the Japanese. Although it would seem.

Quote: verner1967

And then, you compare finished products, and what was in development?

There was nothing. Three freaks in the competition R40C, P-54, 55 and 56.
Almost all parties ended the war with the same aircraft that they started, only finished. An exception - Me-262 and F6F Hellcat, perhaps.

Quote: verner1967

Compare the instruments and radios installed on aircraft in the USA and the USSR. There’s nothing to argue about.

This is yes.

[not main]

Turn on the brain, and turn off the Claudia!

[verner1967]

Quote: non-primary

Turn on the brain, and turn off the Claudia!

if you have nothing to say, it’s better to keep silent, you’ll pass as smart. In addition, I didn’t make pigs jaws with you, continue to do this without me.

[sivuch]

For all the rudeness, he is not so much mistaken.

[Nikolay R-PM]

I have not read about the awkward disposition of the aircraft more than once, but I cannot but note the interesting design decisions made when assembling the p39 / p63 family. Cars really stand apart, standing out positively against the background of other exotics by the fact of mass production.

[Nikolay R-PM]

Among other layout decisions in college, I liked the long propeller shaft. It is not surprising that after the war the Bellovtsy became scrambled for helicopters. The first experience in the design and operation of long composite shafts they received in the late thirties

[Monarchist]

Comrades, regarding the King Cobra I remembered the book: Abakumov “Unknown War in the Sky of North Korea”, the pilots from Kozhedub threshed a lot of these cobras. The Americans were afraid to “stick their nose out,” and as soon as Savitsky’s air defense aces replaced them, American intelligence worked clearly, they immediately fell upon the newcomers and “walked on their heads” (quote from the book). I recommend reading it, but the circulation is 700 copies and therefore I recommend: search on the Internet (I found in the "milter")

[Alf]

Quote: Monarchist

Comrades, regarding the King Cobra I remembered the book: Abakumov “Unknown War in the Sky of North Korea”, the pilots from Kozhedub threshed a lot of these cobras.

Where are the Cobras from? Neither the P-39 nor the P-63 was even close in the Korean War.

[verner1967]

Quote: Monarchist

the pilots from Kozhedub threshed a lot of these "cobras".

you do not confuse Cobras with Sabers, but at the same time with Shutingingstars and Thunderjets. Try to remember again.

[shuravi]

There is such a moment. The disadvantages of LTX are offset by good communication and massive use.
The connection with the "cobras" was good. As for the massive use, thanks to its layout, the cobra very quickly prepared for the second flight. Engine and gunsmiths did not interfere with each other.

[rubin6286]

"Kingcobra" is described in modern technical and popular science literature in sufficient detail, including and somewhat earlier on the VO website. I allow myself to disagree with some conclusions of the author of the article and some comments.

The author writes:
“…… by the spring of 1945, the USSR had already received about one and a half thousand“ royal cobras ”. However, not one of them was used on the Soviet-German front. All these machines were kept in reserve. …… ..in the Second World War almost 95% of Soviet Kingcobras were not involved. It seems that they were specially cherished for some other combat missions. ”

By the spring of 1945, the Hitler Reich was living out its last days. The numerical superiority of the Soviet Air Force in western Europe was overwhelming, and “transferring” fighter regiments to new machines obtained by Lend-Lease was impractical. Historically, planes from the United States came from the Far East, from where they were then transported to the European part of the country. Therefore, they equipped several air units of the Far Eastern Military District, and the rest was placed at airfields as a reserve. The same situation was with the American B-25 Mitchell and A-20 Boston bombers. Spitfires came to us through Iran. They were used less by the units of the Transcaucasian Military District, the Baku Air Defense District and some of the air units of the Black Sea Fleet. There was no "ambush" of these vehicles.

“In terms of the combination of flight, combat and operational characteristics, the R-63 exceeded all types of fighters that were in service with the Soviet Air Force by the beginning of 1945, both domestic and foreign.”

This is not entirely true. In the range of heights from 1500 to 5500m, the Kingcobra did not have significant superiority over the Soviet Yak-9, La-5 and German Me-109 and FV-190. Everything was determined by the training of pilots.

In the late 40s, my father served in the Far East and flew on the Kingcobra P-63, and before it on La-9 and La-11. He said that the post-war Lavochkins were worse than the Cobra and the German FV-190D9. From "Cobra" he switched to the MiG-15 and fought on it in Korea. “Cobra” is strict in piloting and is suitable for experienced pilots, not “yellowhorns”. 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.

These machines could come in handy if a conflict with the Americans arose immediately after the end of World War 2, however, the interception of the B-17 and B-29, which are at an altitude of 10-12 thousand meters, can be considered an idle fiction of the author, because it was completely impossible on P-39,63, La-5,7,11 and Yak. All of them did not have turbochargers for this.

I already wrote to “couch strategists” that they all can read, but not everyone understands what they read, since none of them really sat at the helm, they don’t know the device and the principle of operation of units and systems, they didn’t perform aerobatic and complex aerobatics, and without it to quote each other from memoirs written by competent people is simply pointless. 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. What succeeded Pokryshkin, Kozhedub, Lugansk, Rechkalov, Gulaev and others can not be made a rule. In Soviet times, there was censorship, and if the author does not write that “our pilots beat the enemy on his head,” his book may not go out, and if he indicates that the enemy lost 11 aircraft, and our losses were 6 aircraft and 4 pilots, then the censor will replace it with the phrase "our losses were very small." All generalizations are the idle and market invention of the author. Today, there is virtually no censorship and a lot of “waste paper” has appeared on the market, the authors of which, to put it mildly, “commit inaccuracies”.

Neither "aero cobras", nor even "kingcobras", were used by our and Chinese aircraft in the Korean War. Our military advisers trained Chinese pilots to fly on La-9, La-11 and MiG-9, and somewhat later on the MiG-15. Korean pilots were armed with dozens of IL-10 and Yak-9, most of which were destroyed by the Americans at the airfields. Along with jet and Sabers, Thunderjets, Meteors, Banshes, Panthers and Cougars, UN forces used the piston P-51 Mustang, Corsair, P-82
Twin Mustang, Sefire, B-26 and B-29 bombers.

[Alf]

He said that the post-war Lavochkins were worse than the Cobra

What exactly ?

Thanks to the all-metal construction, the aircraft carried more weapons compared to domestic fighters, had greater survivability and better takeoff and landing qualities.

LA-9,11 were also all-metal. Armament LA-9 4x23 mm, LA-11 3x23 mm. Armament P-63 1x37 mm + 4x12,7 mm. Who is stronger ?
The rate of climb of the LA-9 is 24 m / s versus 12,7 m / s. Who jumps faster to a height?

[rubin6286]

For alpha

Everything, of course, is known by comparison. Comparing machines according to the specifications in the TTX literature is one thing, having tried them in practice is another.

La-9 was manufactured in Ulan-Uda and units located after the war in the Far East and in China received these machines. Modification of La-9V was used in 1949 as a training machine for training Chinese pilots.
According to my father, the post-war all-metal La-9 was structurally more advanced than the La-5 and La-7. The new cockpit light mounted on the plane made the review better, but the emergency reset mechanism of its moving part remained the same and caused certain troubles. Replaced it much later. As before, they were "fried" in La-9, the gun synchronizer was unreliable, and because of this, one of the four was removed. Automatic control of gas and propeller pitch, which was successfully used on the Me-109, starting with the G-series, FV-190 of the A and D series, Ta-152, was absent. The pitch of the screw was still regulated manually and because of this, in nominal mode, engine power was always slightly lower than the calculated one. The engine on La-9 and 11 remained the same - ASH-82FN, also with its inherent disadvantages.
An increase in the number and capacity of tanks led to an increase in flight range, but the take-off mass of the machine also increased. If this was acceptable for an escort fighter or an air defense interceptor, then maneuverable aerial combat could be forgotten. Incomplete refueling of tanks made the plane easier, but led to a violation of track stability (the plane became “rolls", ie, prone to stall, and there were no slats on La-9) and controllability. According to books, in training air battles, La-7 and La-9 at heights of 2-3 thousand meters were equivalent. According to his father, a front-line pilot on a fully equipped La-5FN at an altitude of 2,5 thousand meters easily "mowed" in battle the heavier La-9 on vertical and horizontal lines.
After the war, a part of the equipment appeared "on the plane" among the Germans and allies (the radio meteorological station and the transponder of the radar recognition system, aerial photography equipment, etc.).

La-11 was originally designed as a long-range escort fighter and was created on the basis of La-9. It was supposed to cover the long-range Tu-4 bombers when they launched a nuclear strike on the territory of the United States through the North Pole. Due to the increased mass of fuel and the use of hanging tanks, it became heavier than La-9 by more than half a ton. The aircraft had sophisticated anti-icing equipment and an updated set of radio equipment. The armament of the aircraft was, like on La-9, three NS-23 guns with a slightly smaller ammunition load.

The increase in take-off mass of the machine led to a violation of longitudinal stability and controllability when a speed of just over 400 km / h was reached. The pilot was forced to energetically work with the pedals to fend off the occurrence of loads on the ailerons when changing speed. This made the long-haul flight tiring and when landing a tired pilot did not always have time to fend off stalling on the wing at a loss of speed. La-11 was unsuitable for conducting maneuverable air combat, especially at altitudes of 7 thousand meters and more, because possessed very limited maneuverability on the verticals and horizontals, and the turn on it could be performed with a roll of less than 40 degrees with a large loss of height. It was no good! Father called La-11 "iron", and flying it "torment for the body." La-11 was discontinued in 1950. Some aircraft were used as long-range reconnaissance.

[Alf]

Quote: rubin6286

because of this, one of the four guns was removed.

Good. 3 23-mm guns are still stronger than one 37 and 4 Colts.

Quote: rubin6286

According to his father, a front-line pilot on a fully equipped La-5FN at an altitude of 2,5 thousand meters easily "mowed" in battle the heavier La-9 on vertical and horizontal lines.

But what if the front-line soldier was on LA-9?
Take-off weight LA-9 3400 kg, take-off weight P-63-3900. The turn time for both is the same — 21 seconds.
In no case do I want to insult your father, but often I remember Punev’s words - I must be able to fly.
And here the historical information (when it was issued, where, who flew, when they were withdrawn from service) is generally incomprehensible.

[rubin6286]

Again for Alpha

In the memoirs there are references to the fact that to facilitate the machine, machine guns from the planes "Cobra" were sometimes removed. I will not argue, all or not all, but this was and was done because a well-aimed volley of 37mm guns and two heavy machine guns were enough to destroy any of the German aircraft. Which is better - a salvo of 5 firing points or of three, is a moot point, and gunsmiths paid more attention to such a parameter as the second burst weight, than combat pilots. For those, the main thing is the serviceability of the weapon, the presence of ammunition and firing accuracy. From the engine power and the take-off weight of the machine, its “rate of climb”, i.e. the aircraft’s ability to reach a certain height over a period of time. The higher the rate of climb, the greater the likelihood that the attacking aircraft will be able to catch up with the attacked aircraft on a vertical and take a comfortable position for effective shooting. The lightest and fast-growing fighter of the war miners Yak-3 weighed 2650 kg., Serial La-5FN-3200 kg. Both to a height of 5500 m surpassed German cars in rate of climb.
La-9 and La-11 are heavier than La-5FN with the same engine.
Hence…….

Try to get away from stereotypes. When assessing the performance characteristics, generalizations cannot be made. The turnaround time recorded in the form is the same when it is performed by high-quality test pilots on a specially prepared for characterization (reference machine). In reality, there are no identical pilots when flying on a serial machine for pilots of combat units, it may be lower. This may affect the outcome of the battle, and I already wrote about this before.

Being a pilot is not given to everyone. A professional pilot perceives the content of the article on the basis of his own experience, knowledge and skills, and everyone else “just bounces,” like Yesenin’s: “A man can judge for hours on a thing that sticks out between his legs.”

[verner1967]

Literate comment, it was interesting to read. But there is a question

Quote: rubin6286

In the range of heights from 1500 to 5500m, the Kingcobra did not have significant superiority over the Soviet Yak-9, La-5 and German Me-109 and FV-190.

and at heights of up to 7000 m? Given the performance characteristics of our fighters, it must be assumed that yes, then in the aggregate KKobra was better? In addition, given the nature of the air battles on the western front, which took place at heights of more than 5000, and therefore were expected in the upcoming war, the KKobra was preferable to domestic fighters.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: verner1967

given the nature of the air battles on the western front, which took place at altitudes of more than 5000

Yes, and in this part the author of the article is right. In the 45th year, the main aircraft of the USSR, capable of climbing up to the Superfortresses, were, first of all, kingcobras (and sleeping in Moscow air defense).
However, they were kept in reserve for these reasons, or for others, which were enough - of.documents, as far as I know, does not exist.
Rather, nevertheless, for reasons of the inexpediency of introducing a new car in the realities of the 45th year. To meet with the Superfortresses, it would be wise to urgently relearn the Guiap.

[rubin6286]

For Cherry Nine

I will disappoint you. For 1945, there were no aircraft in the Soviet Air Force capable of intercepting an enemy marching at an altitude of 10-12 thousand meters. Neither Cobras, nor Spitfires, nor our Yaks and Lavochkins could do this. If German planes could rise to this altitude, then they no longer had enough flight ranges to reach the target and return back at the end of the war.

Around 1948, American and British aircraft made reconnaissance flights over the territory of the USSR. Sometimes it was possible to intercept them at low and medium altitudes, several cars were shot down, and the crews were taken prisoner. With the advent of fighter jets - interceptors, a radar network and anti-aircraft missiles, such flights became extremely dangerous for those who started them and ended tragically.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: rubin6286

going at an altitude of 10-12 thousand meters

Specifically, I mean the Liberator - 8,5 km, Fortress - 10,5 and Superfortress - 12. If you really have nothing to catch with the latter, then you can still fight with the former, especially the B-24. In any case, having two boosts and oxygen equipment, Kingcobra was the highest-altitude relatively massive Soviet aircraft in the summer of the 45th year.

But, I repeat. I do not consider the author’s version of the stone in the bosom and piano in the bushes convincing. Too complicated.

[rubin6286]

Again for Cherry Nine

I understand that you are not a pilot and an attack by a piston fighter of a group of bombers at an altitude of more than 7 thousand meters is covered by an areola of romance and flights on an airplane simulator. There is no difference in the flight simulator at what altitude you fly: the engine exactly rumbles, moving closer to the enemy, and there are only a few moments before pressing a button on the joystick ... .. In reality, everything is different: when the altitude of 5,5 thousand meters is reached, the engine begins to “suffocate”. He does not have enough air, power drops and the plane moves in jerks. With the increase in altitude and discharged air, the efficiency of the rudders decreases. The plane begins to swing like a "drunk ballerina" and aiming is very difficult. Our pilots in 1944-45 repeatedly ascended to intercept the German air reconnaissance Yu-86, but only one of them managed to reach an altitude of 8600 m and release the line from the on-board weapons. The pilot missed, but scared the enemy.

Everything is known in comparison. Try to read Zefirova "Asy of the Luftwaffe. Day fighters", H.Knoke "I flew for the Fuhrer", A. Galland "The First and the Last." You can imagine what the combat order of day bombers was during the raids on Germany in 1944-45, how their fighter cover was carried out, what was the tactics of the German day fighters, at what heights were intercepted, what was the interaction of the piston, rocket and missile groups fighters, what weapons were used, etc., etc. Generally speaking, the Germans had to varying degrees, to varying degrees, to repel a strike from high altitudes, but there was everything. And what did we have for this in 1945?

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: rubin6286

And what did we have for this in 1945?

You see, I’m far from the idea that the attack of GVIAP on a battlebox or silverplate could be (stably) successful. All that I affirm - Kingcobra is the only mass high-altitude Soviet fighter as of the 45th year. The fact that at such a height against Mustang H or Thunder N, and superfortress, she especially has nothing to catch - another conversation.

[Dalailama]

Many things. The issue was generally resolved by any Soviet piston fighter under the wing of which a pair of accelerators with PuVRD were suspended.
KingCobra P-63 is the only mass close to normal propeller motor in the polar version. P-39 aircobra killed more Soviet aces than Germans.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: DalaiLama

P-39 aircobra killed more Soviet aces than Germans.

I heard a lot like Comrade Stalin plagued the Soviet people, but I heard for the first time that he received wrecking aircraft in the United States for this.

[Dalailama]

This is a quote from his letter to Roosevelt about the problem.

[Dalailama]

It said "Your plane", so it turns out that they were actually plagued by Roosevelt.

[rubin6286]

For Werner 1967

You read my comment inattentively. To conduct air combat at altitudes above 5500 meters, the aircraft engine must have a turbocharger or turbocharger. The Germans did not have them on the Eastern Front, especially with us. Therefore, the height of 5500 meters is taken as the limit, when calculating the rate of climb and is included in the references. Find in them “Aerocobra” and “Kingcobra” and make sure that these are not high-altitude fighters and “get” the American B-17, B-24, B-29, the English “Halifaxes” and “Lancaster”, ranging in height from 8 thousand to 12 thousand meters they can not afford.

All aircraft received under Lend-Lease passed control tests by our pilots. Based on their results, the government and personally I.V. Stalin made a decision, which was then drawn up by a request to the US government indicating the required number of aircraft, quality, completeness, delivery time and payment procedure . They took only what was needed at our theater of operations, but they did not give us everything. The USSR, for example, was denied the purchase of B-17 Flying Fortress aircraft, which would be useful in raids on Berlin and the Romanian oil fields. Imagine what would happen to those through whose fault the Kingcobras bought for gold (even with a deferred payment term) turned out to be completely unsuitable in battle at the front. Not only they would suffer, but also their families.

[verner1967]

Quote: rubin6286

To conduct air combat at altitudes above 5500 meters, the aircraft engine must have a turbocharger or turbocharger.

he was on the v-12 allison v-1710-117 engine and at an altitude of 7 m the R-620 developed a top speed of 63 km / h, the ceiling was 657 m. God knows what, but as they say, what is rich .... there was no other. I know about the selection of Lend-Lease aircraft and I completely agree with you

[rubin6286]

Again for Werner 1967

One can only guess how the situation in the air would develop in the event of an American strategic aviation strike on the territory of the country in the late 40s and be glad that this did not happen.
In August 1948, the MiG-15 was adopted, and in the autumn of that year the first Tu-4s appeared.

[verner1967]

Quote: rubin6286

One can only guess how the situation in the air would have developed in the event of an American strategic aviation strike on the territory of the country in the late 40s

so it would be sad for us, what can I talk about? If even the Germans could not resist these raids, then what about the USSR aviation of that time.

[Dalailama]

Even the Germans, beaten over the Kuban, were occupied on the Eastern Front and they had a fuel hunger. And even before they didn’t get to hang the PuVRD accelerators under their pistons. As a result, the Allies were sad at the very first attempts to bomb the Soviet troops back in April 1945. In the Balkans, they began to heal them back in 1944.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: DalaiLama

As a result, the Allies are sad

Another turbo-war does not distinguish friendly fire from real attempts to seriously bomb something. Especially in the performance of pugnacious Americans who, by the 44th year, had shot down indiscriminately everything that flies. And that does not fly - stormed.

PS Specifically, this photo is about something else, but the idea illustrates well.

[Dalailama]

Do not pretend that you do not know about the Balkan incidents and the real nature of the meeting on the Elbe with an ambush on Soviet tanks, the use of artillery and the serious bombing of bombers.
Pugnacious so far with a "test of strength" from the nose blood does not flow. Why is there such a fuss with photos right away?

