Military Review

Experienced attack aircraft IL-20

At the end of the 30-x - the beginning of the 40-s, the main and practically the only tactical tactic for attack aircraft was an attack from horizontal flight at extremely low altitudes (from a strafing flight). And at that time, and later - in 1950-x, when designing single-engine attack aircraft using the traditional layout of their layout, the designers were obliged to provide a fairly good overview of the forward - down. For airplanes with air-cooled engines, this problem turned out to be particularly difficult. A review in this direction is necessary so that the pilot can quickly and correctly assess the situation on the battlefield, identify targets, determine the opposition of enemy ground weapons, select a target and maneuver for its attack, make aim, and have time to use the offensive weapons as efficiently as possible. Since attack aircraft were often used as light bombers, a good downward view, directly under the aircraft, was also important to ensure accurate bombing. The viewing angle of the TS-2 M-34 (the most visible among our first armored attack aircraft) did not even reach one degree. When flying at an altitude of 15 m, the pilot could see targets that were at a distance of at least 1000 meters ahead. This completely eliminated the shooting of machine guns.

Experienced attack aircraft IL-20

Creating the Su-6, to get a more or less satisfactory view ahead - down, P.O. Sukhoi spent a long time looking for a place under the engine and carefully chose the engine hoods. On this machine, the optimal solution was found. On the FW-190F aircraft, even in the version with a slightly raised pilot seat, the forward-down view was almost absent. S.V. Ilyushin to improve visibility on BSH-2 (IL-2) was forced to raise the seat of the pilot, lower the engine relative to the axis of the aircraft, pay much attention to the contours of the engine hood. As a result, he provided a forward-downward viewing angle of about 8 degrees, which was considered acceptable (although a value equal to 30-35 degrees would be desirable).

All serial attack aircraft did not have a review down under the plane. The exception was IL-2, equipped with a special periscope, which, however, did not receive further distribution. The way out was found using the time delay for dropping bombs, either with the help of special sights and temporary mechanisms, or by marking marks on the structural elements of the aircraft. Sometimes, in order to increase the effectiveness of the Il-2 aircraft from a strafing flight, it was necessary to make them “sighted” with the help of target airplanes for attack aircraft (STSUS). In this capacity, flight and search targets at medium altitudes of the SS, Pe-2, and subsequently - specially selected IL-2 crews were used. After the discovery of the object of attack, the navigator or pilot STSUS dropped bombs and thereby designated it.

At the end of 1940, designer S.А. Kocherigin presented to NCAA a draft design of a multipurpose single-seat OPB battlefield aircraft with an AM-37 engine (including an attack aircraft), in which he consciously went for some deterioration in aerodynamics. To ensure a good (up to 15 degrees) forward-down view, it provided for a high placement of the pilot with a corresponding increase in the size of the cockpit canopy. In addition, a special glazing was developed for the cockpit floor and the manhole covers under it, which gave an additional view of the area directly under the aircraft.

The new machine was the development of the previously designed and under construction single-engine bomber OPB M-90 and according to the scheme it was a mid-wing with a “reverse seagull” wing, with a normal-type tail unit. Chassis with tail wheel, retractable, mixed design. The middle part of the wing was a center section connected to the fuselage. Consoles had a production connector at the turn of the "seagull". When transporting the weaning of the wing was carried out at the fuselage. The wing is metallic, single-spar, with a working casing (steel spar). Profiles open. Ribs are duralumin, stamped. A relatively thick, trapezoidal wing in plan with rounded ends, with well-developed mechanization — automatic slats, hovering ailerons and flaps. NASA-230 wing profile. The thickness along the axis of the aircraft is 19%, by fracture - 16%, at the ends - 7%.

The front part of the fuselage is duralumin, the tail part is made of wood. The fuselage section is elliptical. The lantern is made of plexiglass, its emergency discharge was provided. The pilot's seat at the back and bottom was covered with 13 mm thick armor, which protects against 12,7 mm bullets and shells aviation guns. It was also supposed to put an armored visor. The keel was made in one piece with the fuselage. The rudder and horizontal tail are duralumin, sheathed with canvas. The rudders had weight and aerodynamic compensation. The chassis was hydraulically retracted, emergency release was performed by an air system. The main brake wheels were retracted into the wing to the fuselage, the tail wheel - into the aft fuselage. Under the cockpit floor, a mine was provided for bombs with a caliber of up to 500 kg.

Steering and aileron rigid, with ball bearings. Trimmers piloted. Three-bladed screw. Two water radiators were located under the center section, one - in the sock of the motor. The oil radiator was also wearing an engine sock. There were four fuel tanks with a total capacity of 510 liters. Instead of a bomb, an extra 500-liter gas tank could be placed in the bomb bay. In the engine nacelle above the engine blocks there was an oil tank of 70 liters. On the sides of the engine were two exhaust manifolds. The outdoor antenna was a three-beam.

The aircraft's armament consisted of two synchronous BSs and two synchronous ShKAS with 400 and 1500 rounds of ammunition, respectively. Machine guns were placed on a special farm on a motor frame: on the right - ShKAS, on the left - BS. In the overload under the wing could fit two guns caliber 20-23 mm. Provided for the use of three bomb racks that provided dive-bombing. In the fuselage bomb bay on the parallelogram one of the following types of bombs could be suspended: FAB-500, BRAB-500, FAB-250, BRAB-200, BETAB-150. For aiming provided sight PB-3. Under the wing, the aircraft could carry bombs with a caliber of 100 and 250 kg for dive bombing, which was carried out with the help of a PBP-1 sight (it was also used when firing machine guns). If necessary, it was possible to place three PO-82 guns with PC-82 rocket projectiles on the fuselage bomber holder.

The draft design was considered by the NCAP commission chaired by Academician B.N. Yuriev, with the participation of BCPyshnova and V.Polikovsky. The preliminary examination was conducted by the secretary of the commission Mashkevich. The result of their work was the conclusion that the flight characteristics are real, with the exception of the flight range - the designer did not have absolutely accurate data on specific engine consumption. The modification under AM-37 was recognized as expedient in the presence of positive results on testing the first OPB version with M-90. The protocol of the commission from January 23 1941 was approved by the Deputy People's Commissar of the aviation industry A.S. Yakovlev. At the beginning of 1941, S.O. Kocherigin sent the project OPB AM-37 to the Air Force Scientific Research Institute. The conclusion on it was approved 12 February 1941 g. Very high flight data specialists of the Research Institute of the Air Force considered quite realistic, noting that the aircraft compares favorably in the review, and will have the necessary stability. The draft design was approved and approved as the 2-th copy of the OPB plane under construction on the Resolution of the NCO of 7 in August 1940. It was proposed to force the construction of a machine with M-90 or M-89 engines and to provide Kocherigin with an independent production base for this.

Experts NII Air Force have contributed to the improvement of the aircraft. They proposed to increase the size of the tail wheel to 400x150 mm; make the lamp moving back, and the stabilizer - adjustable; somewhat reduce the area of ​​vertical and horizontal tail; machine guns to place symmetrically, increase the ammunition of the BS to 500 cartridges; add wing guns; for a dive option, develop air brakes and provide a dive-out machine. We also recommended to consider the installation of AM-38 (in the 2 column of the 1 table, flight data of OPB with the AM-38 motor, obtained by us from the results of approximate calculations) are given. The plane, having booked a pilot only from behind and from below, would be close in speed to the IL-10 aircraft. And in terms of maneuverability, visibility, the maximum caliber of bombs, ensuring dive bombing would surpass it. We made a calculation of the flight data of the OPB and with the AM-42 motor, but on condition that 900 kg of armor will be added (see the 3 column of the 1 table). The flight speed turned out to be close to IL-10 while maintaining the advantages noted above.

The load on the wing would be too large, but given its powerful mechanization and the positive influence of the “return gull”, one would expect good maneuverability and takeoff and landing characteristics. The results of calculations confirm that the project deserved attention and had development prospects. Due to the lack of a finished engine, the built OPB M-90 was not tested for a long time. Then it was redesigned for M-89, installed the engine and began flight tests of the first instance of the aircraft. But M-89 was also not brought. Motor AM-37 has already been removed from mass production. In the documents there is information that they built both copies of the aircraft OPB, and that there was a plan to put on them the engine M-71, which also was not realized. Kocherigin did not dare to use the M-82, realizing that the flight data of the machine would be much lower. And lost. The production base of plant No. 156 was overloaded and as soon as the designer had a hitch, in the second half of 1942 he was forced out to a very honorable and responsible post of the chief editor of BNT TsAGI. It seemed that the most radical solution to the problem of providing a forward-down view was only using unconventional aircraft layout schemes.

The first such solution was a two-beam scheme with a fuselage-gondola, in the rear of which was placed the motor with a pushing screw. The project of an armored attack aircraft BS-MW AM-38 was developed by A.A. Arkhangelsky, G.M. Mozharovsky and I.V. Venevidov at the end of 1940. The idea of ​​creating the aircraft belongs to Mozharovsky and Venevidov - designers of the plant №32, the authors of a number of developments, related to armaments: rifle turrets, sights, bomber armaments, combined rifle-gun installations for attack aircraft with weapons, shooting at an angle down from the axis of the KABV aircraft (combined artillery-bomber armament). To do this, they experimented with their KABV installations on SB 2М-103А, Yak-2 2М-103 airplanes and concluded that a special attack aircraft was needed, the basis of which offensive armament would be their combined cannon-gun installation. Offered and scheme of the machine. But, not having sufficient experience in this matter, the preliminary design did not work thoroughly. In particular, at that time it was believed that they chose too much load on the wing for attack aircraft (we note that later on all constructed armored attack aircraft it turned out to be about the same).

Designer A.A. Archangel and laid on him the leadership of the work. Here, the review problem was solved quite successfully (a forward-downward angle of about 15 degrees was provided), but there were difficulties of a different kind related to the pilot leaving the plane safely in flight and providing fire protection for the rear hemisphere. Operation of the aircraft with a propeller placed in the tail also required clear and clear recommendations from the designers. The BS-MV AM-38 draft design was presented to 29 December 1940, additional materials - January 25 1941. The draft design statement was approved by 12 March 1941, the head of the Air Force Scientific Research Institute A.I. Owl. The aircraft consisted of a single-engine single-engine monoplane with a two-beam scheme with a pilot's cabin, an AM-38 engine and armament (located in the gondola fuselage), a pushing propeller, a return-type wing, a retractable landing gear with a nose wheel.