[verner1967]

Quote: DalaiLama

Dazhi-Germans beaten over Kuban

Quote: DalaiLama

Allies were sad at the first attempts to bomb the Soviet troops

what nonsense .... or I had enough beer today

[Dalailama]

Perhaps both this and that, but also forgot to eat the sausage.

[verner1967]

Quote: DalaiLama

Both possible

that is, the delirium of the comment to which I replied is not denied? it certainly pleases

[Dalailama]

Tie sausages and pansher chocolate too. Become a vegan, maybe later you wake up good artist.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: verner1967

what nonsense

The patient belongs to the breed of Internet warriors who believe that the Americans came to liberate Europe to the Arkhangelsk-Astrakhan line, but fell asleep. It’s useless to go into details here. Although I, as a true Russophobe, am very sorry that the Americans in the 45th behaved like the last gays, in a bad sense of the word.

Quote: verner1967

Do not pretend you do not know about the Balkan incidents

I know. And I also know that incidents - they are incidents. There were no attempts to send the USSR to the Kukan at the political level on the American side, despite Churchill's efforts to this effect. Roosevelt rushed about with the crazy idea of ​​peaceful coexistence and even "spheres of influence" to the very end, and Truman figured out what was happening for 48 years.
In fidelity to allied duty, the Anglo-Americans, unfortunately, reached a hefty abomination, such as the story of prisoners of war of "Soviet origin." Yes, and take Nuremberg ...

[Dalailama]

Both I see here are engaged in the propaganda of American exclusivity and other forms of Nazism in the form of a review of the results of individual battles of the Second World War, and carefully bypass the topic of air defense.
The Americans and the British came with their bombing, famine and other forms of genocide to liberate Europe from all who are not goose, even from the French.

[verner1967]

Quote: DalaiLama

Both I see here are promoting American exclusivity.

there is no question of exclusivity, it is a question of the perfection of technology, you will not mind the fact that ours copied the American B-29, and not the Americans our Tu-2

Quote: DalaiLama

as a review of the results of individual battles of the Second World War

tell us what battles did we even consider here?

Quote: DalaiLama

diligently circumvent the topic of PuVRD.

But how to discuss this topic if the abbreviation is unknown?

Quote: DalaiLama

The Americans and the British came with their bombing, famine

and the Red Army didn’t bomb anything, it took all with bare hands Aerial bridge in Zap. Berlin was organized by the Americans exclusively for the extermination by hunger of the inhabitants of this city. By the way, why was this bridge needed after the war? Who made such a blockade? Yes, and tell us more about "other types of genocide"

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: DalaiLama

Both I see here are promoting American exclusivity.

You may have noticed that I am very sorry that the Americans performed much weaker than their potential.

Quote: DalaiLama

other forms of Nazism

Very far from Nazism. I, you see, stubborn tolerast.

Quote: DalaiLama

carefully circumvent the topic of PuVRD

And what about this nonsense? God be with you, may you have in your life a PuVRD attached to the Yak-9.

Quote: DalaiLama

Americans and British came with their bombing, famine and other types of genocide

Everything in Europe was good, until the Americans came there in the 43rd, you are right.

Quote: verner1967

But how to discuss this topic if the abbreviation is unknown?

Pulsating jet engine. Another question, why discuss it?

[Dalailama]

-> verner1967,
There is. What is so complicated about the B-29? Tupolev generally liked to copy, but from Myasishchev he copied the Tu-160, and from Sukhoi, the Tu-2.
That battle the results of which you questioned.
It’s vryatli + Google rarely has unknown abbreviations.
Everything is clear with you. She did not selectively and purposefully destroy civilians along with their dwellings as the Allies did. Nobody from the USSR side made a humanitarian blockade of West Berlin, only military transportations over the contractual norm were forbidden there.
-> Cherry Nine,
And what else could they do without consequences for themselves?
This is also a variation of it.
You can google again, see such photos there and not carry your own.
The British began to visit at night and genocide as early as 1942.
It has already been written. With them, you began to break the exceptional template. Such accelerators threw an ordinary Soviet piston gun on the echelon of bombers, after which they carried them there no worse than reagents. If, after them, they then linked a high-altitude escort down, then they also carried it out (which German reagents could not do).

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: DalaiLama

And what else could they do without consequences for themselves?

Yes, anything. The United States in only one case came out in full force - the Manhattan project. Navy, aviation, land army, strategy and tactics - everything could be done much better.
Another thing, what does "without consequences for yourself" mean? Everything has a price.

Quote: DalaiLama

This is also a variation of it.

Are you talking about tolerance? This is a kind of homosexuality, not Nazism, I ask you not to confuse.

Quote: DalaiLama

You can google again, see such photos there and not carry your own.

Quote: DalaiLama

after which they carried them there no worse than reagents

A little scotch tape and the Yak-9 turns into a Ryan FR Fireball. I say it’s impossible to argue with that.

Quote: DalaiLama

The British began to visit at night and genocide as early as 1942.

Which are all gentle. It seems that in the 42nd this did not cause protests of the Soviet government.
However, I really do not like A.T. Harris and his activities. It is not good to kill your future allies.

[Dalailama]

Is it a cuming out or propaganda? Partagenigenoss Rem will take you all apart.
Why not in the MiG-13? How much was the Yak-9 and jumping, if you liked it so much, and how much was the FR-1 Fireball?
Why was it protesting before the German? The one who m. didn’t protest again worse than those who did it? B. Harris was straight?

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: rubin6286

In August 1948, the MiG-15 jet was adopted

You are right, with C. Attlee the bourgeoisie did not screw up much. However, to speak of a complete USSR air defense system in the year 48, in my opinion. prematurely.

[Dalailama]

Are you sure you know everything? Cards in the USSR were canceled earlier, is Attlee too to blame?

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: DalaiLama

Are you sure you know everything?

I’m sure not.

Quote: DalaiLama

Cards in the USSR were canceled earlier, is Attlee too to blame?

Before what?

[Dalailama]

And what about% you can know?

Quote: Cherry Nine

Before what?

Than they were canceled in England.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: DalaiLama

Than they were canceled in England.

The Soviet people were eating themselves. We, the liberals, came up with the famine in the USSR 1946-1947 in order to humiliate Russian people.

[Dalailama]

In general, yes. Just do not humiliate and yet destroy.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: DalaiLama

In general, yes. Just do not humiliate and yet destroy.

Well, Comrade Stalin never wrote to liberalists. I ask you to remove it from me.

[Dalailama]

Ramon Mercader will clean, he will not rust.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: rubin6286

English "Halifaxes" and "Lancaster", going in the range of heights from 8 thousand to 12 thousand meters

Lime trim a bit

[Aviator_]

But the “Cobras” (it is possible that “King”) in the Kuril Islands at the beginning of the zero

[verner1967]

Quote: Aviator_

And here is the "Cobra" (it is possible that the "King")

12 nozzles, then - King Cobra

[verner1967]

Quote: Cherry Nine

Great cars came across the Germans, the British, even Italians, even the Japanese.

that’s exactly what they came across, the Americans also came across, only there were more of them, for some reason you completely excluded US strategic and carrier-based aviation from the contenders under consideration. In addition, piston aviation had reached its peak by that time, the difference was only in equipping the aircraft with radio and sighting and navigation equipment. In the end, the United States defeated the Germans and Japanese in the air war, and not vice versa. Yes, and for engines: the United States at that time was the only country in the world that manufactured turbochargers in large series. This was ensured by the presence in the country of the production of heat-resistant steels and high-speed bearings.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: verner1967

the Americans also came across them, only there were more of them,

I mean, more is produced? That is yes.

Quote: verner1967

excluded from the considered candidates strategic

Strategic yes, here they are leaders.

Quote: verner1967

and U.S. Deck Aviation

And what is interesting there until the end of the 43rd year?

Quote: verner1967

In the end, the United States defeated the Germans and Japanese in the air war, and not vice versa.

Wacky argument. Listen to you, so the T-34-76 is a good tank.

Quote: verner1967

Yes, and for engines: the United States at that time was the only country in the world that manufactured turbochargers in large series.

This is yes.
Immediately I will name a few progressive chips in terms of engines:
1. The motor gun.
2. Sleeve ignition.
3. Injection.
4. Automation of engine management / VMG
5. Turbocharger.
6. Injection (water / methanol)

Americans at the beginning of the war (its beginning, the 42nd year) mastered only one of them. Toward the end of the war, they were pulled by automation and injection.
And another topic not mentioned on the list is 100 octane gasoline. Actually, it does not apply to airplanes.
The Americans excelled in industrial power, not engineering. This is neither good nor bad. But you should not fetish the American equipment of those years.

[verner1967]

Quote: Cherry Nine

And what is interesting there until the end of the 43rd year?

and what was better than what amers had?

Quote: Cherry Nine

Wacky argument. Listen to you, so the T-34-76 is a good tank.

You see, besides the USSR, everyone fought with technology, so I exclude the USSR from this race. AND

Quote: Cherry Nine

T-34-76

A good tank for Soviet industry, but not the best WWII tank. Advancement in aviation is not outstanding aircraft, it is industry and aircraft. And the engineers at Amers were not the last, to the point that the Germans introduced so many new products if they could not master them.

Quote: Cherry Nine

you should not fetish American equipment of those years.

again, I’m not talking about outstanding aircraft, I’m talking about the mass character of modern aircraft. And so, to conclude, which of the aircraft of all warring parties will be compared with the B-24, B-17, R-51, A-20?

[Dalailama]

The most massive flying tank like the Il-2 was, wasn’t it?
Of the riders, in your opinion, was the Tiger probably?

[verner1967]

Quote: DalaiLama

The most massive like the IL-2 was?

we are not about mass, more precisely, not only about it

[Dalailama]

Quote: verner1967

again, I’m not talking about outstanding aircraft, I’m talking about the mass character of modern aircraft. And so, to conclude, which of the aircraft of all warring parties will be compared with the B-24, B-17, R-51, A-20?

[verner1967]

Quote: DalaiLama

Quote: verner1967

again, I’m not talking about outstanding aircraft, I’m talking about the mass character of modern aircraft. And so, to conclude, which of the aircraft of all warring parties will be compared with the B-24, B-17, R-51, A-20?

Have you carefully read the quotation you brought?

I'm talking about mass modern aircraft.

keyword: modern

[Dalailama]

Carefully. Prior to this, the key word was "mass" (modern). All the rest - "come across."
Why is the IL-2 not modern?

[verner1967]

Quote: DalaiLama

Why is the IL-2 not modern?

Well, as if the fashion for wooden planes passed, especially attack aircraft. He was certainly good, for our industry, but not on a global scale.

[Dalailama]

The attack aircraft do not have wooden armor. What was badly fashionable wooden Mosquito for the English industry?
So which tank was the best driving?

[verner1967]

Quote: DalaiLama

What was badly fashionable wooden Mosquito for the English industry?

was Mosquito an attack aircraft?

[Dalailama]

It was, only with a bigger gun and no armor.
You did not answer.

[verner1967]

Quote: DalaiLama

Carefully. Prior to this, the key word was "mass" (modern). All the rest - "come across."

it was about modern aircraft, if the advanced word is not clear to you. And they came across outstanding ones, which are not exactly the same thing. Now it is clear?

[Dalailama]

All clear. Why is the IL-2 not advanced?
You are already talking about fashion. So which tank was the best driving?

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: DalaiLama

All clear. Why is the IL-2 not advanced?

To everyone. Glider, engine, load.

Quote: DalaiLama

So which tank was the best driving?

The beginning of the war is a three-four.
42nd 43rd year - Tiger. Given the quantity - Sherman.
44th year - Panther on the defensive. The attack was not the best. T-34 just started to drive normally, but is already out of date. Sherman missed the upgrade and lagged, to some extent, even from the T-34/85. Panther, having only cured children's sores, ran into problems with the quality of materials. And the Panther’s design itself was heavily reassigned towards combat qualities due to the technological effectiveness of production and operation. For total war - this is a mistake.
45th year. Centurion, of course.

[Dalailama]

With which attack aircraft compared? With the A-10?

Quote: Cherry Nine

The beginning of the war is a three-four.

This is the Germans.
The T-34 was already driving.
why forget about KV, IS-2 and IS-3, for example?
"Tank breakthrough" and "St. John's wort" - have you heard such words?

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: DalaiLama

With the A-10?

With a thunderbolt, which is not even an attack aircraft. With Foca, who is also not an attack aircraft.

Quote: DalaiLama

This is the Germans.

Yes. And what?

Quote: DalaiLama

The T-34 was already driving.

I went, but not every day. And not every tank. And in one gear. And not far.

Quote: DalaiLama

why forget about KV, IS-2 and IS-3, for example?

Did not forget. They were simply not the best, and the ISs were not even very tanks. Installation on the tank A-19 (D-25T) was explained by the absence of the USSR enough armor-piercing guns (and shells), nothing more. The rest of this gun as a tank has some disadvantages. As a weapon of an assault self-propelled gun, it’s quite normal.

[Dalailama]

Then why compare if suddenly not a ground attack aircraft? FW-190s were assault.

Quote: Cherry Nine

Yes. And what?

It was about not only German.

Quote: Cherry Nine

I went, but not every day. And not every tank. And in one gear. And not far.

The members of your Trotskyite circle also massively removed engines and weapons from planes just before June 22. What were the advantages and disadvantages of the tank? Was it difficult to shoot?
IS-2 is not a tank, it is a clinic. For the wonderful action of his weapon, refer to the commentary on the Shuravi.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: DalaiLama

Then why compare if suddenly not a ground attack aircraft? The FW-190s were fiction.

Both the Thunder and Fock were fighter-bombers. And their effectiveness as attack aircraft relative to the IL-2 was quite acceptable. And if Foka worked against the enemy, much less saturated air defense, then the thunder - against the same.

Quote: DalaiLama

It was about not only German.

The three and four were the best overall before the appearance of Sherman. Yes, they were better than the T-34. Definitely better. Yes, and Sherman quadrupled the number four, first of all. As a tank, he was a very mediocre, American T-70. Do it yourself circle.
Although not a nightmare like the T-34/76.

Quote: DalaiLama

IS-2 is not a tank, it is a clinic.

IS-2 is not a clinic (why are you talking about it?). This is a necessary measure. S-53 for the 44th year is not enough, D-10T is not ready. It remains only to put on the A-19 tank with its ammunition of 28 shells and firing once a minute in combat conditions. Or switch to a scheme with a tank destroyer, which was also partially done.
Incidentally, I consider heavy assault / anti-tank destroyers, in particular the ISU-152, the most successful examples of Soviet armored vehicles.

[Dalailama]

The FW-190 was an assault. Efficiency was worse.
Ie 34ka was also worse than Sherman? Who would be surprised.
It was not about him ... to "shuravi" in the commentary.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: DalaiLama

The FW-190 was an assault. Efficiency was worse.

What is manifested "worse-better" in your interpretation?
Differences between the attack modification of the fighter and IL-2 are not visible?

Quote: DalaiLama

It was not about him ... to "shuravi" in the commentary.

Yes, I already realized that you got all your knowledge about tanks from the comments of Shuravi. I don’t need to go there, thanks.

Quote: DalaiLama

Ie 34ka was also worse than Sherman? Who would be surprised.

None of those in the subject. If Sherman was made by people who knew how to do at least tractors properly (in fact, they made a tractor with only an armored hull, the first aircraft engine and the first gun that came in. The gun was first stuck in a corner, then thought and moved up), then the Kharkiv people could not and this one.

[Cherry Nine]

PS.
You and Shuravi for reference. Penetration A-19 (aka D-25T) with a 53-BR-471 projectile (standard, this should be noted especially) per 1000 m was 145 mm at right angles. The weight of the system is 7,1 tons in combat position. Rate of fire 3-4 rounds per minute (for A-19, but not for D-25T).
Penetration of Ordnance QF 6-pounder late (since March 44th year) APDS shell is 140 mm at right angles at the same range. The rate of fire is 15 rounds per minute, the weight of the system is 1140 kg.

[Dalailama]

In performance. It was not a fighter, a "single plane."
Kharkov residents did not know how to make tractors? Where did they first stick the T-34 gun?
One hit of 122m to any place of the Tiger without armor penetration turned everything inside soft-boiled. Therefore, even with its rate of fire, the IS-2 was 2 times better than the Tiger.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: verner1967

and what was better than what amers had?

Japa of the 41st year, of course. Kate Vel Zero were outstanding aircraft and, more importantly, were designed interconnectedly. The 41-year-old Devastator-Dauntles-Brewster mattresses were an outstanding, simply ultimate squalor. The mattresses of the 44th year Avenger-Helldiver-Hellcat, or even the 45th Avenger-Helldiver-Corsair remained squalor in the technical sense, although they surpassed, of course, the Japanese, who remained, by and large, with their pre-war masterpieces.
In particular, the simple idea that all deck aircraft should be built on the same engine, even Sakai, did not really reach the Americans. Even at the end of the war, fighters flew in double-vasp, and fighters - on Cyclone (pre-war trinity - on a torpedo bomber). This also applies to Birket / Skyrider. Grumman was trying to make the Cyclone 2600 a single engine, but this engine was not enough for a barn like Hellcat. At the end of the war, hands reached the davblvasp (Birket / Tigerket), but they didn’t.
The naval authorities, for their part, didn’t even think that if you’re in the 38th competition, Karl!, A fighter with a double wasp won, then you need to remake the drums with the same engine.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: verner1967

good tank for soviet industry

Let's not start a tank companion in this thread, OK? You are about the T-34-76 of the 40th year, I look, you don’t know too much.

Quote: verner1967

with B-24, B-17, R-51, A-20?

1-3 - any Englishman of that de class (Mustang - for early versions with Alison. Mustang D - a unique tactical niche machine).
4 - this is squalor. A twin-engine attack aircraft that took less load than an American fighter.

[verner1967]

Quote: Cherry Nine

You are about the T-34-76 of the 40th year, I look, you don’t know too much.

you have to say for quality, as I know, but I don’t want to breed srach

Quote: Cherry Nine

1-3 - any Englishman of that de class

yeah, but for some reason, having suffered huge losses, they began to fly exclusively at night, unlike amers.

Quote: Cherry Nine

Mustang D - a unique tactical niche machine

who was the best in this niche?

Quote: Cherry Nine

A twin-engine attack aircraft that took less load than an American fighter.

load of what? Bomb So this is a ground attack aircraft and not a bomber or an IS, and this is armed with four 20-mm M-1 guns (60 rounds per round) and two machine guns or nine .50 in (12.7 mm) Browning M2 machine guns (500 rounds) on the barrel), attack aircraft, however. My father’s fellow soldier who managed to fly to the Bostons would fundamentally disagree with your conclusion

Quote: Cherry Nine

this is squalor.

Quote: Cherry Nine

The mattresses of the 44th year Avenger-Helldiver-Hellcat, or even the 45th Avenger-Helldiver-Corsair remained squalid in a technical sense, although they surpassed, of course, the Japanese,

here I'm generally lost in your logic. Are they squalor in relation to what?

Quote: Cherry Nine

Kate Vel Zero were outstanding aircraft

yes, good airplanes, but the same Zero was an outstanding maneuverable fighter due to the fact that he had no protection, in the end they were blasted away by the roots of poor American planes, but Japanese pilots can’t be called poor anyway, how strange it is ...

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: verner1967

you have say for quality so i know

In this context, I have to say for the adaptability of the diesel engine and the hull before the appearance of automatic welding machines.