The fuselage is armored, with a power transverse and longitudinal set. Armor cemented plates were the strength of the design elements. Aerodynamic forms in the nose and tail of the fuselage were formed by duralumin lining attached to armor plates - in the middle part of the fuselage, these plates were directly its surface, mating with the nose and rear parts of the fuselage. On the canopy of the lantern, on the sides of the pilot's head, as well as at his feet, transparent armor was placed. As well as on OPB AM-37 S.А. Kocheriigina, it was envisaged to provide a downward view directly under the aircraft, which made it possible to more effectively use KABV. The total weight of the armor was 845 kg, it defended the pilot himself, the engine, the gasoline and oil tanks, the radiators and all the equipment in the pilot's cabin.

Wing two-spar, all-metal. Spars, ribs and trim duralumin. The center section was one with the fuselage. Detachable console trapezoid in plan, with rounding. On the whole span of the center section and on the consoles of the Shrenka shields. The ailerons of the type "Fraze" during take-off and landing worked synchronously with the shields. Opposite the ailerons were automatic slats. NASA-23012 wing profile. The tail beams had a longitudinal and transverse set. Stringers, ribs and working trim - duralumin. The beams were rigidly attached to the reinforced ribs of the center section. The volume of the beams was used to be placed when the main wheels of the chassis were cleaned back, and the ends of the beams were used as reserve tail wheels (to protect the tail section when landing with a large angle of attack).

The tail plumage was metallic. Keels are made as one unit with tail beams. On the handlebars trimmers. The steering wheels are statically and dynamically balanced, the control is rigid, duplicated. The nose wheel was retracted back into the fuselage, under the cockpit. The main wheels on two racks. Cleaning and release of the chassis using a hydraulic drive. The armor plates of the rear fuselage served as an engine frame. Screw series ZSMV-2, diameter 3,2 meter. Behind the cockpit, a KABV was installed with Taubin’s 30-mm caliber guns with 23 projectile and 162 XKUM machine guns with 4 ammunition that could be deflected to 3000 degrees. Control by electric motor. The sight was synchronously connected with small arms and guns. The consoles provided for the suspension of six PC-82 rockets. Bomb holders were placed inside and outside the center section. Inside, there was a suspension of two bombs FAB-100, or four FAB-50, or six AO-25, or six AO-20, or one hundred forty-four AO-2,5, or boxes and tapes for ampoules and small-caliber bombs; outside - two FAB-250, two FAB-100, two FAB-50, four AO-25, four AO-20. The normal bomb load was 250 kg, while overload was 500 kg. Between the cartridge boxes and the motor AM-38 in the central part of the fuselage was located the fuel tank on the 930 l (700 kg), underneath the oil tank with a capacity of 70 liters. The water radiator was under the wing. Provided a fan for blowing the engine under the hood.

The final conclusions of the commission considered the draft said that the sustainability reserves are insufficient, but the aircraft layout is of some interest. The main advantage was considered an excellent review of the pilot, reaching 48% of the entire sphere. Strangely enough, the experts of the scientific research institute of the Air Force initially called in the KABV. The following wishes were put forward as the main ones: the attack aircraft must take at least 400 kg of bombs, mostly of small caliber; you must put a gun caliber 37 mm; add machine guns caliber 12,7 mm; to reduce the specific load on the wing, simplifying take-off and landing - the aircraft is massive and the quality of training of wartime pilots will be low; connect to the design of a powerful aircraft crew.

In general, the draft design approved. The plane was supposed to be unusually strong weapons, and only a misunderstanding of the advantages of KABV caused the desire to correct it. The construction of the BS-MV AM-38 was carried out in accordance with the Decree of the SNK of the USSR and the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) of 25 March 1941, which contained a requirement to ensure maximum flight speed 470 km / h and a normal bomb load of at least 500-600 kg.

IL-2 and IL-20 viewing angle

In March, 1941 was presented a model of the aircraft, consisting of a fuselage with a center section and landing gear, a cockpit, a combined mobile rifle installation KABV with four ShVAK cannons and four ShKAS machine guns. The stated maximum speed was 420 km / h (apparently, corrected after additional calculations by AA Arkhangelsky). Normal bomb load 200 - 250 kg, overload - 400-500 kg. The mockup commission recommended increasing the thickness of the armor from 6 to 10 mm, and protecting the fuselage tank with bottoming 13-mm armor. The final Act noted that the layout could not be approved due to non-compliance with tactical and technical requirements. However, the Combined Artillery Battery BS-MB system was of interest to the Air Force, therefore they recognized it expedient to bring to the attention of the government the question of the need to revise the assigned TTT and aircraft layout (the Air Force experts apparently realized that the KABM contained the main highlight of the BS-MV AM-38 project ). The protocol on the layout was approved by 23 on June 1941. Deputy Head of the Main Directorate of the Air Force. By this time, the construction of the aircraft had already begun at the plant number XXUMX. The war forced to curtail work on the BS-MB.