Quote: verner1967

only for some reason, having suffered huge losses, they began to fly exclusively at night

Because they did not solve the problem of escort, first of all. The Americans approached the issue more systematically.

Quote: verner1967

who was the best in this niche?

In this niche there were two of them, he and the thunder. Mustang was better because it was cheaper.

Quote: verner1967

four 20-mm M-1 guns (60 rounds of ammunition per barrel) and two machine guns or nine .50 in (12.7-mm) Browning M2 machine guns (500 rounds per barrel)

Is this a lot for a twin-engine aircraft? Thunder D had 8 of the same machine guns and up to 1135 kg of bombs / missiles, I recall.

Quote: verner1967

load of what? Bomb so this is an attack aircraft and not a bomber

Skyrider looks at you with interest.

Quote: verner1967

Are they squalor in relation to what?

In relation to imagined competently made aircraft. Kate Vel Zero at the American technical level.
You do not seem to understand the idea. It's one thing what resources you have. Another is how you used them. The Americans have the use of resources so-so, but their number allowed to fix any jambs.

Quote: verner1967

was an outstanding maneuverable fighter due to the fact that he had no protection

Have you seen his range?

Quote: verner1967

in the end were rooted to the root by American wretched planes,

Before Rabul, who was outrunning anyone there, the question is complex.

[verner1967]

Quote: Cherry Nine

In this context, I have to say for the adaptability of the diesel engine and the hull

Actually, I meant for combat qualities, and not for technology. But here I agree with you, the technology was also lame

Quote: Cherry Nine

Because they did not solve the problem of escort, first of all. The Americans approached the issue more systematically.

Yeah, including with weapons, and with a flight altitude, since an escort does not save from anti-aircraft fire. In addition, escorts are also airplanes, it's about the advancement of American fighters

Quote: Cherry Nine

In this niche there were two of them, he and the thunder.

both Americans notice

Quote: Cherry Nine

Thunder D had 8 of the same machine guns and up to 1135 kg of bombs / missiles, I recall.

I will also remind you that Boston took 2000 combat load and at the same time carried more armor and fuel, in addition, the Thunder was an IS, and the one that had less combat support.

Quote: Cherry Nine

Skyrider looks at you with interest.

Here’s another wonderful airplane, it’s only a pity that I didn’t have time for war

Quote: Cherry Nine

Americans use resources so-so

Americans did not prepare for war as the rest of the state, especially as the countries of the Axis and the USSR, but during the war they quickly caught up with and overtook everyone.

Quote: Cherry Nine

Have you seen his range?

yes, especially in the economy mode, but not with bread alone, as they say ...

Quote: Cherry Nine

To Rabul

Rabaul ... well, so skill is born in battles, because we also didn’t start from Kursk

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: verner1967

Rabaul ...

Soryan. All the time wedges on it.

Quote: verner1967

Well, mastery is born in battles, because we also didn’t start from Kursk

There is another version. Throwing an opponent with money is better than meat. But there is no honor in this.

Quote: verner1967

but not with bread alone, as they say ...

Zero was better than Wildcat, and especially Buffalo, to absolutely everything except passive defense and fire density.

Quote: verner1967

Americans did not prepare for war as the rest of the state, especially as the countries of the Axis and the USSR

Tu
Ocean
Navy

Quote: verner1967

especially as the countries of the Axis and the USSR, but during the war they quickly caught up with and overtook everyone.

Korea is not convinced. At the end of the war, the Americans were the undisputed leaders in only certain components: strategic aviation, surface fleet, artillery. Well, yes, nuclear weapons of course.

Quote: verner1967

Here’s another wonderful airplane, it’s only a pity that I didn’t have time for war

Another idiocy. Who should be to make a strike aircraft powered by superfortress if you have both double-fighter fighters since 42?
The link Mauler - Supercorsar in vas major was more distinct, but this engine turned out to be too buggy, and too addictive for the fighter.

Quote: verner1967

I will also remind you that Boston took 2000 combat load while carrying more armor

What kind of modification? I did not come across.

Quote: verner1967

both Americans notice

I noticed.

Quote: Cherry Nine

Needless to say, USAAC worked in other tactical niches. Imbalance in the direction of the Srategov, neglect of front-line aircraft and direct support vehicles.

Quote: verner1967

it's me about the advancement of american fighter jets

Are you saying that Spit, an air defense fighter, didn’t play the role of an escort, but there were not enough resources for a specialized escort? It's true. And who, incidentally, was an American air defense fighter?

Quote: verner1967

yeah, including with weapons, and with flight altitude

Then yes, the Americans made the aircraft stronger. On the other hand, the Amers did not have their Lancaster. Even the B-29 did not lift so much.

[verner1967]

Quote: Cherry Nine

Zero was better than Wildcat, and especially Buffalo, to absolutely everything except passive defense and fire density.

there remains only maneuverability, but this is for a dog dump, but for modern combat it hit - it left American planes were better suited.

Quote: Cherry Nine

Navy

I'm talking about the land army, because they were going to sit overseas

Quote: Cherry Nine

What kind of modification? I did not come across.

Well, then, all the mass modifications of the A-20G type, and the same letak was evaluated by the Red Army Air Force purchasing committee and it was concluded that it takes a bomb load of at least Pe-2, and the Pe-2 carried 1500 kg of bombs. Moreover, Thunder was still an IS, after which he became an escort, but his performance characteristics also changed

Quote: Cherry Nine

And who, incidentally, was an American air defense fighter?

Yes, the same Thunder, only they did not need him, there was no one to defend against

Quote: Cherry Nine

On the other hand, the Amers did not have their Lancaster. Even the B-29 did not lift so much.

So he did not fly so high and far, I told you. that piston aviation has exhausted itself, which had to be sacrificed either by carrying capacity, or by height, or by range

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: verner1967

and for a modern battle hit - left American planes fit better.

First of all, boomzum requires excellence in speed and climb (both in general and in the “candle”). Secondly, the task of a carrier-based fighter is to stop attack planes breaking through to AB (and covered by Zero) or, conversely, to protect their attackers breaking through to AB (also covered by Zero).

In general, it is surprising that at least one of our pilots was able to return alive. All the successes that the pilots of our fighters were able to achieve in the battle with the Japanese Zero fighters were not achieved due to the characteristics of the machines we fly, but as a result of the comparatively low accuracy of the Japanese shooting, the stupid mistakes made by several of their pilots, and also due to the superior precision firing and teamwork of our pilots. The only way to catch the Zero fighter in sight was to lure them into a turn in front of the F4F or shoot them at a time when they were too busy shooting at one of our cars. F4F aircraft are deplorably inferior in rate of climb, maneuverability and speed. The author had to fly on the F4F model, which did not yet have armor protection and protected gas tanks. Removing these vital defenses is not able to increase the performance of the F4F so much as to even get closer to the characteristics of the Zero fighter. These serious flaws not only prevent our fighters from properly performing combat missions, but also have a clear and disturbing effect on the morale of the pilots of our carrier-based fighters. If we intend to keep our aircraft carriers afloat, then we must provide a fighter superior to the Japanese Zero, if not in maneuverability, then at least in rate of climb and speed.

F2A-3 is not a combat aircraft. It is inferior in all respects to the planes we fought with. F2A-3 has almost the same speed as the Aichi 99 dive bomber. The Japanese Zero fighter is capable of cutting circles around the F2A-3.
From what I saw, I estimate the maximum speed of the Zero at 450 mph.
I am sure that every commander who sends a pilot to battle on the F2A-3 can write him off to losses in advance.

In my opinion, the 00 fighter was seriously underestimated. I think this is one of the best fighters of this war. While the F2A-3 (or Brewster Training) should be located in Miami as a training aircraft, and not be used as a first-line combat fighter.

Quote: verner1967

I'm talking about the land army, because they were going to sit overseas

Is the FDR an isolationist? Seriously?
And the fact that he did not prepare well is, in my opinion, not a merit.

Quote: verner1967

that he takes a bomb load of at least Pe-2, and Pe-2 carried 1500 kg of bombs.

Pe-2 what year? If the 40th - then 500 is normal, 1000 is in overload.

Quote: verner1967

Yes, the same Thunder, only they did not need him

Thunder air defense fighter? 6 tons in weight?

Quote: verner1967

there was no one to defend

Exactly.

Quote: verner1967

So he did not fly so high and far, I told you. that piston aviation has exhausted itself, which had to be sacrificed either by carrying capacity, or by height, or by range

Or take the engine more powerful. He was with the Americans back in 38th. I will never be able to understand what was stopping me from putting doubles on a heavy bomber.
Americans differently prioritized the creation of strategic aviation. Whether they were right or not is a difficult conversation.

[verner1967]

Quote: DalaiLama

Tie sausages and pansher chocolate too.

Yes, I didn’t seem to unleash I see you are a master of myths invent.

[Dalailama]

Maybe you have not yet questioned the results of the Kuban Air Battle?

[verner1967]

Quote: DalaiLama

Maybe you have not yet questioned the results of the Kuban Air Battle?

and what was there?

[Dalailama]

And what did you question there?
Given that if 1967 is suddenly the year of birth, then you should know.

[verner1967]

Quote: DalaiLama

Given if 1967 is suddenly the year of birth

not suddenly

Quote: DalaiLama

And what did you question there?

judging by the claimed losses, both sides were beaten

[Dalailama]

So they should.
Stated by whom, when and where? When did you watch and skip the Soviet military-patriotic TV at school for history lessons? The “judge”, of course, does not know, for example, about the difference in the qualitative composition of losses, and should the real one explain this to him?
With the best tank driving what?

[verner1967]

Quote: DalaiLama

"Judge" of course does not know for example

which judge?

Quote: DalaiLama

differences in the qualitative composition of losses,

Well, what were they? Wait, let me guess, only bad people were shot down from us, and only aces from the Germans?

Quote: DalaiLama

Stated by whom, when and where?

naturally, participants in this battle

[Dalailama]

Quote: verner1967

which judge?

"You"

Quote: verner1967

Well, what were they? Wait, let me guess, only bad people were shot down from us, and only aces from the Germans?

Why guess? you should know.

Quote: verner1967

naturally, participants in this battle

What, when and where?

[verner1967]

Quote: DalaiLama

What, when and where?

I think it's time for you to sleep. Forgot who participated in the battle of Kuban?

[Dalailama]

In mine you forgot or did not know the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

[verner1967]

Quote: DalaiLama

When did you watch and skip the Soviet military-patriotic TV at school for history lessons?

judging by the set of words in this sentence, you skipped the lessons of the Russian language and literature

[Dalailama]

Apparently he is not your own. Didn’t understand something there?

[verner1967]

Quote: DalaiLama

Didn’t understand something there?

and you yourself read what you write?

[Dalailama]

It is clear that not native.

[verner1967]

Quote: DalaiLama

With the best tank driving what?

Before that, we were discussing airplanes, and about the traveling tank, dear Cherry Nine , I can only correct it in the sense that the 42nd year is too early for the tiger, and in the 45th I would add M26 Pershing

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: verner1967

and in the 45th I would add M26 Pershing

And I would not add. If in wartime these tanks are comparable, then as a peacetime tank, the Centurion is definitely better, because contains a much larger reserve for modernization.
As for the Americans, then, in my opinion, the first correct American medium tank, which got rid of all the obvious jambs, is the M48A3. He is the last one, since he appeared later M60.

[verner1967]

Quote: Cherry Nine

If in wartime these tanks are comparable, then as a peacetime tank, the Centurion is definitely better, because contains a much larger reserve for modernization.

Of course, Centurion served longer, but we are talking about WWII, aren't we?

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: verner1967

but we're talking about WWII, aren't we?

OK, for the 45th year and the European theater standards.

[verner1967]

Quote: Cherry Nine

European theater standards.

for any norms))

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: verner1967

for any norms))

For mountains there is not enough mobility. For deep operations, such as Manchurian, no, a poor power reserve.

[Dalailama]

And then tanks were mentioned.
both responded in accordance with their sympathies and incorrectly even according to their criteria.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: DalaiLama

Why not in the MiG-13?

Because Fireball can be considered a combat aircraft, unlike the MiG-13. Although just the MiG-13 well illustrates your proposal to climb Superfortress with PuVRD.

Quote: DalaiLama

Why was it protesting before the German?

Well, you just were against it, no?

Quote: DalaiLama

The one who m. didn’t protest again worse than those who did it?

Of course worse. If the Britons had the strength to genocide Berlin, then some others - except perhaps Helsinki. And so I had to stand aside in this regard and shout "come on come on!". A bit like the scene in the basement of Pulp Fiction, since we started out on a gay theme.
Another thing is that, I repeat, I personally really do not like the activity of the RAF Bomber Command. I personally consider Harris a pest. And the executioner, of course, but this is not a drawback for the military, although not a virtue.

Quote: DalaiLama

B. Harris was straight?

Who is B. Harris and why should I be aware of his personal life?

[Dalailama]

MiG-13 can not be considered a combat aircraft because it is racially wrong? What is again wrong with PuVRD?
The allies were engaged in genocide instead of destroying German industry. What was the number of victims in West Berlin / Helsinki and how many were there before Leningrad, which was blocked by Finnish nationalists?
So Harris was probably straight ...

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: DalaiLama

MiG-13 can not be considered a combat aircraft because it is racially wrong?

No. Because he, by and large, did not fly. Yes, and was conceived as a medium-altitude aircraft.

Quote: DalaiLama

The allies were engaged in genocide instead of destroying German industry.

More or less combined.

Quote: DalaiLama

how much was from there to Leningrad blocked by Finnish nationalists?

In the 39th and in the summer of the 41st? Blocked Leningrad was quite far away.

Quote: DalaiLama

Harris was probably straight ...

You certainly know better.

[Dalailama]

How much more did the racially-faithful FR-1 Fireball fly in particular? What is again wrong with PuVRD?
Never. Some combination was only in Nagasaki, and then because the bomb was big.
And then what and then what was in Helsinki? About Stockholm in the know?

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: DalaiLama

How much more did the racially-faithful FR-1 Fireball fly in particular?

Google to the rescue

Quote: DalaiLama

What is again wrong with PuVRD?

Nothing, all the rules. Both the MiG-13 is good and the He 162. The main thing is to put you there.

Quote: DalaiLama

Never.

Are you specifically about limes or about both allies? Judging by Hiroshima - about both. That is, we don’t know anything about Pointblank.

Quote: DalaiLama

And what is it then

Oh, that they could. See Molotov’s Breadbasket.

Quote: DalaiLama

and what was in Helsinki?

Yes, as usual. Class alien + borders are wrong.

Quote: DalaiLama

About Stockholm in the know?

Yes, he was also bombed a little. But it missed, it happens. The British also did not always hit Germany.

[Dalailama]

This applies to you. Only this had to be done before and not after.
Do you want to try it yourself on FR-1? Against Jacob and Lavochkin with PuVDR I do not advise. If you yourself do not understand, you want to know why?
Is it with Lee Marvin?
Were they used in Dresden?
As usual in Dresden and Hiroshima, because alien to racially.
Did not miss. This was done on purpose.

[Cherry Nine]

You see, my dear. Twitter style is good on Twitter.

[Dalailama]

Harris Goebbels's style is nowhere good. Like FR-1, it would almost immediately become a “fireball” without quotes.

[Dalailama]

And about the single planes here:
https://topwar.ru/7700-zagadki-viti-suvorova-saga
-o-krylatom-shakale.html
gain experience sharing among resunoids there.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: DalaiLama

you are here

1. I never go to the "history" section of this site, and not without reason. Neither Rezun nor the polemic with him are of interest to me.
2. Foka - German Su-2? Oh well.

[Dalailama]

Probably because there they will beat you with him. Therefore, you are trying to rewrite it in other sections.
And if suddenly the opposite, then what?

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: DalaiLama

In performance.

Efficiency is the ratio of what with what?

Quote: DalaiLama

It was not a fighter, a "single plane."

It was a single plane converted from a fighter.

Quote: DalaiLama

Kharkov residents did not know how to make tractors?

No.

Quote: DalaiLama

Where did they first stick the T-34 gun?

To the tower of circular rotation. Still, Kharkovites (and Pavlov) had a slightly better idea of ​​what the tank looked like (they licked it off from the French). They looked like they knew, but they didn't know how to do it.

Quote: DalaiLama

One hit of 122m to any place of the Tiger without armor penetration turned everything inside soft-boiled.

One hit of the Tiger and Panther in any place of the IS-2, except for the late straightened VLD, helped, as a rule, no worse. So the IS-2 and the Panther were not qualitatively different machines, as, for example, the Panther against the T-34/85 or Sherman.
The IS-2 was superior to Panther in the role of an assault art tank, but lost in PT missions.

[Dalailama]

Value how?
Single fighter planes are not redone.
Then they would make wheeled armored cars
And why not in a corner like the Americans whose language did not reach the prehistoric and racially faithful Renault?
Not at all, and Panther and Tiger were qualitatively different machines.
"Art tank" and "assault" is that what? Mb Is your party confusing IS-2 and KV-2? In PT missions, the Panther exceeded all while the Americans and the Portuguese drove tungsten for its shells to the Nazis.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: DalaiLama

Value how?

Do you have problems with the Russian language?

Quote: DalaiLama

Single fighter planes are not redone.

Well, Foku was redone. And Thunder. And the corsair. And even Hurricane.

Quote: DalaiLama

when they would make wheeled armored cars

They did not know how to do them either. This, by the way, is no easier than tanks.

Quote: DalaiLama

And why not in a corner like the Americans whose language did not reach the prehistoric and racially faithful Renault?

You’ll laugh, but the racially-faithful Renault, aka the M1917 light tank (Ford Two Man), was the main American tank when the USSR had already switched to the Vickers 6-ton. But, making their medium tank, the Americans decided not to spell it, but the heavy tanks of the 40th year, such as Churchill and B1. Here they did not guess. However, they quickly corrected.
And the fact that the Americans did not notice in time TTZ of the French on the G1 is yes, a big omission. He said that the Americans did almost nothing as they should.

Quote: DalaiLama

Not at all, and Panther and Tiger were qualitatively different machines.

Like PT, no. Like an assault tank, yes.

Quote: DalaiLama

In PT missions, the Panther exceeded all while the Americans and the Portuguese drove tungsten for its shells to the Nazis.

Panther and without sub-calibers quite coped.

Quote: DalaiLama

"Art tank" and "assault" is that what?

Machine for working against field fortifications.

[Dalailama]

You have problems understanding him.
You just don’t know what a “single plane” is.
And who was able and what were they able to? T-34 is the worst tank of war which everyone was afraid of except Wittmann, who was only afraid of Pershing 2?
The Americans and the British have their own ideas about beauty. In aviation, they did everything as they needed. They had to genocide in the first place. It turned out with Europe, but not directly with the Russians.
Panther and Tiger were just qualitatively different machines in everything.
No. Therefore, the caliber for steel was increased and the new gun was placed in a fixed wheelhouse.
Assault self-propelled guns work against them.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: DalaiLama

You have problems understanding him.

Your texts? There is such a thing.

Quote: DalaiLama

You just don’t know what a “single plane” is.

You're right. Look in the comments of Shuravi?

Quote: DalaiLama

And who knew how

Initially, the Germans and the French (only Germans knew how to use it), in the 42nd Americans pulled themselves in, by the end of the war - the British. The Soviet Union pulled itself into the Korean War, T-34/85 UKN.