S.V. Ilyushin sent 22 July 1942 to the address of the Chief Air Force Engineer A.K. Repina conceptual design of a single-engine single armored MS attack aircraft with an AM-38 engine. In the accompanying letter, he reported: “The draft of the pilot construction plan for 1942 included a twin-engine armored attack plane proposed by me (meaning IL-6 aircraft - author). Taking into account the current situation and the difficulties of implementing this type of aircraft, the proposal for which I am filing, I represent a single-engine, development of the Il-2. " And then he lists the features of his new car:

radically changed the review, which is crucial for attack aircraft;
artillery armament was strengthened - a 37-mm caliber gun will allow hitting heavy Tanks (strictly speaking, only light and medium tanks - auth.);
artillery and small arms are concentrated in one place, which improves the sighting and accuracy of shooting;
minimum armor thickness increased from 4 to 5 mm;
reduced drag;
Changed landing gear, etc.

The aircraft requires a motor with an extended shaft. Provides two options for weapons. Bombing gun-shooting: normal variant bomb load - to 400 kg (16x25 kg or 40x10 kg or 160x2,5 kg), two synchronous ShVAK gun with ammunition 200 shells, two synchronous ShKAS gun with ammunition cartridges 1500. Gun-gun variant: one gun B.G.Shpitalnogo ShFK-37 with the barrel and 40 ammunition shells passed through the gearbox into the hollow shaft of the screw, two ShVAK ammunition with 200 ammunition, SHKAS synchronous machine guns with 1500 ammunition with ammunition.

Under the scheme, the aircraft MSh AM-38 (modernized attack aircraft with the engine AM-38) resembled the R-39 "Aerocobra". But the chassis was designed not with the nose, but with the usual tail wheel. It is known that Bell (designer of the aircraft P-39) chose the scheme of his aircraft, based on such considerations as the need to ensure the effectiveness of weapons and ease of landing for the pilots (tired after air combat), which was facilitated by a good forward-down view. It is also known that the Americans did not have motor cannons and they did not work out the versions of synchronous guns, in connection with which the main weapon of the fighters was large-caliber wing machine guns. Among the shortcomings of the armament scheme used by the Americans are the low accuracy of fire, which the P-39 was able to improve by positioning the weapon more compactly. And including the M-4 gun caliber 37 mm.

In the proposed car Ilyushin placed the motor AM-38 approximately in the center of gravity of the aircraft. Power transfer to the propeller was carried out using an elongated shaft, held under the armored floor of the cockpit. The air intake of the engine was located at the top of the fuselage. The cab was pushed forward, which provided a forward-downward view to 24 degrees. Under the cockpit of the pilot housed a compartment of small arms and guns. The gas tank and oil tank were located between the cabin and the engine in the upper part of the fuselage. Water and oil radiators of the cooling system and lubrication of the motor were installed in the ventral part of the center section; they were cooled by outside air fed through curved channels from the air inlets at the toe of the wing at the right and left sides of the fuselage. The bombs, as in the IL-2, were placed inside the center plan bombs and in the overload - additionally on external hangers.

At the chassis, the main wheels were retracted by flying to the center section with the wheels turning in the process of cleaning approximately 90 degrees (later this idea was implemented on the IL-10). Retractable was the tail wheel. The use of a wing with a sweep on the leading edge of 15 degrees made it possible to achieve the necessary range of operational alignments. The reservation of the pilot, gasoline and oil tanks, water and oil radiators was provided by an armored hull of a very complex shape, mainly with rectangular generators. This simplified its manufacturing technology, but at the same time increased the vulnerability of armor. The Air Force Research Institute gave a positive opinion on the project, only recommended replacing the ShVAK guns with WYa-23.

It should be noted that the mass of the empty aircraft and takeoff increased compared with the IL-2. And despite some improvement in aerodynamics, the aircraft with the AM-38 engine showed insufficiently high flight data. In addition, there was a need for a double attack aircraft, and in the framework of the adopted layout scheme it was impossible to carry out such a task. In addition, the experience of creating Bell-type Р-39 and Р-63 aircraft of the same type found two inherent chronic drawbacks that are hard to get rid of: destruction of a long shaft for the propeller due to torsional vibrations and poor counter-stomping properties. Hence the decision - not to build an MSh-AM-38 aircraft.

In accordance with the Decree of the USSR Council of Ministers on March 13, 11 on the OKB S.V. Ilyushin was given the task of creating a new attack aircraft with slightly higher (compared to the IL-1947) flight data, more powerful cannon and rocket weapons, improved visibility and reservation. At the end of 10, the designers completed the development of a single-engine armored two-seater attack aircraft with a liquid cooling engine MF-1947ш. The original layout was used, which provided an excellent forward-down view. Unusual and gun armament. The draft design of the IL-45 MF-20 aircraft was sent in February to 45 at the Air Force Research Institute.

The USSR Council of Ministers decree on the construction of prototypes of the Il-20 was adopted on 12 on June 1948. Markov. Major engineer SGFrolov was appointed responsible for the aircraft. The purpose of the attack aircraft was formulated as follows: "To suppress and destroy manpower and technical equipment on the battlefield and in the tactical depth of the enemy's position." It was proposed to make two projects with different variants of offensive and defensive weapons.