Quote: DalaiLama

T-34 is the worst tank of war

Well, why is "the most"? The worst of the main ones. T-4, Sherman, T-34/76.
And I ask you not to confuse the T-34/76 and T-34/85, the second much more complete tank. Sherman, in turn, was put into production as a temporary solution, but in the 43rd warriors the urine struck in the head, as a result it was not really modernized, nor changed. So for the 44th year, Sherman is the same out of date as the T-34/85. A bulletproof tank weighing 30 tons.

Quote: DalaiLama

In aviation, they did everything as they needed

No. Strategic aircraft could steer and bend in the presence of controlled weapons. The Americans didn’t even set such a task, they took the number and the square-nested method. The Germans led the guided weapons almost until the end of the war.

Quote: DalaiLama

directly with the Russians is not very.

Russian does not need help in this, you are right.

Quote: DalaiLama

Panther and Tiger were just qualitatively different machines in everything.

In principle, yes, but as a mobile carrier, the difference is not significant.

Quote: DalaiLama

No. Therefore, the caliber for steel was increased and the new gun was placed in a fixed wheelhouse.

Handled more than. However, I wanted to attach it to PaK 43, which was a clear overkill. SU-85, then ISU-122 and SU-100 were needed - the tanks lacked armor penetration. The Germans did not have such a problem, with the exception of Churchill, the late IS-2, Jumbo and Persh. But the jagdpanther appeared before everyone except Churchill, who did not interfere so much.

Quote: DalaiLama

Assault self-propelled guns work against them.

Ugums. Therefore, the IS-2 tower assault self-propelled gun was. But since it was used as a tank, you can call it a tank, this is not a problem. Moreover, after the war, the Americans and the British began to do the same thing (heavy tanks with separate loading guns), and therefore the IS-2 does not look like any exception to the tanks. But at one time he was the only car with separate loading.

[Dalailama]

Russian language. Your category has this.
If not there, then ask or google.
In addition to the Russians and Germans, no one knew how, this is now showing the export of weapons.
Trotsky came to Russia from the United States, a whole and sealed steamer.
Very significant, under it Panther was sharpened. The tiger was an inactive 88mm anti-aircraft gun.
Cope only while it was tungsten. As soon as he was circumcised, a jagdpanther appeared. The Germans had uranium like dirt and they were aware of its toxicity.
The IS-2 was a breakthrough tank. "Swedes" call all sorts of different Swedes their "bitch." When the IS-3 was already started, it was shown to them at the parade and they even calmed down with sabotage for a while.

[Dalailama]

The main tanks were not then. There were light medium and heavy, still cruising. T-34 is the worst for nemchury - yes.
Mattress-Britons set the task with this method to genocide the Germans. During the bombing, German industry remained untouched in order to prolong the war and inflict the greatest losses on Russian German hands. Strategic aircraft guided weapons appeared when strategic missile carriers appeared.

[Dooplet11]

Cherry nine,

Quote: verner1967
Compare the instruments and radios installed on aircraft in the USA and the USSR. There’s nothing to argue about.
This is yes.

Radio stations were undeniably better on American cars.
As for instrumentation, the principle of reasonable sufficiency has not been canceled. Why on a front-line fighter with a real range of 100-250 km, operating at low and medium altitudes in good weather, mainly above the leading edge, is there all-weather instrumentation equipment or navigation equipment for long flights over the sea? Extra money and labor costs for production and operation.
Therefore, to say that American fighters were better in combat qualities based on the availability of more advanced instrumentation is not entirely correct.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Dooplet11

Why on a front-line fighter with a real range of 100-250 km, operating at low and medium altitudes in fine weather, mainly above the front line,

Automation of the VMG?

Quote: Dooplet11

Therefore, to say that American fighters were better in combat qualities based on the availability of more advanced instrumentation is not entirely correct.

In the niche of the distant escort, under which American aircraft were built, this equipment was absolutely necessary. Specifically, on Soviet cobras - perhaps it was not required (after Alsib), was not particularly interested.

[Dooplet11]

Automation of the VMG?

The myth of 6 leverage?
Often, manual control of the pitch of the screw allowed in battle to gain an advantage. I will send to an interview with Golodnikov or Kozhemyako.
Part of the Cobra and P-40 came without a pressurization machine. And, as a result, it was easier to unscrew the screw during combat maneuvering than on the "yoke" yaks or lags.

[Dalailama]

Quote: Dooplet11

Often, manual control of the pitch of the screw allowed in battle to gain an advantage.

More often it was the cause of the death of new pilots distracted by it.

Quote: Dooplet11

Extra money and labor costs for production and operation.

and overweight.

[Dooplet11]

More often it was the cause of the death of new pilots distracted by it.

How much more often? Where did the firewood come from?
The pilot knew how to apply step control to get an advantage, he got it. I didn’t know how - in battle, the RPO knob at maximum speed, and why be distracted by it? And if, according to the Soviet VMG control scheme, the pilot had to monitor the temperature of the oil and coolant on the instruments in battle, then the German or the pilot of an American aircraft without a pressurization automatic could monitor the boost, speed and temperature of the oil and coolant. Thus, to conduct a battle the pilot required higher qualifications or more developed skills for tracking the parameters of the naval aviation.

and overweight

By itself.

[Dalailama]

A lot. From there, where the step-gas is from helicopters.
with automatic transmission, it’s more convenient to just go through traffic jams without checking each time before pulling the joystick with the devices.

[Dooplet11]

With automatic transmission in traffic, it’s more convenient to ride. I agree. But racing is better with mechanics. This is an analogy.
So how often did manual step control become the cause of the pilot’s death than a way to gain an additional advantage? It is manual control, and not the inability of an inexperienced pilot to distribute attention?
“Thus, the pilot of the Soviet fighter did not need to change the pitch of the propeller by moving the knob - this was done by RPO, and he just set the required speed. The exception is diving - to achieve the highest speed you need to dive with full throttle, setting the speed below the rated speed on 200 — 400 in minutes To reduce the speed, on the contrary, you need to remove the gas and lighten the screw. However, when you need to catch the enemy during a dive or, on the contrary, break away, then increase the speed sharply as quickly as possible, first make the screw heavier and only then lighten. If the dive starts to lighten with an increase in speed, then it starts working like brake. German diving cars were good at diving. On a fighter with an integrated gas-step system, you dive either lag behind it or catch up with you. Therefore, they always preferred a separate system. ” YES. Alekseev: “The German is in a dive, you are behind him and here you must act correctly. Give full throttle and tighten the screw for a few seconds. In these few seconds, the Lavochkin literally makes a breakthrough. At this “jerk” it was quite possible to get closer to the distance of fire with the German. So close and knocked down. But, if you missed this moment, then it’s really not to catch up. ”
On German Bf-109 fighters, automatic step-gas control has been used since the summer of 1941. The VDM propeller with electric control could be controlled manually or automatically. With manual control, the pilot controlled the angle of the blades using a two-way switch on the throttle lever and a step indicator of the clock type screw. Automatic control is not applied at revolutions below 2000 rpm (the machine controls the propeller with constant, small changes in pitch and this can lead to burnout of the electric motor for controlling the blades), therefore, the automation turns on - by a latch under the gas unit - when moving the gas lever beyond the 2000 rpm position min In this mode, the regulator adjusts the pitch of the screw so as to produce the required rpm value set by the position of the throttle lever. The blades rotate at a speed of 1,5 degrees per second while the pilot presses the switch and stops when he is released. The step indicator “clock” is marked so that the 1 hour is equal to 6 degrees. turning the blades. With the engine turned off, the blades are turned by 25 ° and the step indicator shows 12.00. With this position of the blades, the engine can give out its normal power when the plane is stationary, to test the engine on the ground. During automation, the throttle lever controls the speed and boost in accordance with the power table for a particular engine. During aerobatics or combat with a fixed position of the throttle lever, the engine will retain steady-state values, but the “clock” pointer will rotate back or forward depending on whether the speed drops or increases. As well as Soviet, German pilots were recommended to lighten as much as possible (by switching to manual control) a dive screw with retracted gas in order to slow down (the machine in this case tightened the screw). There is information about the deliberate removal of VISH at high speeds by the Bf-109 pilots from the "Elbe Training Center" ("Schulungslehrgang Elba") during ramming attacks by American bombers 7 on April 1945
Which system is better? A clear advantage of electrical control was its lack of promotion, greater resistance to damage - the generator and electrical wiring are less vulnerable than the oil system. Also, the hydraulic control of the VISH was analog, the control action varied continuously, but with a certain delay, which led to a small overspeed of revolutions. The control actions on the blades in the electrically controlled system had a minimum delay. However, everything can fail, there is a description of the AeroCobra disasters due to a breakdown of the electric rotor blades mechanism (or the electric constant speed controller) of the Curtiss Electric screw.
A similar hydraulic control system (Kommandogerat command post) was installed on the FW-190, and together with the hydraulic system of the wheel brakes they were allocated in two separate circuits. This increased reliability, however, these and other improvements led to an increase in weight of up to almost 4000 kg. - with the reservation in the fighter version of only 110 kg - and to complicate the design, increase the cost. Kommandogerat also regulated the inclusion of the second stage of the supercharger, the operation of the fuel (high-altitude) corrector. The FW-190 pilot really controlled the engine with one handle. But when comparing the captured FW-1944 and the deck-based F190F-6 and F3U-4 in April of 1 by US naval pilots, it was concluded that controlling the motor through the command center greatly facilitates the pilot's work, but deprives him of the ability to fine-tune motor parameters . Because tests were carried out by sailors, it can be assumed that they were not satisfied with the operation of the engine in economic flight modes. For example, in December 1941, the Japanese pilots of the Tainan air group, under the leadership of Saburo Sakai, were able to sharply increase the flight range of their A6M2 using the fuel corrector, adjusting the speed. "
From here: http://tyumensquad.ru/forum3/viewtopic.php?p=22

[Dalailama]

Then why do racers need a checkpoint? Only ride the first or sixth.
Fighting is not a race, it is necessary to constantly keep attention on the enemy and monitor the situation around, shifting attention to devices is not conducive to this. Especially with active maneuvering or in the pre-landing area near airfields where the baby hartman filled up almost all of his score.

[Dooplet11]

Racing isn’t just in a straight line. Turns, descents, climbs. Fight is a race + shooting gallery. A kind of "biathlon" in three dimensions.

you need to constantly keep your attention on the enemy and monitor the situation around, transferring attention to devices is not favorable for this. Especially with active maneuvering or in the pre-landing area near airfields

This is 100% true. But the excerpt I cited above proves that for the distribution of attention there was no significant difference between the VMG command and control systems in the battle between ours, Germans and Americans. The question came down to the difference in the reliability and speed of control systems in certain conditions.

[Dalailama]

Racing in one, slightly curved. From all sides, he cannot fly into a biathlete.
The difference was very significant, for beginners - disastrous.
Children can easily ride an electric car with an attraction, the main problem in training drivers is to turn on the speed correctly.
Every third Soviet pilot until 1944, his first flight was the last.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Dooplet11

So how often did manual step control become the cause of the pilot’s death than a way to gain an additional advantage?

Do you want to compare the hunting stories of living pilots and the dead?

Quote: Dooplet11

control of the motor through the command center greatly facilitates the work of the pilot, but deprives him of the ability to fine-tune the parameters of the motor.

Yes. Combat pilot, please note, and not the Japanese deck pre-war training.

[Dooplet11]

Do you want to compare the hunting stories of living pilots and the dead?

Do you want to tell the story of the dead? Thinking that he was killed, raw powder in the cartridge or a ray of sunlight in the eye?
And back to the origins of the discussion. "Full automatic" pilots had Fock with their "commandorate." US planes did not HAVE fundamental differences in the management of the VMG from the Soviet. Therefore, to say that they had the best instrumentation that automates the management of the VMG is incorrect.

[Dalailama]

To confuse the okhonik with the game and to question what the pilots are given the head for is our everything.
After clumsy management, all other factors in the Second World War went by a wide margin.
In Korea, low-temperature and small ammunition and poor visibility from the cockpit.
In Egypt, the neglect of RVV with GSN radar that could only be carried by Su-9 / 11

[Dooplet11]

To confuse the okhonik with the game and to question what the pilots are given the head for is our everything.

Really? I questioned why the game pilot needs a head? No, dear, I questioned that the management of the VMG was more often the cause of the death of the pilot than a way to gain an advantage. Opponents of the facts did not give evidence in support of this theory, referring to the fact that the killed pilot cannot say anything. So I am about the same. The killed pilot cannot tell anything. And there are reasons to take the pilot’s head, in addition to managing the VMG, there’s a wagon and a small cart. Do not find?

After clumsy management, all other factors in the Second World War went by a wide margin.

How, in principle, "clumsy" control on Soviet aircraft differed from "clumsy" on American? Do not explain? And by what sources do you rank the factors in the ranking? according to an interview with dead pilots?

In Korea, low-temperature and small ammunition and poor visibility from the cockpit.

What is low temperature? Poor view from the cockpit of which aircraft and in comparison with which? A bullet of this evidence from what is cast?

In Egypt, the neglect of RVV with GSN radar that could only be carried by Su-9 / 11

Exactly and no other way? The only and indisputable reason? The training of pilots, the awareness of the command, the interaction and the adopted tactics of maintaining a database are generally not at work?
However, you can not answer.

[Dalailama]

The facts were told by those who survived the attack. Nepopavshih themselves know that they are more annoyed when piloting or firing.
There was a war with the Germans, not with the Americans.
What is low temp and for the rest please google.
The main. Each mirage could carry one such rocket, a phantom of four. On the MiG-21 were only with infrared seeker. About pilot training, you can no longer write here.

[Dooplet11]

The facts were told by those who survived the attack. Nepopavshih themselves know that they are more annoyed when piloting or firing.

So I would like to see the QUANTITATIVE expression of these facts. The more often parameter would be nice to express in numbers. Without it, the assertion that the manual control of the VMG as an alternative control of the VMG (in the presence of a pilot automatic boost and RPO) was more often the cause of death than the way to gain an advantage — just blah blah blah.

There was a war with the Germans, not with the Americans.

A war with the Germans. But the assertion of opponents that the management of the VMG is better than that of Soviet aircraft concerned American aircraft. This started the discussion. Not?

What is low temp and for the rest please google.

In Korea, high-stickiness helped, and the review was better. For clarifications in Google. Do you like this argument? convinces?

The main. Each mirage could carry one such rocket, a phantom of four. On the MiG-21 were only with infrared seeker. About pilot training, you can no longer write here.

Is this your personal opinion? So write.

[Dalailama]

Not bad but not necessary - at times.
You had the statement that the lack of automatic transmission is rather a plus, especially for beginners.
Really not found there? Wash never looked.
This is an objective reality. You have a blablabla.

[Dooplet11]

Not bad but not necessary - at times.

That is, you can’t confirm with numbers? OK.

You had the statement that the lack of automatic transmission is more likely a plus, especially for beginners ..

False. This has never been argued. Especially for beginners. I said that a mechanic is better at racing than an automatic transmission. It was. But there I have something about newcomers?

Really not found there? Wash never looked.

I did not find a bad review. :( I tried to find Mednikov in “Dynamics of Flight and Piloting Aircraft” about “low temperature”. I did not find this term. Maybe you can still decipher what you are broadcasting about?

This is an objective reality. You have a blablabla.

Objective reality? What is it expressed for your statement? Besides your statement? Reports? Tables? The numbers?

[Dalailama]

This means at least twice.
Beginners and intermediate do not participate in races.
So about a bad review poorly searched. At F-86 the lantern is issued higher. There it was written in Russian low-temperature and small ammunition about weapons.
The fact that on the MiG-21 there was no RVV with GSN GLS, which IDF had. These RVV allow you to impose favorable conditions for the battle, if not to bring down immediately, as well as provide a quick exit to the previous group from it.

[Dooplet11]

This means at least twice.

Where does the figure come from? From the "OBS"?

Beginners and intermediate do not participate in races.

If they are given automatic transmissions and run into races, will they win? And if you give the riders a car with automatic transmission, will this give them 100% advantage? Do you claim that automatic transmission is the guarantee of victory in races?

So about a bad review poorly searched. At F-86 the lantern is issued higher. There it was written in Russian low-temperature and small ammunition about weapons.

"Issued higher"? So what? Where is there? What does the term "low temperature" mean? How does it affect air combat?

The fact that on the MiG-21 there was no RVV with GSN GLS, which IDF had. These RVV allow you to impose favorable conditions for the battle, if not to bring down immediately, as well as provide a quick exit to the previous group from it.

And this is the main reason for the benefits of IDF? All other reasons completely dismissed? There are docks that it was the GSN GLS that provided the advantage, and nothing more?
In general, dear, In addition to your personal opinions, no docks from you can be seen in confirmation. Circling:
1. You say something
2. I ask the dock.
3. You send "there, I do not know where"
4. I say that there is nothing in this direction.
5. You repeat an unsubstantiated statement.
Blah blah blah.

[Dalailama]

No.
They will be killed less, due to the fact that they are not experienced in battle, and will not be distracted by the management of the VMG.
So, nothing - for example, the F-86 was not visible when it was necessary to shoot at it with great lead. On B-29 it was necessary to take less. Low-temperature and ammunition armament - in google. They on the MiG-15 were typical for an object interceptor and much smaller than those of a WWII piston fighter. Americans in their cars after WWII increased the rate of fire in front of Korea.
The main one. The exit of the last MiG-21 group from the battle with IDF due to the lack of airborne reconnaissance radar with a radar seeker was not provided. The USSR rinsed the bablabla to the Arabs, how are you about the fact that the radar seeker is on the air defense system, the weather is always good and therefore they do not need it. Then when it became necessary on our own, they did not bring with them such RVV from the GSN radar to the Su-7 / 9 in addition to the MiG-21 and preferred to sacrifice the pilots. Later they dragged the MiG-25 where they already were.
For links, the composition of equipment, its weapons, and basic terms - in Google. I do not know and are not interested in what you found there, if at all, you searched.

[Dooplet11]

No.
They will be killed less, due to the fact that they are not experienced in battle, and will not be distracted by the management of the VMG.

Pure speculation. Not backed up by anything regarding the Soviet / Lend-Lease plane pair.

So, nothing - for example, the F-86 was not visible when it was necessary to shoot at it with great lead. On B-29 it was necessary to take less. Low-temperature and ammunition armament - in google. They on the MiG-15 were typical for an object interceptor and much smaller than those of a WWII piston fighter. Americans in their cars after WWII increased the rate of fire in front of Korea.

Again speculation without specific statistics.
So by "low temperature" did you mean rate of fire? And how did the Americans raise it? Having the same Browning on Saber as on the Mustang?

The main one. The exit of the last MiG-21 group from the battle with IDF due to the lack of airborne reconnaissance radar with a radar seeker was not provided. The USSR rinsed the bablabla to the Arabs, how are you about the fact that the radar seeker is on the air defense system, the weather is always good and therefore they do not need it. Then when it became necessary on our own, they did not bring with them such RVV from the GSN radar to the Su-7 / 9 in addition to the MiG-21 and preferred to sacrifice the pilots. Later they dragged the MiG-25 where they already were.

Once again, without statistics or links to serious research, these statements of yours are just your opinion, and not a fact.

[Dooplet11]

MiG-15. The mass of a second volley of 8,9 kg, the total weight of shells in the 61 kg ammunition load, the entire ammunition shell is shot in 7s. To disable a fighter-class aircraft, one hit of the 23mm shell is enough.
F-86. mass of a second volley of 4,25 kg, total weight of bullets in the BC 90 kg. The entire BC is shot for 21s. To incapacitate a fighter class aircraft, about 5 hits of 12,7mm caliber bullets are needed.
Statistics of losses in Korea does not mean that the "low-temperature" weapons of the Miga were less effective.