Under the scheme, the first version of the aircraft was a low-winged liquid-cooled engine with a four-blade propeller with a diameter of 4,2 meters. The cockpit was located unusually - directly above the engine - and was pushed forward to the limit. A long windshield of 70-mm thickness, set at an angle of 100 degrees, formed the front of the cab. One end of it almost rested against the bushing of the screw. This provided a forward-downward view in the 37 degrees sector, and when diving at an angle of 40-45 degrees, the pilot could see targets almost directly under the plane. Behind the cockpit were oil and gas tanks. Behind them was the gunner’s cabin, remotely controlling the 23-mm cannon placed in a special IL-VU-11 mobile unit with a hydraulic drive and a mechanism for circling the gun barrel along the fuselage and tail unit contour (in order to protect them from their own weapons).

The installation was designed in the Ilyushin Design Bureau. It provided high angles of fire at the top of the rear hemisphere: 80 degrees - upwards and 90 degrees - right and left. The maximum movement speed of the weapon in the mobile unit was 4-45 degrees / sec. Since the lower quarter of the hemisphere was not protected at all by a cannon mount, an AG-10 aircraft grenade for the 2 was additionally placed at the bottom of the fuselage, thereby organizing partial protection. The tail plumage was single-chin, the wing and horizontal plumage were trapezoid in plan. Water and oil radiators were located in the center section, the engine air intake was located in the lower part of the fuselage, in the area of ​​the front wing trim.

The cockpit of the pilot and gunner, engine, fuel supply and lubrication systems, cooling system were inside the armored box. The total weight of metal armor was 1840 kg, and transparent - 169 kg. The cockpit had, in addition to the frontal, two side armored glass with a thickness of 65 mm and a rear armored glass, also 65-mm. In the upper part of the cabin from the sides of the lantern were armor plates with a thickness of 10 mm; the sides of the cockpit, the rear bulkhead behind the pilot were 10-mm, and in the upper part - 15-mm. The shooter behind and above was protected by 100-mm bulletproof glass, front upper sheet behind the gas tank and onboard 6-mm sheets, lower cabel armor sheet in 8 mm, upper and lower shielded armor 8 + 8 mm thick.

Motor booking included an armored car made of 6,8 and 12 mm thick sheets, which protects it well in front, bottom and sides. The top sheet of the gas tank with a thickness of 4 mm, the side sheets in 6 mm and the plates behind the tank in 10 mm completely covered it from those sides where there was no other armor protection. The radiators were covered from the sides with sheets in 4 mm, a radiator shield inside the motor armor in 6 mm, bottom armor plates 8 mm thick, and two 10 mm radiator armors. As you can see, the reservation was made exceptionally strong. It mainly provided protection against 12,7 mm bullets and, to a significant extent, against 20-mm aviation cannons. Compared to IL-10, the thickness of metal armor increased on average by 46%, and transparent - by 59%. The offensive weapons in the first version included two 23mm caliber wing cannons for firing forward in a dive or planning and two 23-mm cannons mounted in the fuselage at an angle of 22 degrees to the flight line - for firing at a strafing flight. The normal bomb load was 400 kg, while overload was 700 kg. Under the wing in the transshipment version, the suspension of four single-charge jet guns ORO-132 was provided.

In the second offensive version, it was planned to use one 45 caliber mm gun, two 23-mm guns and six ORO-132. The aircraft was equipped with a perfect flight and navigation and radio communications equipment, thermal de-icing system. This expanded the possibilities of its use in bad weather conditions (the main aircraft data corresponding to the TTT obtained in the draft design and the results of factory tests are listed in the 2, 3 and 4 columns of the 2 table). In the conceptual design was developed and the second version of the defensive armament of the aircraft IL-20. There, instead of the upper IL-VU-11 installation, the IL-KU-8 mobile aft gun mount, located in the tail section of the aircraft, was used. It protected the aircraft in the rear hemisphere from enemy fighter attacks from all directions. In the IL-KU-8, the shooter at the rear was protected by bulletproof glass 100 mm thick, from the sides - by bulletproof glass in 65 mm. Curved along the contour of the rifle installation, armor 10 mm thick, side 6-mm and rear 4-mm armor plates provided reliable protection for the shooter in this variant.

Despite a number of original ideas, the draft design of the IL-20 was rejected as inconsistent with the decision of the USSR Council of Ministers and the tactical and technical requirements. From the 2 table it can be seen that this concerned the basic flight data and weapons. The main drawback was the low flight speed of the aircraft, which turned out to be even lower than that of the serial IL-10. Offensive weapons also did not satisfy the customer. A significant increase in the midsection of the fuselage and its lateral surface led to a deterioration in the aerodynamics of the aircraft, an increase in the flight weight, and an increase in the possibility of enemy fire damage. Since the distribution of the armor installed on the aircraft was carried out over a large surface, the experts of the Air Force Scientific Research Institute did not see an improvement in booking compared to the IL-10. Extremely complicated operation of the VMG due to irrational ways of approaching the motor and its units. With all the work related to the shooting of blocks or their covers, it was necessary to disassemble the engine itself from the aircraft. All work on the motor mechanic had to perform in the upside down position. The pilot got into the cockpit only when the engine was not running. At emergency leaving there was a danger of getting under the screw.

It was noted that the fire power of the IL-20 is less than that of the IL-10. At the same time, it was possible to fire only from two cannons - either wing or fuselage. The expediency of applying the latter was not in doubt, but there was a desire to have mobile units. Along the way, we will say that the quite successful developments in this field that were already available at that time by G.M.Mozharovsky and I.V. Venevidova were not used. When loading PTAB, the bomb load was only 300 kg. The main positive factor was an excellent forward-down view (although only in a very narrow sector). The overview to the side and forward was the same as that of the IL-10.