[Dalailama]

Regarding a pair of German / Soviet aircraft. Pedestrian or studied for automatic transmission?
Browning on the F-86 has been enhanced. In most cases, speculatively, the Soviet pilot had to shoot at the F-86. Because of the high landing of the pilot in the cockpit, the Americans did not block the nose of their aircraft when firing at the enemy’s turn.
According to F-86, one 37mm was not always enough, and it was possible to get into it only by chance.
BC in Mig-15 was shot in 5 seconds. In F-86 more than 13, then for another 8 seconds an unarmed MiG-15 could simply be shot by Saber.
Their 4 bullets needed to defeat the MiG-15 received simply crossing the track released with the F-86.
In F-86, the two required 23mm hit for several calls, for which there was no time.
The MiG-15 could attack the F-86 only from a dive, because of its ceiling, then taking advantage of the thrust-weight ratio to try to get out from under its fire, which did not always work out due to the best aerodynamics and rate of fire of the F-86 weapons. Hit F-86 on a turn in a horizontal flight was possible only when he began to become in it. And it was only two long lines.
Smart volleys are measured in a second salvo by attack aircraft. The cannon can fire a heavy projectile once every two seconds like a German VK-5, there will be no sense at all from it in a battle with a fighter.

Quote: Dooplet11

Once again, without statistics or links to serious research, these statements of yours are just your opinion, and not a fact.

Until then, your opinion to me like a light bulb. It has already been written where to go for all the links to this (in Google).

[Dooplet11]

Regarding a pair of German / Soviet aircraft. Pedestrian or studied for automatic transmission?

I repeat once again for the inattentive. The conversation began with a pair of Soviet / Lend-Lease. For them, and speech. I have a driving experience of 37 years. Categories A, B, C. There is a certificate of a water motor. Without rights I control a tractor, a drilling rig. It was possible to pilot a light aircraft (under the supervision of an instructor). In order to judge anything, enough experience, what do you think?

Browning on the F-86 has been enhanced. In most cases, speculatively, the Soviet pilot had to shoot at the F-86. Because of the high landing of the pilot in the cockpit, the Americans did not block the nose of their aircraft when firing at the enemy’s turn.
According to F-86, one 37mm was not always enough, and it was possible to get into it only by chance.
BC in Mig-15 was shot in 5 seconds. In F-86 more than 13, then for another 8 seconds an unarmed MiG-15 could simply be shot by Saber.
Their 4 bullets needed to defeat the MiG-15 received simply crossing the track released with the F-86.
In F-86, the two required 23mm hit for several calls, for which there was no time.
The MiG-15 could attack the F-86 only from a dive, because of its ceiling, then taking advantage of the thrust-weight ratio to try to get out from under its fire, which did not always work out due to the best aerodynamics and rate of fire of the F-86 weapons. Hit F-86 on a turn in a horizontal flight was possible only when he began to become in it. And it was only two long lines.

Improved in what specifically? How much has the rate of change compared to Browning on the Mustang? And the initial bullet speed? Scattering? What is the relevance of the sight to the shooting conditions for the review? What, all Migi and Sabers lost their turn? And all the Sabers were hit by a random hit? 0,1 s is enough to shoot down Saber. Out of five. All shot down Sabers did not even realize that they had been shot down either by accidentally dropping 37mm, or in two visits, for which there was no time.
The weight of a second volley is one of the main characteristics of a small-arms armament of an aircraft. Anyone. Not just an attack aircraft. Smart people know this. Blinded can only apply this option to attack aircraft.
Google is immense. And in it you can find opinions that coincide with yours, and documents refuting your opinion. Therefore, your message to Google, let me consider it a banal demagogy. I see further discussion as meaningless.

[Dalailama]

Then it was about the commandorate and Soviet losses due to the lack of automation of control of the VMG.
A tractor is not a race car, not a plane, and weapons are not worth it.
Your ridiculous calculation with 0.01 for example does not take into account your own scattering.
In addition to increasing the rate of fire, the ballistics of the bullet were improved. By the way, it was better than the 23mm projectile, although the bullet was lighter. No significant amount of explosives for an all-metal aircraft is placed in an 23mm caliber projectile.
One non-random hit of 23mm in F-86 was achieved on average for 2 calls. It was necessary to do at least two more.

[Dooplet11]

Then it was about the commandorate and Soviet losses due to the lack of automation of control of the VMG.

1. How did you single out losses from the total losses "due to the lack of automation of VMG management"? Finger in the sky?
2. Soviet aircraft Had automation control VMG. (RPO, automatic mixture quality adjustment)

A tractor is not a race car, not a plane, and weapons are not worth it.

I answered your question about whether I was a pedestrian and didn’t hand over rights to an automatic transmission.

Your ridiculous calculation with 0.01 for example does not take into account your own scattering.

No more ridiculous than your statements about two calls and turns.

In addition to increasing the rate of fire, the ballistics of the bullet were improved. By the way, it was better than the 23mm projectile, although the bullet was lighter. No significant amount of explosives for an all-metal aircraft is placed in an 23mm caliber projectile.

I repeat the question: how specifically has the Saber Browning rate been increased compared to Mustang? Numeral? I will add the following: how was the Browning bullet different from Mustang 44 and Saber 52? A drawing or a table?

No significant amount of explosives for an all-metal aircraft is placed in an 23mm caliber projectile.

Yes, apparently, this is immaterial:

One non-random hit of 23mm in F-86 was achieved on average for 2 calls. It was necessary to do at least two more.

Can you confirm the statement about the "nonrandom", about exactly "they achieved an average of 2 calls" and "it was necessary to make at least two more" with a document or a link to it?
In general, from you regular blah blah blah without any kind of documentary evidence.

[Dooplet11]

"Minor" 23mm and "random" 37mm

[Dooplet11]

Still “inconsequential” and “random”:

[Dooplet11]

And more:

And there are few such "by chance":

[Dooplet11]

But Browning is out of competition for accuracy and striking effect:

[Dooplet11]

Well, and finally, a comic strip for easier perception of the material presented:
Sources: http://www.yaplakal.com/forum7/topic1586525.html
http://artofwar.ru/img/z/zampini_d_f/text_0450-1/

[Dalailama]

For 37 years of experience, they forgot how at first it was difficult to drive with a manual manual transmission? The pedals are not confused, no? This happens. Or started on a tractor and therefore it was easier on a car then? Maybe I’m not yet aware that now on a car with automatic transmission they are trying to place as many controls as possible directly on the steering wheel?
Not funny. The AK-630 or M61 has a lower rate of fire than the F-86, which, just like this ZAK, could fly the MiG-15. Ballistics has been improved in view of the increasing speed of the aircraft. At HP-23, it was not taken into account at all. Her 23mm shell in the F-86 just made a hole twice as large as 12,7. N-37 with its no rate of fire, initial speed and steep trajectory along the F-86 does not count at all.
Returning to the beginning. The MiG-15 artillery had a rate of fire less than that of the Lavochkna piston fighters of the Second World War, when the speeds were half that, and the much less ammunition characteristic of object interceptors with LREs whose purpose was non-maneuverable bombers.
The wing from your decommissioned rusted Tu-2, so the bottom and knocked out. The rest of the photos and especially the picture is about nothing. The last picture (comic book) on the right is not in accordance with the penultimate photo, on the left it is not in accordance with the input on the Tu-2 wing. You obviously have comic thinking if you haven’t seen it.

[Dooplet11]

For 37 years of experience, they forgot how at first it was difficult to drive with a manual manual transmission? The pedals are not confused, no? This happens. Or started on a tractor and therefore it was easier on a car then? Maybe I’m not yet aware that now on a car with automatic transmission they are trying to place as many controls as possible directly on the steering wheel?

By the time of obtaining the rights and the end of training, the pedals were not confused. There are more controls on the tractor, so after it on the car it’s really easier. But you stubbornly don’t hear the main thing: WITH THE AUTOMATED VMG MANAGEMENT, TRANSITION TO MANUAL MANAGEMENT OF VMG IN FIGHT ALLOWED TO GET ADVANTAGE.

F-86, which just like this ZAK could MiG-15 saw through the entry.

Maybe it doesn’t fly in, but I could not argue.

Ballistics has been improved in view of the increasing speed of the aircraft. At HP-23, it was not taken into account at all

You want to say that the speed of a weapon carrier for accounting for ballistics should be borne in mind only in the case of Saber? Mig has the speed of "0"?

Her 23mm projectile in the F-86 just made a hole twice as big as 12,7. H-37 with its no rate of fire, initial speed and steepness of the trajectory along the F-86 does not count at all.

First, decide what you are comparing Colt Browning with HC-23, or H-37?
Further about: rate of fire. Colt / HC-23 / H-37, - 850 / 600 / 400
initial speed - 895 / 700 / 690
"steepness of the trajectory" - you can’t give specific figures for perseverance trajectories for the systems in question, so as not to be unfounded?
In any case,

Returning to the beginning, the MiG-15 artillery had a rate of fire less than that of the Lavochkna piston fighters of the Second World War, when the speeds were half as much, and the much less ammunition characteristic of object interceptors with LREs whose purpose was non-maneuverable bombers.

You're right. But.
“Sly numbers. This digital figure got into Russian research in this way, sometimes more politely - in this case it was about 792 MiGs for 78“ saber. ”This is a lie, and it’s glaring. First, it’s clear to everyone that the Chinese Air Force and the MiNi 64 body was the only type of aircraft, with the exception of Korean piston engines, while the U.S. Air Force quite modern equipment was subdivided, as they said, into the 40 types, not counting the English machines. With them there were more varieties. We remember that the Sabers for the MiGs weren’t the main Obviously, other planes, for which the 64 corps actually hunted, also suffered losses, but only the most competent Westerners remember this, recognizing the death of the 200 with a small aircraft, but this information is not widely known. in the eyes of most Russians look “crap on the coffins.” Which is not entirely true. Just look at the official report on the US Air Force’s actions in Korea, where it is written in English in white that they destroyed 184808 enemy soldiers. Inexperienced people like accurate numbers. Interested amateur they are alarmed. It is inconceivable to him how the Yankees managed to count all the people they killed with accuracy to 8. The guess suggests itself: "they lie and do not blush."
Soviet data on losses. According to Soviet data, losses in aviation over the years look very different: November 1950-December 1951 - 564 aircraft shot down, lost - 71. In 1952, 394 was shot down, losses were 172 cars. In 1953, the enemy lost - 139, 64 Corps - 92. Total for 4 years, the Americans, that is, the United Nations, lost 1097 aircraft, not counting those that shot down Chinese and Korean pilots, as well as anti-aircraft gunners. According to the stories of our eyewitnesses, such a digital figure is more consistent with the truth. However, there is no guarantee of accuracy in these calculations, partly for objective reasons. It happens, after all, that the enemy was torn off half-winged, the plane burns, but it still reaches the airfield. But they can directly exaggerate, with official papers in the XX century. this happens all the time. And the Suvorov principle in military history has not been canceled and will not be canceled.
"And that they are sorry for something, adversaries." Alexander Vasilievich Suvorov deserves all respect and worship, but there was, they say, in his biography such an episode. The prince of Italy made a report to the emperor about the battle between the two with the adjutant. And take it, and take an interest: "Do we write a lot of killed enemies, Alexander Vasilievich?" To which the genius commander really answered: “Why should they spare them, adversaries” ?! It was or wasn’t, but there is a saying among historians: "Lying as an eyewitness." And there is no great fault of a person in that, where the memoirist’s memory failed, he didn’t look at something, but thought up something. This is not the case. To clarify the truth, it is advisable to find some piece of information neutral and essentially independent.
Rescue statistics. For the Korean conflict, such a "nuance" consisted in the number of sorties of helicopters of the Air Force rescue service, which, according to its report, were about 2500. Rescue service is American pride. Each pilot, leaving on a mission, had a miniature radio beacon in his pocket. Having got into trouble, the guy pressed a button, and his own people knew where to look for him. Helicopters flew in, pulled their own from the most remote and dangerous places. This means that the number of flights approximately corresponds to the number of pilots who appeared on the ground not of their own free will, and mostly alive, since those who were unlucky did not use a beacon, and there are usually at least 10% of the total number of pilots shot down, more often.
True, this figure is not accurate due to the fact that it is not known how many times the rescuers flew to Busan for beer, having designated the report as a raid to the communist rear. But in any case, these 2500 of thousands of flights give an indicator of American losses closer to Soviet estimates than to lively American information about the 56-78 Sabers. There are other ways Americans can not believe with reason, but we will not go into it yet.
21 victory of Sutyagin. One thing is clear, the 64 corps in Korea fought fiercely and got out of the fight with honor, in no way giving way to those who considered themselves kings of the air. They have nothing to hide, but you can be proud. In any case, the most productive pilot of that war bore the Russian surname Sutyagin and had an 21 victory. You can believe this, this was strictly followed in the USSR. The American competitor Sutyagin, the already mentioned McDonnell, was great behind with his 16 points.
In terms of military experience, Korea brought together estimates of aviation power, which in the Soviet Union were finally considered a decisive factor. The geostrategic outcome compelled the West to recognize the USSR as a superpower, militarily comparable. Although the methods for achieving this parity did not guarantee equal opportunities, the balance of forces became more distinguishable. "The power of a world comparable to the US did not harm the cause of world peace."
Source: http: //licey.net/free/2-srazheniya__izmenivshie_
hod_istorii / 12-srazheniya__izmenivshie_hod_istori
i__1945_2004 / stages / 1222-13_zaklyuchitelnyi_perio
d_koreiskoi_voiny_dm_krelenko.html
Question: What turned out to be more effective in Korea, Colt or Nudelman? And why did four 20mm Erlikons with “no” rate of fire in 450 shots and an initial speed of 700m / s be placed on the late Saber? Step back?

The wing from your decommissioned rusted Tu-2, so the bottom and knocked out. The rest of the photos and especially the picture is about nothing. The last picture (comic book) on the right is not in accordance with the penultimate photo, on the left it is not in accordance with the input on the Tu-2 wing. You obviously have comic thinking if you haven’t seen it.

the "bottom" was knocked out due to a rupture of the explosive inside the wing. But the fact that you spotted rust and decommission (not mine, the USSR Ministry of Defense during survivability tests) does you honor! The rest of the photos are really about nothing. You can not take into account.
The comic strip demonstrates the affected area. Average, so to speak. Photos are really possible variants of this averaging. Such options, for example, as 120 holes from 12,7mm on the MIH returning from flight. And my comic thinking fully understands this.

[Dalailama]

He didn’t allow a beginner, average at will, if it were. Your comment is a bit contrary to what you yourself wrote above about just 5 hits of 12,7 (actually 4).
MiGs with a large number of holes were obtained when they were trapped at the landing airport. The remaining several hundred shot down usually had only a few hits. Already two 12,7s in the wing led to their loss of rigidity and jolting, after which if the speed did not slow down quickly it fell off. Slowed down in battle without having time to go back to the height and no one covered - finished off.
They put 86mm on the late F-20 because they were air defense interceptors. They were sent to Korea to check whether they could knock out an escort of Tu-4 bombers for the destruction of which these guns were needed, the result of several battles with the MiG-15 in terms of speed and safety of American pilots did not satisfy.
The comics are drawn, the explosives contained in 23mm cannot be knocked out as much as in the photo in an air-conditioned airplane. Could themselves tear off to see what happened with the wing inside.

[Dooplet11]

Your comment is a bit contrary to what you yourself wrote above about all 5 hits of 12,7 (actually 4).

Do you explain the difference in terms of "withdraw from the gate" and "knock down"? And if for 2x23mm these terms are almost equal, then for 4x12,7mm not at all.

MiGs with a large number of holes were obtained when they were trapped at the landing airport. The remaining several hundred shot down usually had only a few hits. Already two 12,7s in the wing led to their loss of rigidity and jolting, after which if the speed did not slow down quickly it fell off. Slowed down in battle without having time to go back to the height and no one covered - finished off.

Where did the woods with such an exact number of hits “over several hundred shot down” come from? Can the source of revelation be known?

On the late F-86 they put 20mm because they were air defense interceptors. They were sent to Korea to check whether they could knock out an escort of Tu-4 bombers for which these guns were needed, the result of several battles with the MiG-15 in terms of speed and safety of American pilots did not satisfy.

You have an office. report about this experiment? Or is it your speculation? A source?

The comics are drawn, the explosives contained in 23mm cannot be knocked out as much as in the photo in an air-conditioned airplane. Could themselves tear off to see what happened with the wing inside.

Again speculation and speculation? Burn on!

[Dalailama]

To incapacitate not on earth generally means to bring down.
1-2 gun holes by replacing sections are easier to close up.
And why did the questions end in RVV with the GSN radar and how good is the flashlight that is issued higher?

[Dooplet11]

To incapacitate a plane means, by its influence, to bring it into a state of impossibility to carry out a combat mission. A plane, for example. can fly, and even maneuver, but you damaged your gun and jammed guns or smashed the scope: everything, the plane is out of order. True, the next day, the mechanics will commission it, but this is a song from the next opera.

And why did the questions end in RVV with the GSN radar and how good is the flashlight that is issued higher?

I have no additional questions on RVV with GSN radar yet, you did not answer the previous ones either. And what is a good or bad lantern that "stands out higher?" In parrots or in monkeys will we evaluate?

[Dalailama]

In those conditions, through holes, it almost always meant shooting down.

[Dooplet11]

Verbally. Moreover, the photos of Pepeliaev and Karataev aircraft (120 holes!) That I have cited contradict your statement. Uniquely derived from standing. But not shot down. We sat down at the base.

1-2 gun holes by replacing sections are easier to close up.

Did you close it up yourself, or did you study field repair manuals for aircraft? How is it with replacing sections?

We leave the "Pilot" section, do we change the rest?

[Dalailama]

A few F-86s in this photo section by section brought to this state with a gun? Etozh how many times did you have to get there, and even so that he reached the airfield?
See above

Quote: DalaiLama

MiGs with a large number of holes were obtained when they were trapped at the landing airport. The remaining several hundred shot down usually had only a few hits. Already two 12,7s in the wing led to their loss of rigidity and jolting, after which if the speed did not slow down quickly it fell off. Slowed down in battle without having time to go back to the height and no one covered - finished off.

[Dooplet11]

Dooplet11,
Correction: Rate of American Incarnation Erlikon, - M39, - 1800 rds / min. But the essence of the issue does not change.
Here is an example of a sober, in concrete figures, comparison of the MiG and Saber's weapons complex:

"The armament of the MiG-15 consisted of one 37-mm and two 23-mm guns. 40 shells for the first and 160 for the second, according to American experts, were clearly insufficient ammunition. The rate of fire of the 37-mm gun was only 450 shots. / / min, and the 23-mm guns have 650 rds / min.This rate of fire was insufficient for the battle of a fighter against a fighter.


In turn, the F-86 was armed with six 12,7-mm machine guns with a high rate of fire and a fairly large ammunition. But the Saber machine guns, of course, were inferior to the guns both in firing range and in lethal force. Quite often, having fired all 1600 cartridges, the American pilot watched as the MiG-15 calmly leaves him. But the hit of the shell, as a rule, destroyed the Saber.

The ASP-ZN Soviet sight was quite simple, of a gyroscopic type, somewhat similar to the sight of the first F-86A. It provided effective shooting from distances up to 800 m. A radio range finder allowed the F-86 to fire from 1800 m, but this advantage was largely lost due to the small weight of the second volley. "
Source: http://aviacollections.ru/obschaya_ocenka-8.html
Given the tasks being solved by aircraft in the Korean conflict, the MiG’s armament does not look “below the baseboard”.