The layout of the IL-20 was presented to the mockup commission in July 1948. The protocol that approved 21 on July 1948 was the Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force, Air Marshal K.A. Vershinin, the engine was already called M-47. The model in the variant with IL-VU-11 was declared incomplete. Browse down - side turned out to be worse than the IL-10. The cab was located too close to the propeller, which is unsafe when it was left, and during an emergency landing, the propeller blades are likely to be damaged by the propeller blades. There was no emergency reset of the flashlight and protective anti-coiling device. The layout scheme complicated operation. Among the positive qualities, there was an excellent forward-down view and the presence of guns firing at an angle downward and making it possible to attack area targets from horizontal flight at altitudes from ramping flight to 700-800 meters. Vershinin did not consider the construction of the IL-20 necessary until the final approval of the layout. However, the aircraft in the first version produced. He had four movable wing cannon X-3 designed by B.G. Shpitalnogo 23-mm caliber with ammunition 900 shells. In the IL-VU-11 mounted mobile gun W-3 with ammunition 200 shells.

Factory tests began on November 20 1948 g. The first flight at the beginning of December 1948 was made by the pilot V.K. Kokkinaki. During the test, the aircraft showed the maximum flight speed of all 515 km / h at an altitude of 2800 meters. Due to low flight data, failure to comply with the requirements for armament and the lack of knowledge of the M-47 engine designed by M.R. Flissky for IL-20 in accordance with the Resolution of the Council of Ministers of the USSR 14, 1949 was stopped in May. The plane was examined by the deputy commander for combat training and noted the following shortcomings:

- cockpit pilot and gunner split fuel tank;
- no dive issues worked out;
- not ensured the effectiveness of extinguishing a fire in the area of ​​the gas tank;
- set four guns ahead instead of six, and others.

S.V. Ilyushin worked through two more (except for those already considered by us) variants of IL-20, with an IL-10 type arrangement. Flight data was obtained, of course, higher.

In March, the 1948 of Mr. S.M. Alekseev presented a draft design of an armored two-seater attack aircraft, the W-218 with a powerful X-shaped M-251 motor. The plane was not included in the pilot construction plan for 1949. The model was built, but due to the elimination of the OKB-21, work on the aircraft stopped. CM. Alekseev addressed 19 in February 1951 with a letter to the Air Force and asked him to return to the draft. The chairman of the Air Force Scientific and Technical Complex, B.N. Ponomarev, considered that building the X-218 was not feasible due to the fact that his flight data was worse than that of IL-10 (see the 5 and 6 column of the 2 table). It was noted the absence of bombs (only in the transshipment variant), weak booking, the impossibility of disassembling the aircraft for its transportation. But on the gun-and rocket weapons, as well as the range of flight W-218 superior IL-10. One would expect that his climb rate would also be better.

According to the layout scheme, the aircraft resembled the BS-MB AM-38. The forward-downward survey was about 15 degrees. The presence of well-developed ejection seats by this time solved the problem of the pilot leaving the car safely. The wing was swept with 16╟ along the leading edge, the rear one was straight. Steering and aileron control was carried out by means of separate systems - right and left, so that if one of them was damaged or failed, control of the aircraft was maintained. The W-218 differed from the BSH-MV in two remotely controlled side turrets with 20-mm caliber cannons with 240 ammunition. This ensured the defense capability of the aircraft, although some questions remained regarding its operation. The offensive weaponry included four 15 caliber 23 mm cannons with 480 ammunition rejected by 132. The beams housed three ORO-XNUMX jet guns. In connection with the use of a powerful engine, two coaxial screws were installed, and a version of the aircraft with a conventional chassis was also developed.

S.M. Alekseev also designed an armored attack aircraft, the W-218, with an even more exotic layout, which provided for the motor to be placed in the tail section of a conventional fuselage, and the pusher propeller - behind the tail unit. It is known that this scheme of practical application was not found due to the inability to ensure safety when landing at high angles of attack and during ground operation. Thus, a fairly good overview of the forward-downing could not be obtained from serial single-engine attack aircraft. Perhaps the most successful solution should be the one proposed in the project of OPB AM-37 S.А. Kocherigin. The designer, using the traditional layout scheme, managed to achieve a forward-downward view required by the attack aircraft, while at the same time solving the problem of providing a downward view for the aircraft that a bomber needs. An excellent review ahead - down made in the IL-20 M-47, but at the cost of a loss in many other parameters, which did not allow the car to be accepted into the series. It can be concluded: the hope to solve the problem of forward-downward visibility due to unconventional layouts of single-engine attack aircraft did not materialize.