[Dalailama]

Quote: Dooplet11

Such rate of fire was not enough for the battle of a fighter against a fighter.

2 cannon 23mm hits were needed, no less.
The fact that the F-86 leaves the MiG-15 pilot has almost always been observed. The armament, ammunition and visibility from the cockpit are identical to the object interceptor of large bombers that simply hang in sight in a battle with a fighter.
Above this baseboard itself, it was only when intercepting the B-29. In terms of armament, the MiG-15 almost twice lost even the F-9F, and the wing for the low-altitude combat of this attack aircraft was better.

[Dooplet11]

Quote: Dooplet11
Such rate of fire was not enough for the battle of a fighter against a fighter.

as Americans believed. So in the source. The practice of fighting “slightly” did not correspond to this opinion.

You have continuous unproven statements, not supported by anything. No docks, no actual statistics of the results of the battles. Unconvincing.

[Dalailama]

The practice of fighting corresponded to this even in the Second World War, both in terms of speed and ammunition, when the speed of warfare was half that.
If something on the MiG-15

Quote: DalaiLama

Armament, ammunition and visibility from the cockpit are identical to the object interceptor of large bombers that just hang in the sight in a fight with a fighter

which does not hang thick and motionless in the sight,

Quote: Dooplet11

Unconvincing.

then this is a hard case.

[Dooplet11]

Quote: DalaiLama

then this is a hard case.

Definitely. When instead of documents and facts quotes of himself and his own conjectures ... The case is not easy.

[Dalailama]

You may feel better when you follow, if not google, then at least go to Wikipedia and compare the rate of fire, caliber, ammunition, and at the same time the rate of climb of fighters (La-5/9, Yak-1, Bf-109, FW-190, F-86, F9F) on the one hand and interceptors (MiG-15, Bi-2 and Me-163) on the other. The forward-downward view of the cockpit is evaluated by any photo of the MiG-15 and F-86 with the pilot sitting in it. Still just a photo of the high-speed F-100 mb useful. Think of the rest, if possible.
On the MiG-15 wing comic strip, don’t you tell me what kind of pornography is on the wing to the left of the drawn holes, and why have there never been such aerodynamic ridges on any Western aircraft including the F-86?

[Dooplet11]

You may feel better

It’s not hard for me. To get my own assessment I’m used to rely primarily on the sources, not comments on them in Google or Wiki.

compare the rate of fire, calibres, ammunition, and at the same time the rate of climb of fighters (La-5 / 9, Yak-1, Bf-109, FW-190, F-86, F9F) from one side and interceptors (MiG-15, Bi-2, Bi and Me-163) on the other. The forward-downward view of the cockpit is evaluated by any photo of the MiG-15 and F-86 with the pilot sitting in it. Still just a photo of the high-speed F-100 m. useful. Think of the rest, if possible.

Compare. I thought it over. For the tasks being solved in Korea, both the MiG weapon system and Saber weapon system had both advantages and disadvantages in relation to each other. In general, there was a parity of opportunities for confronting these aircraft, which is confirmed by loss statistics. As for the review as such, it was more than enough for Mig, including on a bend to track enemy actions. As for your statement about the impossibility of taking out the aiming point by a MiG pilot on a bend, you can reinforce this with a diagram for the ASP-ZN sight, taking into account the target angle, velocity vectors and the position of the pilot relative to the sight reflector for .... well, say, the maximum ? If it is impossible to back up, then your statement is speculative at least (however, like most of your other statements).

On the MiG-15 wing comic strip, don’t you tell me what kind of pornography is on the wing to the left of the drawn holes, and why have there never been such aerodynamic ridges on any Western aircraft including the F-86?

Do not specify the circle in the figure, what pornography and where did you see on the "comic strip" to the left of the drawn "holes" on the wing of the MiG? And what does the crests have to do with the discussion? And then, perhaps, we will also discuss what kind of ridges were or were not on any Western plane.

[Dalailama]

The source is what? The specifications for all this on Wikipedia are generally correct.
For the MiG-15 mission to be solved, to intercept the B-29 - yes, according to the F-86 - no. The F-86 had no other tasks besides the fight against the MiG-15, so it didn’t need guns, especially 37mm. I stormed the F-9F on the ground. This is confirmed by specifications, for which it was necessary, for example, on a wiki, and a forward-down overview, which should be visually clear from a photo of the bow from Google. On the F-100, did you have to do such beveled through the justification in the ASP-ZN?
Parity of opportunities in general, but not in armament, and until the fall of 1951 (termination of B-29 day flights). After the summer of 1952, things began to go almost completely.
If you saw the aerodynamic ridges then clarification why? The relation has, the most direct.

[Dooplet11]

The source is what? The specifications for all this on Wikipedia are generally correct.

These are Reports, Drawings, RLE, Maintenance, Operational Bulletins, Operational Reports, Orders, Guides.

For the MiG-15 task being solved, to intercept the B-29 - yes, according to the F-86 - no. F-86 had no other tasks besides the fight against the MiG-15, so he didn’t need guns, especially 37mm. I stormed the F-9F on the ground. This is confirmed by specifications, for which it was necessary, for example, on the wiki,

Yes? And I met on Wiki that the Americans believed that the Colt’s striking ability, especially at long distances, was not enough to guarantee the MiG’s incapacitation. For some reason I believe them. But you don’t.

and a forward-downward overview, which should be visually clear from a photo of the bow from Google.

It is completely incomprehensible and not obvious, especially in the light of your statement about the impossibility of taking a lead in the Saber on a turn in a turn. Hence the ASP-3H.

On the F-100, did you have to do this beveled through the rationale in ASP-ZN?

No, for Saber you need to do for Mk. 18 or, in extreme cases, A-1СМ. And compare with the scheme for the MiG and ASP-3Н.
About the 52 and things "nothing" .... Take into account the well-known fact of the complete replacement of the flight personnel of the Soviet side. Time. And show the ratio of losses for the specified period is "no way", if not difficult. Two.

If you saw the aerodynamic ridges then clarification why? The relation has, the most direct.

Combs COMIC (exaggerated image, illustration) made out. What do they have to do with the issues under discussion?

[Dalailama]

Weapon parameters (rate of fire, caliber, ammunition) for these types of aircraft are also on wiki, which differ in accordance with their purpose.
From here it should be clear at least through the geometry of the nose of the F-100, because even on the F-86 with visibility of the target because of the lead it was not great, but on the MiG-15 “pipe” there was quite a pipe with this.
It wasn’t from a technical point of view because the B-29 stopped flying at medium altitudes and the emphasis in airstrikes was on the use of tactical aircraft from low altitudes, and with the 1952 due to an even greater improvement in the aerodynamics of the F-86.
You saw them for the first time. Aerodynamics with them was the same as any armament for a fighter.

[Dooplet11]

Weapon parameters (rate of fire, caliber, ammunition) for these types of aircraft are also on wiki, which differ in accordance with their purpose.
From here it should be clear at least through the geometry of the nose of the F-100, because even on the F-86 with visibility of the target because of the lead it was not great, but on the MiG-15 “pipe” there was quite a pipe with this.

Repeat yourself. I repeat: the statement is purely speculative and unproven.

It wasn’t from a technical point of view because the B-29 stopped flying at medium altitudes and the emphasis in airstrikes was on the use of tactical aircraft from low altitudes, and with the 1952 due to an even greater improvement in the aerodynamics of the F-86.

Figures of the loss of parties to the studio. And the numbers are based on the results of airstrikes. Otherwise, the response statement: B-29 air strikes were discontinued due to the low efficiency of the latter and the opposition of the 64 corps. The effect of tactical air strikes was low. According to Soviet data, losses in aviation over the years look like this: November 1950-December 1951 - 564 of a plane shot down, lost - 71. In 1952, 394 was shot down, losses were 172 cars. In 1953, the enemy lost - 139, 64 Corps - 92. Total for 4 years, the Americans, that is, the United Nations, lost 1097 aircraft, not counting those that shot down Chinese and Korean pilots, as well as anti-aircraft gunners.

You saw them for the first time. Aerodynamics with them was the same as any armament for a fighter.

As a professional, can you explain to the professional “no” aerodynamics of the ridges and put them on the shelves, under what conditions? And then to me with my MAI (apparently I studied badly!) Your statement seems to be a revelation!

[Dooplet11]

From here it should be clear at least through the geometry of the nose of the F-100, because even on the F-86 with visibility of the target because of the lead it was not great, but on the MiG-15 “pipe” there was quite a pipe with this.

Where is he, Saber's "review" advantage? :

[Dalailama]

Somehow it contradicts the "lack" of the fact that they shot down from a long distance the MiG-15 from Browning using a radio range finder.

[Dooplet11]

They probably shot down sometimes. But. Shot down how many pieces? Precisely from long distances? % of those shot down from the neighbor?
Data source? Ammunition consumption in this case in both cases? % hits? Confirmation of the downing? Again unproven statement. Another blah blah blah.

[Dalailama]

If MAI graduated, then what specialty?
Blah blah blah with you.
It was written in Russian.

Quote: DalaiLama

The view from the cabin forward and down is evaluated according to any photo of the MiG-15 and F-86 with sitting in it the pilot.

side view, in projection. Not speculative, purely geometric, in fact, the most pronounced on the F-100. This should not be understood even by a professional, as well as the fact that in a strange way neither on the Me-163 nor on the F-86, nor on any other later western plane there are ridges, but on the MiG-15 they suddenly appeared between them and anyway held out until the Su-27 which TsAGI also tried to hack.
A source for the urgent need to put an irradiation detector in the tail of the MiG-15?
Parameters of rate of fire, caliber of weapons and ammunition size, rate of climb? For fighters, and interceptors? And in what category did the MiG-15 fall.
A small maneuverable tactical aircraft at low altitude was harder to intercept than the B-29, and after the attack it took longer to move away from the F-86 to the height beyond its ceiling.
Since the summer of 1952, one downed F-86 has had at least 2 MiG-15.

[Dooplet11]

If MAI graduated, then what specialty?

Second faculty, second stream.

Blah blah blah with you.

I did not give links to the data and quotes? Or didn’t you give the photo?

It was written in Russian.
Quote: DalaiLama
The forward-downward view of the cockpit is evaluated by any photo of the MiG-15 and F-86 with the pilot sitting in it.
side view, in projection. Not speculative, purely geometric, in fact, on the F-100 the most pronounced.

AND? So show geometrically purely the difference in the removal of the lead point through the sight, the angular position of the target in the case of the maximum thrust of the turn for each aircraft. We will see visually whether you are right or not. Imagine the proof of your statement, or is this beyond its power? Is starring easier?

This should not be understood even by a professional, as well as the fact that in a strange way neither on the Me-163 nor on the F-86, nor on any other later western plane there are ridges, but on the MiG-15 they suddenly appeared between them and anyway held out until Su-27 which TsAGI also tried to hack.

Do you show the crests with your finger in the above pictures?

Parameters of rate of fire, caliber of weapons and ammunition size, rate of climb? For fighters, and interceptors? And in what category did the MiG-15 fall.

And who determined the category parameters? The Air Force attributed it to a front-line fighter.

A small maneuverable tactical aircraft at low altitude was harder to intercept than the B-29, and after the attack it took longer to move away from the F-86 to the height beyond its ceiling.

All right. And what does this prove?

Since the summer of 1952, one downed F-86 has had at least 2 MiG-15.

Where does the figure come from? How will we take into account and where to attribute 39 to other types of aircraft used by the UN coalition, working on the ground, and shot down by MiGs during this period?
Instead of concluding, I will quote the post of the respected Luga from a neighboring branch:
“How tired of so frank, elevated to ignorance! Recourse you don’t know ANYTHING about the simplest things, you don’t even have the rudiments of historical knowledge, you don’t have the slightest idea about the techniques and methods of historical research, and the very first informational impact on your a pristine brain, free of any basic knowledge, imprinted in it like a trace of a tarpaulin boot in raw concrete.
I don’t feel like talking to you at all, you are absolutely not interested as an opponent, because you are blatantly illiterate, and your thought process is primitive to the point that you are not even able to understand what your opponents write to you normally. Nevertheless, you are active, so if you show the same activity in the future, from time to time you will have to pay attention to it, as if it were not unpleasant. And it saddens me.
But today is probably enough to mess with you. Until the next, I hope not soon, meeting. "

[Dalailama]

What kind of specialty? What is written in the diploma?
The difference is clearly and immediately shown by the F-86 review forward down. For some reason he needed such a fighter. Then it was further improved on the F-100. Then another F-16.
You have already written explanations for all your comics.
He also served in air defense for example. The parameters are determined by its weapons. And with this "front-line fighter" in 1956, the Hungarian Air Force in Budapest pounded all Soviet tanks.

Quote: Dooplet11

And what does that prove?

This just shows a decrease in the MiG-15’s own efficiency in Korea and an increase in its own losses.
How will you consider that there were a lot of American losses from anti-aircraft fire? So do you have a specialty in historical studies from MAI?
You just have to get away from the technical specifications, and from the obvious facts. Maybe you also worked at TsAGI for graduation? They are often not taken there by specialty. Or in wrecking weapons structures like? Then it will explain all your demagogy.
To send a plane with anti-bombing weapons of an interceptor and spoiled aerodynamics to the war with fighters, and then pop the public’s 65years brain up to comic strips that everything was good, and even much better than the Americans, because in all the following wars - please our very thing again.
Let's smoothly switch that long-range RVV with GSN radar from Israeli phantoms to the front and back hemisphere at the exit from the battle of the Soviet or Arab MiG-21, there are no clouds in the Middle East and there is always good flying weather, why there is a radar (and RVV with GSN radar ) are needed?
Do you really think that my time is cheaper than yours? It will not be possible to pervert the essence of the issue, so at least to take away a little from it, this has been known for a long time. And why do you think that you yourself are interested in someone? Such as you are entire schools and institutes, including your favorite archival ones, but there is nothing and no one to work in.

[Dooplet11]

Ek bombed! Did Luga’s talk about one “google book” be tried on? Apparently, it was just right.

[Dalailama]

You definitely had to go.

[Dooplet11]

Go, dear, read about the crests on the wings. Including, and on the wings of the F-86. Perhaps for the future will go!

[Dalailama]

Go re-read the previous comment and try to answer it all the same, at least once in the technical part.

[Dooplet11]

The detailed answer is in the literature, the links to which I have provided to you, in the above photos, and in the educational program for you below the branch. Learning is light, amiable! Do not be distracted by popcorn!

[Dalailama]

... in your own words.

[Dooplet11]

there have never been aerodynamic ridges on any western aircraft including the F-86?

Never say never :

[Dooplet11]

Let's continue this "pornography":

[Dooplet11]

And how much such a “perversion” on Western planes !:

[Dalailama]

Well, the Italians perverted on their TCB, this is an indicator. There is nothing like that on Alpha Jet.

[Dalailama]

Here I go to Google pictures and schemes for the Vampire and I find nothing of the sort. Perhaps they were interested in the pilot of what is it in the USSR so stuck on these ridges.

[Dalailama]

Continue still, especially the first comic picture with Saber clearly drawn. The F-86 had a clean wing, this was his dignity.

[Dooplet11]

Search and find!


http://biblioteka.mycity-military.com/biblioteka/
cyber% 20fulkrum / RUSKI / Aircraft / Air Collection / Air
коллекция%202006-11%20Истребитель%20F-86%20Сейбр.
pdf
About how many wonderful discoveries the spirit prepares for enlightenment! ...

[Dooplet11]

The presence of automatic slats crosses out such a concept as a “clean wing”. Learn the materiel. Better in the source. But Google to help!

[Dooplet11]

There are two books for you for educational program:
1. Flight dynamics and piloting of aircraft, Mednikov
https://cloud.mail.ru/public/Lb43/8P5neaxk7
2. Mechanized wings.
https://cloud.mail.ru/public/DiML/dBFboiTFv
To correctly judge the advantages and disadvantages of a clean wing.

[Dalailama]

Maybe even the flap with ailerons is no longer a clean wing? A clean wing is when without ridges, with the so-called other comrades, cool.
I look at almost all the other photos of the F-86 and do not see such ridges.

Could this not be the case with the Italian for hanging extra large PTBs? And on all MiG-15 photos without exception, only ugliness from the leading edge to the trailing edge.

[Dooplet11]

The flap released is not a clean wing.


Source: http: //biblioteka.mycity-military.com/bi
blioteka / cyber% 20fulkrum / RUSKI / Aircraft / Aircall
кция/Авиаколлекция%202006-11%20Истребитель%20F-86
% 20Saber.pdf

there have never been ridges on any western aircraft including the F-86

Blah blah blah.

[Dooplet11]

A clean wing is when without ridges, with the so-called other comrades, cool.

This pearl should be put aside in the piggy bank. I'll tell you on occasion the familiar flyers, neigh.

[Dalailama]

Clean wing, it was already written that.
And why was this scallop on a few Sabers and only on the slat, and there were no slats at all on the MiG-15, but there were two crests and the whole wing?
How old are you? Pepsi-light with chips and popcorn there do not re-drink with them.

[Dooplet11]

As I understand it, you did not familiarize yourself with the literature proposed above? Otherwise, they probably would have read that there is a “clean wing”. And they would understand:

And why was this scallop on a few Sabers and only on the slat, and there were no slats at all on the MiG-15, but there were two crests and the whole wing?

a) because the comb on the F-86 was introduced with modification F, just from the experience of operating previous modifications without a comb, but with an automatic slat.
b) The comb on Sabre was on that version of the wing where there was NO slat.
c) Slats are mainly needed to ensure stability at large angles of attack (to ensure landing characteristics), but interfere with maneuvering at high speeds. The absence of a slat on the MIG-15 suggests that when designing stability at large angles of attack was considered sufficient without them. The size of the ridges is determined by the required stability and controllability parameters for a given specific airplane glider in the required speed range.
Now I will try to lower your level of incompetence and increase the level of competence in this:

The difference is clearly and immediately shown by the F-86 review forward down. For some reason he needed such a fighter. Then it was further improved on the F-100. Then another F-16.

To begin, we distinguish between two concepts. A forward-down review on its own (we'll talk about it later) and how it all started is the possibility of aiming at a turn and the need for the pilot to "sit higher" (I quote you) So, about aiming. Let's start with the principle of the device of a collimator sight:

It can be seen from the diagram that the possibility of sighting the target through the sight depends on the cone of visibility (technical parameter of the sight) and the location of the arrow's eye relative to the reflector of the sight. Thus, if, when shooting at a turn, we use the sight data to carry out the lead, then the defining parameter of the target's visibility is the cone of visibility, and not pilot landing height. If the lead is taken not by the target’s mark in the sight, but “by intuition”, then the determining parameters will be the angle of the target’s sight relative to the line of sight of the crosshair of the grid, the height of the line of sight of the crosshair relative to the sight, the eye’s distance from the reflector and the dimensions of the sight, but again !, - not pilot landing height.
Now it’s obvious that in order to prove that the aiming conditions for the Saber pilot on the turn were better, you need to calculate the target’s viewing angle relative to the line of sight of the crosshair for the turn’s conditions, take the technical parameters of the sights, the location parameters of the sight relative to the pilot and, voila !, give an irrefutable result . And do not declare

The forward-downward view of the cockpit is evaluated by any photo of the MiG-15 and F-86 with the pilot sitting in it.