Modification IL-20
Wingspan, m 17.00
Length of aircraft, m 12.59
Height, m
Wing area, m2 44.00
Weight, kg
empty 7535 aircraft
normal takeoff 9500
maximum takeoff 9780
Engine type 1 PD M-47
Power, hp
takeoff 1 x 3000
rated 1 x 2300
flight 1 x 2400
Maximum speed km / h
off the ground xnumx
at height 515
Ferrying range, km 1700
Practical range, km 1045
Rate of climb, m / s 375
Practical ceiling, m 7750
Crew, people 2
Armament: one 23-mm gun ON-23, two 23-mm guns НС-23
normal bomb load - 1190 kg,
with bombs up to 500 kg on an external suspension.
under consoles - 8 PC-82 or 4 PC-132.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. GHG
    GHG 23 November 2013 08: 16 New
    "Ochepyatka" laughing
    Rate of climb, m / s 375
    = 375m / minute?
    1. ded10041948
      ded10041948 24 November 2013 11: 41 New
      However, vertical supersonic? Cool! Most likely the comma is missing after the number 7.
      1. GHG
        GHG 25 November 2013 07: 28 New
        Well, not at all 37.3 m / s. 37.5x60sec = 2250 meters per minute.
        For example, LA-5 FN Maximum rate of climb, m / min
        1064m per minute.
  2. makarov
    makarov 23 November 2013 08: 36 New
    Interesting historical review material. A request to the author to tell about an experienced IL in whose belly (from memory) 40 PPShs were placed.
    1. Fitter65
      Fitter65 23 November 2013 10: 32 New
      It was not IL, but Tu-2.
      1. Thunderbolt
        Thunderbolt 23 November 2013 21: 28 New
        88 PCA ._________________ hi
  3. avt
    avt 23 November 2013 08: 55 New
    Quote: makarov
    about an experimental IL in the abdomen of which (from memory) 40 PPSh were placed.

    In a bomber, it seems in Tu-2, but maybe in Peh
    1. loft79
      loft79 23 November 2013 09: 14 New
      You are right.
    2. svp67
      svp67 23 November 2013 21: 03 New
      Quote: avt
      In a bomber, it seems in Tu-2, but maybe in Peh
  4. Pinochet000
    Pinochet000 23 November 2013 11: 06 New
    From one type of ob.
  5. sevtrash
    sevtrash 23 November 2013 11: 28 New
    Some freak. Tupolev said that a good plane should be beautiful.
    In general, it would be interesting to analyze the effectiveness of assault aircraft for various purposes, and the IL-2 in particular. It seems like historically in the USSR, the Il-2 is considered practically as a masterpiece, especially in light of Stalin's often quoted quotation "... Il-2 is necessary as air ...", although the effectiveness against armored targets seemed to be small even with the use of cumulative bombs. At the same time, were the German anti-tank attack pilots more effective?
    1. Sour
      Sour 23 November 2013 14: 08 New
      Quote: sevtrash
      although the effectiveness against armored targets seemed to be small even with the use of cumulative bombs.

      But was the IL-2 intended solely to combat armored targets?
      Quote: sevtrash
      But at the same time, were German anti-tank attack pilots more effective?

      The Germans had an attack aircraft "Henschel" -129, I had not heard of the others. It was released in an amount of less than 900 pieces, then by the beginning of 1945 its production was actually curtailed, which clearly does not speak of its effectiveness. German pilots disliked this aircraft due to the difficulties in piloting (difficult dive and instability during landing).
      They tried to use the Focke-Wulf -190 as attack aircraft, but found the experiment unsuccessful, and the "assault" modifications 8 / R3 and 3 / R5 were produced only in small series and for a short time.
      But the production of IL-2 was only increasing. Apparently, there were reasons for this.
      1. Revolver
        Revolver 23 November 2013 20: 40 New
        Quote: Sour
        The Germans had an attack aircraft "Henschel" -129, I had not heard of the others.

        Ju-87G with 2 37mm cannons [Bordkanone]. It was on this that Rudel flew and, according to German statistics, filled more than 500 tanks, a Cykin son. Even if they exaggerated at times, there will still be many.
        1. 0255
          0255 23 November 2013 22: 40 New
          Quote: Nagan
          Ju-87G with 2 37mm cannons [Bordkanone]. It was on this that Rudel flew and, according to German statistics, filled more than 500 tanks, a Cykin son. Even if they exaggerated at times, there will still be many.