, because so the opportunity to aim at a turn is not defined.
Back to the forward / downward review. It will be determined not only by the height of the pilot’s landing, but also by the geometry of the bow, times, the geometry and location of the equipment in front of the pilot, two, and again !,

The forward-downward view of the cockpit is evaluated by any photo of the MiG-15 and F-86 with the pilot sitting in it.

- thus, the advantage in the review is not determined! It is necessary to sit in the pilot's seat and determine the limiting angles of sight. Or remove them from the drawing, taking into account the location of the equipment in front of the pilot. And only then, with specific numbers of angles, declare an advantage in the review of a particular aircraft.
Why is a pilot landing in Sabre higher than in Mig? The layout of the aircraft + the requirements of providing an acceptable overview, of course. But:
a) it’s not a fact that Saber’s forward-down review is better (you have yet to prove it with a ruler and protractor according to the drawing),
b) the fact that a higher landing affects aerodynamic performance.
PS.

How old are you? Pepsi-light with chips and popcorn there do not re-drink with them.

I hope, reading this educational program, you were not distracted by chips and popcorn, and the information presented without cuts was deposited on your subcortex.
Best regards,

[Dalailama]

They did not answer about their MAISH specialty.
No, a slat (with or without a crest) was also Saber's advantage, like a clean wing without crests.
On the MiG-15 there were also no tomoses for a long time, they were invented by cowards for tractor drivers. And he had to put ridges on it because with such an ugly wing without them he generally fell apart at not very high speed and refused to fly further. It was greased, that is, so as not to fall apart, but worsened maneuverability, especially in yaw.
Maybe you are going to make the pilots still aim at the fighter through the bomb sight?
here is a pronounced, increased even in comparison with Saber nose slope for better forward-down visibility according to the results of Korea

[Dooplet11]

They did not answer about their MAISH specialty.

Design engineer.

No, a slat (with or without a crest) was also Saber's advantage, like a clean wing without crests.

And why did they eliminate the slat on later versions, and put the comb? Not otherwise the hand of the Comintern!

On the MiG-15 there were also no tomoses for a long time, they were invented by cowards for tractor drivers. And he had to put ridges on it because with such an ugly wing without them he generally fell apart at not very high speed and refused to fly further. It was greased, that is, so as not to fall apart, but worsened maneuverability, especially in yaw.

And the pilot was put in MiG, so as not to be sent to Kolyma.

Maybe you are going to make the pilots still aim at the fighter through the bomb sight?

Do you think that "collimator" = "bomb"? Google to help you!

here is a pronounced, increased even in comparison with Saber nose slope for better forward-down visibility according to the results of Korea

Apparently quite bad at Saber with a review it was forward and down. I had to redo the "bevel nose"! But how does this prove that the MiG with the review was worse than the Saber? The elderberry garden, and the uncle in Kiev.

there have never been ridges on any western aircraft including the F-86

Blah blah blah!

[Dalailama]

Design engineer of what?
As it were with both and at the same time. By the way, why is this comb there on it?
Worse. In general, if not as soon as death.
No, you didn’t see the color photo again.
“Quite” there was at the MiG-15.

Quote: DalaiLama

"such crests "

[Dooplet11]

there have never been ridges on any western aircraft including the F-86

Blah blah blah!

[Dalailama]

Quote: DalaiLama

on the wing of the MiG-15 do not tell me what kind of pornography on the wing to the left of the painted holes, and why such there have never been aerodynamic ridges on any western aircraft including the F-86?

Quote: DalaiLama

And on all MiG-15 photos without exception, only ugliness from the leading edge to the trailing edge.

Quote: Dooplet11

Blah blah blah!
laughing

No one has encroached on your chips and popcorn.
Please continue here about weapons. They do not need to litter from your package under other articles.

[Dooplet11]

F-86 there was a clean wingThat was his virtue.

Clean wing this is when without crests, with the so-called other comrades, cool.

You already decide, with ridges / without, clean / not clean. And then I don’t have enough popcorn to follow your throwings.

[Dalailama]

Quote: Dooplet11

And then I don’t have enough popcorn to follow your throwings.

It's your problems. Clean when without ridges. You still don't know what is twist?

[Dooplet11]

When to wait for a comparative chart on the possibilities of aiming on a bend? Or a tough question?

[Dalailama]

Have you seen the picture with four F-100 at the top?
The MiG-15 had almost no such opportunity, where he flew to the B-29 not in a turn there and shot his cannons. At the turn of the F-86, before the start of shooting, it went below the review. sometimes only the end of the wing was visible.

[Dooplet11]

Have you seen the picture with four F-100 at the top?

Yes, I did. Beautiful aircraft with a "bevel" ( ) But how does that prove that. that the review from the F-86 forward-down was better than from the MiG-15? No way.

The MiG-15 had almost no such opportunity, where he flew to the B-29 not in a turn there and shot his cannons. At the turn of the F-86, before the start of shooting, it went below the review. sometimes only the end of the wing was visible.

The words. Can I have a scheme? For two options: MiG-15 at six at Saber and Saber at six at MiG. Turn radius, speed, distance, necessary lead. By the way, what do you think, for the distance in 100 and 500, how will the lead differ? How will the angular size of the target be different? But I strongly doubt that you can give a reasonable and correct answer. You and for a simpler task:

The F-86 had a clean wing, this was his dignity.
A clean wing is when without ridges, with the so-called other comrades, cool.

"You already decide, with ridges / without, clean / not clean." , - no decision was given.

[Dalailama]

This is proved by other similar photos of these three types of aircraft in comparison.
The words are with you. More precisely, another verbiage - from these photos you can even.
Gave it to you a long time ago. You did not answer why the scallop is on the slat.

[Dooplet11]

This is proved by other similar photos of these three types of aircraft in comparison.

Photos absolutely do not prove the advantages in the review. If only to your developed imagination. And you didn’t give comparisons.

The words are with you. More precisely, another verbiage - from these photos you can even.

Will there be no preemption schemes in a turn? Besides your statement, no arguments? Sad

Gave it to you a long time ago. You did not answer why the scallop is on the slat.

Where? Where did you define clean wing? Probably, indeed, I have a bad vision. Would you please show me where it is, the definition of "clean wing"? The F-86F has a “comb” not on a slat. Where there is a "comb", there is no slat. Here is such a hassle! Or "scallop", or slat.

[Dooplet11]

Gave it to you a long time ago. You did not answer why the scallop is on the slat.

I will immediately answer why the “scallop” begins near the leading edge of the wing as soon as you give your definition that there is a “clean wing”. Honest pioneer!

[Dooplet11]

This is proved by other similar photos of these three types of aircraft in comparison.

Compare:

[Dooplet11]

Well, add F-100:

"Rating Forward-Down" Descending Angle:
1.F-100A
2. MiG-15
3. F-86F.

[Dalailama]

Not funny. With arguments you cheat, even with the obvious. The pilot’s head was under the highest point of the cockpit, and in all cases visibility was limited by the bow. There is no pilot in the F-86, there is in the MiG-15 but the line is not from his eyes, the F-86 is not aligned.
There is a photo with a comb and a slat. They did not answer why the scallop in the slat zone.

[Dooplet11]

It’s not me who is cheating, and you don’t know that when overloading on a bend, the head is pressed against the headrest, there are no pilots on all the diagrams, only headrests, the eye line is on the sight line of sight, not higher, not lower, but as it should be. So everything is aligned.
And where is that photo with a comb and a slat? It's a miracle in the studio!
And didn’t you say about the clean wing of Saber without scallops and with a twist?

[Dooplet11]

They did not answer why the scallop in the slat zone.

There is no scallop “on the slat zone” I will answer why the crest begins at the leading edge of the wing after you define “clean wing”

[Dooplet11]

The pilot’s head was under the highest point of the cockpit ... but the line is not from his eyes, F-86 is not aligned

The eyes should be at the level of the reflector of the sight. For Mig-15:

For Saber, in order to be able to aim correctly, the requirements are the same. "F-86 aligned." Learn the materiel, read the technical literature (available for download on Google), and not retell the OBS (one woman said) from Google.

[Dalailama]

Keep cheating. In this figure, the MiG-15 with the pilot is not visible nose. The head is pressed against the head during ejection. Answer why behind the slat zone it immediately ended. As seen in the F-100, see the photo above. This is how the pilot sat in the F-86. Under the highest spot is the lantern, and the chair is height adjustable.

[Dooplet11]

It's your problems

I agree, I may have problems with popcorn, since you have obvious problems with logic:

Clean when without crests

But the F-86 had crests. I demonstrated it to you with photos. So, Saber's wing is "not clean." However, you state:

The F-86 had a clean wing, this was his dignity.

Do not see the contradictions in your generalizations?
In aviation, there is a slang concept of a “smooth wing,” a state where all mechanization is removed. Interestingly, what do you mean by the term "clean wing" and by what parameters do you determine the advantages of a "clean wing" over a "unclean" one?

You still don't know what is twist?

I probably don’t know what you represent under "cool" Please clarify in order to understand what we will continue to talk about, calling it "cool."

[Dalailama]

You have vision problems. Have you seen the F-86 photo without scallops? Why if there were then they did not go further than the slat zone?
This is "smooth", and Google had to be "clean." Warm with dry should not be confused.
Well, then if you don’t know, then what was your specialty at MAI? Engineer designer for what?

[Dooplet11]

You have vision problems. Have you seen the F-86 photo without scallops? Why if there were then they did not go further than the slat zone?

Saw. And I know that if "without scallops", then with slats. And if "with scallops", then without a slat. Above, I showed a contradiction in your logic, which you never explained.

This is "smooth", and Google had to be "clean." Warm with dry should not be confused.

I completely agree. It remains to understand what exactly you put in the meaning of a “smooth wing” in order to understand your statements about its advantages. Does the F-86E with a slat and flaps extended have the wing “smooth” or not “smooth”? By the way, you will not say under what conditions automatic slats come out?

Well, then if you don’t know, then what was your specialty at MAI? Engineer designer for what?

I do not know what you mean by "twist." I know the classic definition of wing twist. In addition, there are many examples with a twisted wing and advanced mechanization. And even, oh gods !, with "crests"! F-86F, for example. There is a comb, there is a twist. In your opinion, is his wing “smooth”? Or "not smooth"?
DLA.
Do you have a diploma? What specialty, let me know?

[Dooplet11]

Sorry, the typo here:

It remains to understand what exactly you put in the meaning smooth wing to understand your statements about its benefits

Instead of “smooth wing,” read clean wing

[Dalailama]

Above, you showed a muhlezh even with straight lines.
No, there is a comb and a slat.
The distinction or similarity between smooth and clean is a burden to you.
In the same conditions when a scallop was needed.
For engines, that is? Well it’s good that it’s not for bomb sights.

[Dooplet11]

What is the "muhlezh"? Show and prove, otherwise a clean star-dress from your side.
And on what modification of Saber "with a comb and a slat"? Something new.
The definition of a “clean wing” is not found in a single aerodynamics textbook. It's time for you to write your own and teach us orphans.
You probably have a diploma of a fantasy storyteller, otherwise you would have known that our fighters were aiming through the PBP-1 throughout the war. The sight for bombing with a dive, and the fact that the collimator does not mean a bomb sight.

[Dooplet11]

And fighter, and bombing, and collimator, and stood on La-, 7,9,11

[Dalailama]

Was the same on the MiG-15? Against Saber at a speed of 1000?

[Dooplet11]

"Methodical manual on piloting and combat use of Mig-15BIS and Mig-17 aircraft":
"ASP-3н can be used not only as an automatic sight, but also as a simple collimator sight like PBP-1. In this case, the switch of the sight should be set to the "Nepod" position, in which the reticle of the sight becomes stationary. Aiming is carried out using a ring of constant diameter .. "
I'm afraid if you are asked to determine the required label offset for the "Under." for the conditions of the ultimate turn traction, then you will not master the task.

[Dalailama]

Again muhlezh. The necessary offset for what? F-86 was inside the bend radius, firing at it with the MiG-15, it was worthless to him with a greater ultimate turn bend. The fact that centrifugal force depends on the radius has not been forgotten yet? The lead is more due to the greater angular velocity that you can afford within the radius.

[Dooplet11]

There can be only one comment on delirium: "Delirium"!

[Dalailama]

Do not eat? Do not pretend.
It’s immediately clear what kind of specialists and why such MOT and RE write.

[Dooplet11]

Let's try to "taste":

Again muhlezh. Necessary offset for what?

Learn the materiel of a gyroscopic sight. Offset mark on the angle of sight relative to the original line of sight parallel to the axis of the weapon. necessary to preempt when shooting on a maneuver.

F-86 was inside the bend radius, firing at it with the MiG-15;

And what is the radius of the maximum thrust of the turn of these aircraft? Depending on the height? Where did you get that Saber has it less? Therefore, "F-86 was inside the radius of the bend" delirium.

The fact that centrifugal force depends on the radius has not been forgotten yet?

Did not forget. The following phrase has no meaning at all:

The lead is more due to the greater angular velocity that you can afford within the radius.

What does this mean? Do you write German and use a Google translator? If so, then the Google translator is to blame for the delirium.
The lead angle on the maneuver depends on the course angle of the target, the speed of the target and distance:

Modern Instructions on aerial shooting are unlikely to be available to you, look in Google at least for the NVS-46. Check out for educational program.

[Dalailama]

For F-86, from the summer of 1952 the radius would be smaller at all its heights
For you, everything here immediately becomes meaningless when you sit in a puddle.

[Dooplet11]

Do not wait for lead-out schemes in turns?

[Dalailama]

Why are they at all?
You even have pictures with viewing angles from the left cabins.

[Dooplet11]

A lot to the right of your pictures in terms of review rating. So we’ll write it down: Dalaylama cannot confirm with diagrams or links to the source his statement about Saber's superiority to the MiG in aiming at a turn. The drain is counted.

[Dalailama]

A lot to the left. This sound was about you, with your curved straight lines compared to visibility and regular attempts to aim through the collimator under the hood.

[Dooplet11]

A lot to the left. This sound was about you, with your curved straight lines compared to visibility and regular attempts to aim through the collimator under the hood.

You do not confuse your “attempts” to prove that aiming “under the hood” on the seabra was easier because of the “taillight higher” with an attempt to explain to you that the aiming is carried out in the cone of sight of the sight, and the degree of “engine under-hood” is not limited by the “taillight” ", but with the parameters of the sight and the position of the arrow relative to the last? Go on. Your theory of "oblique nose" is very entertaining, as an example of ignorance.

[Dalailama]

Under the hood, the MiG pilot was aiming with an oblique nose and low lantern. Saber has a hood on the bevel, a taillight is higher, and the sight in this can not stop at all, because there is where to raise the chair and place it correctly.
It’s something you’re not smoking, and as usual you are trying with your attempts to show the opposite, contrary to elementary geometry and common sense.
Theories are with you. The bevel of the nose and the raised lantern are done in practice. On those aircraft in which the review is not like from BMP.

[Dooplet11]

Right! Thanks to you ate! Everything is simple! Pilot Sabra on a bend was aiming not through the sight. He raised the seat higher, so that the sight did not interfere, pulled the RUS, taking out his beveled nose to the lead taken by the eye, and fired towards the MiG. And he got it exactly.

[Dalailama]

He was aiming through the sight, no, a high lamp was needed for a large midship so that you could stretch your arms up, stand up and stretch yourself, and he flew with his head slightly above the panel, looking out of the trench, because he was afraid of heights.

[Dooplet11]

Saber has a hood on the bevel, a taillight higher, and the sight in this can not interfere, because there is where to raise the chair and properly place it.

Yes, the sight cannot prevent you from raising the seat higher. The fact that at the same time the reticle of the sight ceases to be visible on the reflector of the sight is absolutely not important, do you think? Hood!
This is a requirement for positioning relative to the scope:

wrote ignorant people and manuals on the combat use of "waste paper"? Once again: buzzing!

[Dalailama]

This is called at least show photos of the F-86 and MiG-15 (with sights) in comparison with the eyes ...
The reflector of the sight is large, it is enough that its upper edge is only slightly higher than the eyes of the pilot.

[Dooplet11]

Why are they at all?

According to the principle of operation, the ASP-3Н (Mig-15) and A-1СМ (Saber) sights are similar to the PBP-1, with the difference that, unlike the PBP-1, the lead is calculated automatically, depending on the given distance and entered parameters goals. Lead is shown in the cone of sight of the sight with an additional floating mark, which must be combined with the target when aiming. Therefore, in order to understand whether the target will or will not be visible in the field of sight of the sight in the scope of the target mark, it is necessary to calculate the lead and make sure that this lead is possible or impossible to take using this particular sight. To make it easier for you to solve this problem, I give a lead calculation methodology for PBP-1. For sights ASP-3Н (Миг-15) and А-1СМ (Saber) it is similar. Go ahead, try to defend your claim with evidence:

[Dooplet11]

extension

[Dooplet11]

extension

[Dooplet11]

extension

[Dooplet11]

end


Now, then, I hope, it is obvious to you that the ability to aim is not determined by the height of the pilot’s landing?

[Dalailama]

Why this waste paper with irregular formulas from elementary trigonometry? What does the cabinet and 400km per hour have to do with it? Speeds in Korea were more than 2 times.

[Dooplet11]

Oh how! In elementary trigonometry, are formulas wrong?
And the technical description of PBP-1B is waste paper and contains incorrect formulas!
Probably, the "Methodical manual on the piloting technique and combat use of the Mig-15BIS and Mig-17 aircraft" is also a "waste paper":


"ASP-3н is an automatic riflescope of the collimator type
In the process of aiming, the sight automatically moves the line of sight relative to the axis of the weapon, forming an angle with it equal to the lead angle
Aiming consists of continuous alignment of the center of the grid with the target while simultaneously framing the target with a circle formed by the diamonds of the rangefinder grid
The continuity of combining the center of the reticle with the target is achieved by the maneuver of the aircraft .....
Framing a target with a movable ring of luminous rhombuses is carried out simultaneously with piloting the aircraft in a curvilinear maneuver by turning the range handle located on the engine control lever
ASP-3н can be used not only as an automatic sight, but also as a simple collimator sight like PBP-1. In this case, the switch of the sight should be set to the "Nepod" position, in which the reticle of the sight becomes stationary. The aiming is carried out using a ring of constant diameter ..

the limits of the accuracy of the rangefinder:
Aircraft-projectile: base (size) = 7m, range of ranges of the accurate operation of the rangefinder = 180-385m
Fighter: base = 10m, range = 180-550m
Light Bomber = 14.7-22.7m, 180-800m
heavy bomber = 45m, 355-800m "
You famously decide that there is waste paper.
So what university diploma do you have, and what is your specialty?

[Dalailama]

they became completely inapplicable, due to more than 2 times increased speeds, the shells began to slow down too quickly, fire usually opens in the rear hemisphere and then is held in the region of the target.

[Dooplet11]

Dalailama,

Keep cheating. In this figure, the MiG-15 with the pilot is not visible nose.

The head is pressed against the head during ejection. Answer why behind the slat zone it immediately ended.

As the F-100 sat, it can be seen in the photo above. This is how the pilot sat in the F-86. Under the highest spot is the lantern, and the chair is height adjustable.

I do not cheat. It seems to you from your incompetence and lack of knowledge on the matter. Therefore, apparently, you continue, intentionally or not, to juggle and "turn on the fool"
This figure from the MiG combat training manual demonstrates the correct landing of the pilot relative to the sight reflector. As proof that in diagrams with viewing angles the height of the line of sight is accepted correctly. The nose of the MiG is indeed not visible. The head is pressed against the headrest not only during the bailout by the pilot himself, but also during overload during the turn, Contrary to the wishes of the pilot (what is the overload in Saber's photo?)
The seat height is adjustable not only at Saber. Learn the materiel. This will broaden the horizons.

The head is pressed against the head during ejection. Answer why behind the slat zone it immediately ended.

What heading ends? This is Pearl!
If you are talking about a comb, then I already answered you: I’ll tell you after you give the definition of a “clean wing”. I’m afraid if we don’t figure out what a “clean wing” means, then you won’t understand why the ridge begins at the leading edge of the wing. And where is the photo of Saber's wing with a “crest on the slat”? Where is the miracle you have seen? In a dream?

[Dooplet11]

Summary:
1. You cannot prove your statement about the clear advantages of Saber when aiming at a bend. You see, the formulas in elementary trigonometry are wrong.
2. You cannot show Saber with a “crest on a slat” (you declare that “F-86 had a clean wing, that was its advantage ... A clean wing is when it has no ridges, with the so-called other comrades, twist.. .. There was an F-86 with a comb on the slat. "(C)).
3. Determine the advantages in the review by eye from different angles of the photographs, calling the fly-by-wire comparison in the desired plane according to the drawings.
What can I say? The more you write, the more obvious it is that YOU do not even have basic knowledge and do not understand the relationship between phenomena and patterns. Burn, burn! Amuse the audience.

[Dalailama]

What does the formula have to do with when this is proved by a survey?
This is a vortex generator and not a comb.
"Mukhlezh" was with you carrying out direct on the figures of the bow without the pilot F-86.
You got out to confuse the people and contradict absolutely everything. Even fell into the scallops picking, although anyone can go into Google or Wikia and get a little more fun.
On western planes, ridges sometimes very rarely appeared later, and TsAGI after the MiG-15 always made planes with them at once and presented this as an achievement.
All the main combat aircraft of the United States and its allies, F-86, F-4, F-8, Mirage - all without crests with clean aerodynamics and good visibility. All the main USSR to the Su-27 - with them, and to the MiG-29 without it, managed to cram the MiG-23 and Su-24 onto the fixed part of the wing.
The aerodynamic crest for the wing is like a crutch for a person - a healthy person does not need it. Due to miscalculations, the comb was added only to the beautiful one you liked under another article of the F-100 when they started to fight on landing.

[Dooplet11]

You got out to confuse the people and contradict absolutely everything. Even fell into the scallops picking, although anyone can go into Google or Wikia and get a little more fun.

I do not know. as a people, but you are "confused in the testimony." Even going to Google and the wiki. The "evolution" of your pearls:

The F-86 had a clean wing, this was his dignity.

A clean wing is when without ridges, with the so-called other comrades, cool.

There is a photo with a comb and a slat (you are about F-86)

This is a vortex generator and not a comb.

[Dalailama]

They did not know what this scallop was for.

[Dalailama]

Let's talk about the Arab-Israeli and Soviet-Vietnamese affairs, what will be your evidence that the MiG-21 had radar and radar radar, which were in the phantoms and mirages, which they also did not need because there is no jungle and the weather is always good?

[Dooplet11]

Let's get you started with your previous contradictions and clumsy things. And then you will demand from me evidence of what I did not say.

[Dalailama]

Let's see for yourself what they wrote about this.

[Dalailama]

Quote: Dooplet11

I do not cheat.

It seemed to you that no one would notice, since they started talking to you here.
And the landing of your sight is wrong. Its upper edge may be just a little higher than the pilot’s eyes. There is no line of sight in the collimator, if the weapon is on the target, then the mark will be on the target as if the observer did not turn his head. Did you measure overload on the roll of a saber?
In order not to lose consciousness due to the lack of a loading suit, the MiG-15 pilots bent in their belts. On the MiG, there’s nowhere to raise a chair, the lamp is low.

[Dooplet11]

1. You will answer, what is your profession?
2. Will you provide a photo of the F-86 "with a scallop and slat"?
3. Will you show where in the comparison diagrams I provided for the pilot in the MiG cockpit?

In order not to lose consciousness due to the lack of a loading suit, the MiG-15 pilots bent in their belts.

And aviation medicine recommends a reclining position. Apparently, this is not a science. But it is, remark. You answer the questions, please!

[Dooplet11]

Did you measure overload on the roll of a saber?

According to the position of the control surfaces. Overload is close to one.

There is no line of sight in the collimator, if the weapon is on the target, then the mark will be on the target as if the observer did not turn his head.

To see the mark and reticle of the sight, the eye of the arrow must be in the cone of visibility of the reticle, at least. This is how the collimator sight is arranged.

And the landing of your sight is wrong.

And what is this parameter? "sight landing"? And where is this "with you"? Do not be nervous, gather yourself, concentrate, and more accurately express your thoughts.

[Dooplet11]

Put a point?


High resolution image here:
https://cloud.mail.ru/public/DszD/FXECDjwQN

three degrees in favor of the MiG. Not in vain on the F-100 the "bevel of the nose" was increased.

[Dalailama]

It was not about comparative, answering the mail is your everything.
The upper scheme does not correspond to the Saber of the lower one, on which the machine is aligned, the pilot sits correctly and, therefore, his nose is trimmed on the lower one. The line in the upper diagram is again drawn through the end of the side glazing. In the photo at the bottom right of the MiG with an open lamp without a bow and it is placed higher as the pilot himself.
F-86's forehead glazing was lower than the lateral corners of the visor's binding, the edge of the nose was barely visible. The edge of the nose on the MiG was better visible, because it closed the review down and blinded his eyes. Especially those who were not "encore."
http://oruzhie.info/images/mig-15-istrebitel/d324
b_ac03cd4_orig.jpg
Compare for these: glazing, cabin headroom and bevel
https://radikal.ru/lfp/s16.radikal.ru/i190/1004/f
9 / ad31159d5cd7.jpg / htm
the pitch at the Saber there is a little more than the instant, but it doesn’t matter here.
That is, if the moving target drift mark on the target goes down and to the side, then the eye should also move under the dashboard?
This is a concept. I repeat about the sight - its "upper edge may be just a little higher than the eyes of the pilot."
This medicine then did not yet know about the anti-overload suit, and how to make sure that without it the internal organs would not move and the blood would drain less from the head.

[Dooplet11]

I dialed "F-86 saber photo" in Yandex, the first three dropped out pictures:

say that

F-86's forehead glazing was lower than the lateral corners of the visor's binding, the edge of the nose was barely visible.

either you deliberately lie, or are not able to do basic actions in a search engine.
Considering that the obvious diagram does not convince you that you do not want to notice point-blank that the front-to-bottom visibility of the pilots is limited primarily by the upper edge of the sights of the sights of the sight sights, I am becoming more and more convinced that you have the Dunning-Krueger phenomenon:
"In 1999, Justin Krueger and David Dunning put forward and then experimentally confirmed the hypothesis of a psychological phenomenon that was ultimately named after the authors. The essence of the phenomenon is that people who have a low level of knowledge in the subject area (competence) make erroneous conclusions. And since the low level of competence does not allow them to sort out their own mistakes on their own, they consider their opinion to be the ultimate truth. No scientifically reasoned argument will make them change their mind. "
Therefore, to analyze and refute the rest of your nonsense, appealing to technical descriptions and guidelines, I see no reason. I can comment on your post briefly:
Lousing babble.

[Dalailama]

You lame babble. You look at that top one in the previous comment. Or enlarge your two as it should, not the big one on the lower right which is again a painted picture.
About Dunning they answered you.

[Dooplet11]

Relax. The F-86 had a clean wing, this was his dignity.
A clean wing is when without ridges, with the so-called other comrades, cool.
There is a photo of the F-86 with both a comb and a slat.
This is a vortex generator and not a comb. From the Saber it was better to aim, because the lantern is higher and the nose is more oblique. This is obvious from any photo. The moving target drift mark goes down and to the side.
"Aim demolition mark" finally convinced me. You are absolutely right in these definitions. This is how the world works. Amen!

[Dooplet11]

Each plane begins with a hand-drawn picture. And this picture is called "DRAWING". Kozma Rods (s)

[Dalailama]

Well, how do you know about optics, aerodynamics? You don’t see reality in the photo in two projections and draw the blueprints here everyone saw. Do not touch Kuzma - Babel and the answer to the mail is yours.

[Dooplet11]

And what is the "demolition targeting mark"? Where is this taught? Where is the “clean wing when it’s without a crest and with a twist”?

[Dalailama]

Quote: Dooplet11

And what is the "demolition targeting mark"?

the one that is not course
Does the MiG-29 with a slat and without flanges have a worse wing than the MiG-15 without a slat and flanges?
Here is a clean lightning wing
http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/lightning
/images/bg.jpg
here is the MiG-29 with a large proletarian crest.
http://www.czechairspotters.com/photos/2011/1878.
jpg
here is a clean Mirage airplane wing and whole
https://www.cybermodeler.com/aircraft/m3/images/m
irage3_title.jpg
In addition to the F-8, the difference between the assault and the siharrier can also help.
http://airgroup2000.com/gallery/albums/userpics/1
2122 / mig19PM.jpg
MiG-19 review
http://www.airworld.online.de/Gemeinsame%20Bilder
/Jetmodelle/Lightning/gro%C3%9F%20neu.JPG
Lightning Review
Let’s already here about Egypt, since you still can’t calm down.

Quote: Dooplet11

What is low temperature? Poor view from the cockpit of which aircraft and in comparison with which? A bullet of this evidence from what is cast?

Quote: DalaiLama

In Egypt, the neglect of RVV with GSN radar that could only be carried by Su-9 / 11

Quote: Dooplet11

Exactly and no other way? The only and indisputable reason? The training of pilots, the awareness of the command, the interaction and the adopted tactics of maintaining a database are generally not at work?
However, you can not answer.

What are they cast from? Can't answer for your words?

[Dalailama]

And your company, in addition to the drawn comics, likes to palm off a photo of a rusty decommissioned airplane trash with input holes from thin-walled 23mm shells that were used only for shelling in parking lots.

[Dooplet11]

the one that is not course

Do not aggravate. Do not show how little you know about the Mig-15 and Saber sights. They have one mark in a circle of rhombs.

I was interested in what is the "demolition of the aim"? Is it from kindergarten? Because in aviation there is the concept of "lead angle". And in the gyroscopic sight there may be a "shift of the center mark by the lead angle". Learn materiel and do not disgrace.
Many wings are good and different. Not one aerodynamics textbook has the concept of a “clean wing”. But you, apparently, did not read textbooks. Where is the photo of Saber with a "comb and slat"? You said there are. Lied?

What is low temperature? Poor view from the cockpit of which aircraft and in comparison with which? A bullet of this evidence from what is cast?

I can repeat these questions. Because the term "low temperature" for aviation weapons, experts do not exist. You have not proved the maxim about the best Saber review compared to the MiG. "From any photo you see" is not proof.

Quote: DalaiLama
In Egypt, the neglect of RVV with GSN radar that could only be carried by Su-9 / 11
Quote: Dooplet11
Exactly and no other way? The only and indisputable reason? The training of pilots, the awareness of the command, the interaction and the adopted tactics of maintaining a database are generally not at work?
However, you can not answer.

Yes, you can not answer. You still have no evidence. A repetition of the statement is not proof.

[Dalailama]

You already have nowhere else to aggravate yourselves after you poked your nose in real photos of the MiG-15 and F-86.
Evidence of what? What RVV with radar seeker important in battle?

[Dooplet11]

You already have nowhere else to aggravate yourselves after you poked your nose in real photos of the MiG-15 and F-86.

these real photos do not prove a better review of Saber. Take the drawing and show on it. If possible.

Evidence of what? What RVV with radar seeker important in battle?

No, that was the only reason Israel was successful.

[Dalailama]

The photo has already worked out. I don’t think that you will succeed in ignoring them. What's your next comic?
The main one. For the sake of which you tried so hard. Maybe that's the only one. Such RVV on the penultimate group, for example, provide a good way out of the last group from battle. On the contrary, they do not allow her to do this on the contrary. So how does a bullet come from, like everything else?

[Dooplet11]

The photo has already worked out. I don’t think that you will succeed in ignoring them. What's your next comic?

I also think it’s useless. Do not feed the horse.

The main one. For the sake of which you tried so hard.

I will not dissuade you. Useless.

[Dalailama]

To dissuade in what? Is there a big advantage for a side that has an RVV with GSN radar? You still dare to question this, and you definitely need to be attributed to the "human factor"? Horses will not eat this.

[Dooplet11]

Back to Kingcobra. "Technical description No.259. Aeroprop automatic screw. Synchronized motor and propeller control on the P-63-A5 aircraft", BNT NKAP, 1945g:

Along with the advantages for inexperienced pilots and for variable flight modes of automatic control of the Naval Forces, it is also noted as a disadvantage that the pilot's inability to obtain some desired operating modes of the Naval Forces is impossible. In addition, the advantages in the design of the automatic control of the VMG over the Bf-109 and FW-190 are noted.

[Dalailama]

Why do you need access to FW-190 there? To screw up there too?
Access to the Su-27 emf is also difficult, the regime of super-maneuverability is locked in it.

[Dooplet11]

Why do you need access to FW-190 there? To screw up there too?

I have nothing to do. Why is this necessary when servicing aircraft, the BNT NKAP clearly indicated. But they are not a decree for you. I understand where they are before the Dalai Lama.
EDSU Su-27 scattered throughout the aircraft. Here is a piece of it:
It contains a bunch of different blocks and nodes. And the access options are different. from easy to difficult. We can say that Kingcobra has an advantage in access. Will you mind?

[Dalailama]

Someone again needs to powder the topic, now about the fact that the super-maneuverability mode is locked in the emf of the Su-27 combatant. Oh, what a pity that the FW-190 didn’t get that well, and I just had to forbid high-speed dives on it.

[Dooplet11]

someone needs to powder the subject again, now about the fact that in EDSU combatant Su-27 locked super-maneuverability mode.

Where did you read this?

Oh, what a pity that the FW-190 didn’t get that well, and I just had to forbid high-speed dives on it.

And where did you see it?

[Dalailama]

This is written to you here. Over-maneuverability is included only in the display group. You see drillmen can break and therefore it should not be trained.
The first two times you saw it for some reason. But such questions did not arise.

[Dooplet11]

In the garden of elderberry, in Kiev, uncle.

This is written to you here. Over-maneuverability is included only in the display group. You see drillmen can break and therefore it should not be trained.

An indestructible argument for this:

This is written to you here. Over-maneuverability is included only in the display group. You see drillmen can break and therefore it should not be trained.

[Dalailama]

Question it? Elderberry in Kiev was killed a long time ago.

[Dooplet11]

On the maneuvering characteristics of Kingcobra. "Technical description No.269 .... Flight-tactical and aerodynamic data of the Bell P-63A Kingcobra aircraft", BNT NKAP, 1945g:

[Dalailama]

Well, about the FW-190 nonsense again, return to Egypt. The cobras stood in an ambush until 1947, after which Byrd’s expedition rounded up and then the Antarctic Treaty was concluded.

[Dooplet11]

Well, about FW-190 nonsense again,

Of course, nonsense. BNT NKAP, LII, SRI Air Force - all raved. Thank you for enlightening.

back to egypt

I don’t see the point. I expect from you numerical evidence of your words. Do you have them?

The cobras stood in an ambush until 1947, after which the Byrd expedition rounded and then the Antarctic Treaty was concluded.

I absolutely agree, the main thing - do not worry! Correct punctuation and do not miss words!

[Dalailama]

It is clear that there were full of the same
numerical evidence of the lack of Arabs and advice in Egypt in 1970 RVV with radar seeker?

[Dooplet11]

No, there is no numerical evidence that only because of the "lack of Arabs and advice in Egypt in 1970 of the RVV with the radar seeker" something the Arabs did not succeed there.

[Dalailama]

And of course, this fact is not enough? I also didn’t get any tips.

[Dooplet11]

The fact that "the lack of Arabs and advice in Egypt in the 1970 RVV with the radar seeker" to conclude that this is the main reason for the success of Israel is not enough. Do you have West Point? To draw such conclusions based on a single fact?

[Dalailama]

For the Arabs, such a fact was not the only one. Not enough again?
You were written above why the main. Such RVV on the penultimate group, for example, provide a good way out of the battlefield. On the contrary, they do not allow it to be done.

[Dooplet11]

You have West Point. You know better in the West.

[Dalailama]

Ask your friends flyers.

[Dooplet11]

Dalailama,

DalaiLama Today, 18: 39 ↑
And your company, in addition to the drawn comics, likes to palm off a photo of a rusty decommissioned airplane trash with input holes from thin-walled 23mm shells that were used only for shelling in parking lots.

Right "Our company" includes: O.V. Rastrenin, Air Force Research Institute, NKAP and UZSiM GUZ Air Force. Rogues and crooks. They know what to palm off and how to shoot, so that the Dalai Lama's brains are dusted.

[Dalailama]

Why not? The whole country will be in lack of grades, and then pay for it with blood, fresh.
And friends will be safe and warm themselves.

[Dooplet11]

You worry about your country. For ours - we can handle it ourselves!

[Dalailama]

Is she yours? It can be seen that you have already dealt with it almost.

[Dooplet11]

What's your education?

[Dalailama]

Which allows you to ask questions that are not able to answer due to comic thinking.
https://topwar.ru/133605-sindrom-danninga-kryuger
av-svete-voprosa-ob-istorii-oruzhiya.html

Quote: DalaiLama

Why didn't the Americans send a trial Apollo to the moon without astronauts in automatic mode?
What was the point of making such large missiles in the USA and the USSR for ships of two or multi-module construction?
Why was F-1 not used after Saturn 5? Why, instead of using it and outputting almost twice as much, is the RD-180 being bought in Russia now?

can you answer at least the first two there?

[Dooplet11]

Can. But it is advisable to know the level of your education in order to answer without fear of being misunderstood. Choose from three options:
1. Gymnasium school.
2. Technical University.
3. Humanitarian University.
And insert in the answer the number of the option.
This is not difficult even for (1)?

[Dalailama]

You there have already been answered for a long time.

[Dooplet11]

Dalailama,

DalaiLama Today, 18: 02 ↑
For F-86, from the summer of 1952 the radius would be smaller at all its heights
For you, everything here immediately becomes meaningless when you sit in a puddle.

Do you have comparative test data? Who did? Where and when? Let me get acquainted?

[Dalailama]

In Korea, google, get acquainted.

[Dooplet11]

I got charred. Not a single report of comparative maneuverability tests using standard NACA techniques or the Air Force Research Institute was found. Or you have another Google, or you heard a lot of hunting stories. There are no such diagrams for the Saber / MiG-15 pair ?:

Without such diagrams, any fighter pilot will tell you that your words are empty talk.

[Dalailama]

Quote: Dooplet11

I got charred.

Wasn't fishing in Korea? Your familiar flyers don't fly with stewardesses on them?
According to the tactics of changing the battle it is necessary to google, at the beginning of the blocking of airfields in China.

[Whowhy]

And this means that the Red Star Kingcobras and Spitfires would have gone to intercept the Flaming Fortresses and Superfortresses that traveled at high altitudes.

Honestly, I don’t know about Spitfire, but the Cobras did not have high-altitude motors. This was one of the reasons why the Americans themselves used them to a limited extent - the Cobras were not suitable for escorting the "fortresses." But on the eastern front, the battles were fought, mainly at medium altitudes.