          Here is a quote from Wikipedia:
          Wikipedia, an open-source Internet encyclopedia, is a voluntary community of individuals and groups creating a common repository of human knowledge. Its structure allows anyone who has access to the Internet and a browser to change its contents. Therefore, please note that the information provided here may not be verified by professionals who have knowledge in the relevant fields necessary to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information about any concept on Wikipedia.
          This is not to say that Wikipedia does not have a lot of useful and accurate information, but you must be aware that Wikipedia cannot guarantee in any way the correctness of the data contained in it. At the time of reading, they could have just been changed, damaged, or written by someone whose opinion differs from the generally accepted knowledge that interests you.
          We are looking for ways to verify and select the most credible versions of articles, but we cannot guarantee anything. Our greatest achievement is the articles selected by the participants, but even they could be corrupted or distorted by someone a few moments before you read it.
          None of the authors, participants, sponsors, administrators, operators and persons who are otherwise connected with Wikipedia are responsible for the appearance of inaccurate or false information, as well as for your use of the data contained on these web pages or found through links from them.
          Please, take into account that all information located here is provided freely, as an act of goodwill, without concluding any agreements or contracts between you and the owners or users of this site, the owners of the servers on which it is located, the authors of Wikipedia, administrators project, by operators or someone else, in any way related to this or related projects, which [contracts] may become the subject of direct claims. You are given a limited right to copy the contents of this site - this right does not provide and does not imply any contractual or other liability for any part of Wikipedia or its agents, participants, organizers or other users.
          1. 0255
            0255 23 November 2013 22: 42 New
            Any trademarks, marks and names of goods, services and organizations, design rights, copyrights and related rights that are mentioned, used or cited in articles belong to their rightful owners. Their use here does not give you the right to any other use except as provided by the authors of Wikipedia articles in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution / Share-Alike licensing scheme. Unless otherwise specified, Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation websites are in no way associated with the copyright holders, and therefore Wikipedia cannot control the rights to use copyrighted material. You are responsible for the use of these and similar materials.
            Please note that reading, disseminating or changing information posted on Wikipedia may violate the laws of the country in which you are viewing this site. Wikipedia does not call for violation of any laws, but since the information is stored on servers located in the USA, we use the rights granted to all the First Amendment to the US Constitution and the principles of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The laws of your country may interpret protection of freedom of speech not as broadly as the laws of the United States or the UN Charter - in this case Wikipedia is not responsible for any potential violations of these laws by you when creating links to this site or other use of any information contained herein.
            If you need specialist advice (for example, in the field of medicine, law, finance or risk management), please contact professionals with a license and knowledge in this field. Read the relevant warnings: You use Wikipedia at your own risk! - Wikipedia does not give medical advice - Wikipedia does not give legal opinions - Wikipedia content may cause you to protest.
            Despite the fact that users can correct errors or remove erroneous judgments, they are not required to do so. Therefore, all information is provided without guarantee of usefulness for any purpose or suitability for any use.
            Wikipedia cannot be held responsible for any damage caused, as it is a voluntary community, freely organized to create open educational, cultural and information resources. The information is provided as a goodwill act and there is no agreement or act of intent between you and Wikipedia regarding the use or alteration of information not covered by the Creative Commons Attribution / Share-Alike license. Also, no one on Wikipedia is responsible for changing, editing or deleting any information that you added to Wikipedia or other related projects.

            Thanks for your time reading this page. We only wish you a pleasant experience using Wikipedia.

            source: Wikipedia: Disclaimer_of_responsibility
            don't take this "encyclopedia" too seriously
            1. Revolver
              Revolver 24 November 2013 00: 35 New
              Quote: 0255
              don't take this "encyclopedia" too seriously

              1. I know about Rudel and Ju-87 from other sources, just the easiest way to find a link to Wikipedia.
              2. I always double-check on the English version. If it matches, it usually is. And if not, I’m looking for other sources.
              3. If you turn on the brain, usually obvious bullshit is noticeable. Well, the implicit ... let it be on the conscience of the one who made the record.
              1. tomket
                tomket 25 November 2013 21: 59 New
                Are you talking about a dreamer who flew through the wreckage of detonated tanks ???? (during an explosion, usually the only fragment is a tower flying into the sky)
        2. loft79
          loft79 24 November 2013 10: 50 New
          Quote: Nagan
          according to German statistics, I’ve got more than 500 tanks, a cykin son. Even if they exaggerated at times

          In, in at times. It’s like him. tankers whose data after verification turned out to be significantly overstated. Although even if 100, it is very cool for the pilot. hi
    2. 0255
      0255 23 November 2013 14: 34 New
      Quote: sevtrash
      It seems like historically in the USSR, the Il-2 is considered practically a masterpiece, especially in light of Stalin's often quoted quotation "... Il-2 is necessary as air ...", although the effectiveness against armored targets seemed to be small even with the use of cumulative bombs. At the same time, were the German anti-tank attack pilots more effective?

      if the IL-2 is so ineffective, why did the Germans call it "black death"? Why did they run away from the battlefield at the sight of him? Who told you about the ineffectiveness of the IL-2 against armored targets? Western sources, according to which the United States won the war with the British, and the USSR reached Berlin only thanks to the Lend-Lease, which amounted to 4% of Soviet production during the Second World War? Maybe you think the T-34 is a g ... which broke every 5 minutes and only outnumbered the super-duper advanced "Tigers" and "Panthers" tanks? Which of the Soviet weapons of the Second World War is next in line to be lowered? PPSh machine gun? Katyushas? Submarines "Pike"?
      Stop smearing your history! Have you seen at least one American who would speak badly even about the Sherman tank, which the Germans fought with "Hurray"?
      We got articles and comments about poor Soviet technology. negative
      and the IL-20 aircraft is interesting in itself good
      1. Albert1988
        Albert1988 23 November 2013 16: 08 New
        Quote: 0255
        if the IL-2 is so ineffective, why did the Germans call it "black death"?

        I fully support!
        And the Germans also called him a butcher, a meat grinder, and even "Iron Gustav" sort of like, and German pilots called him "a concrete plane" or a "cemented bomber"! As for its "ineffectiveness" against armored targets, the Il-2 cannons often turned out to be excessively powerful against the rather thin armor of the upper hemisphere of most German tanks (it is well described if Isaev had the "correct mistake"), but about cumulative bombs, which he scattered over the German tank columns and turned tanks into trash - there are good photos in the second edition of Zhukov's "Memories and Reflections" ...
        Quote: 0255
        and the IL-20 aircraft is interesting in itself

        And not only he - in general it amazes what piston engines were developed in the first years after the war, it’s even a little pity that jet aircraft chopped everything upright)))
      2. sevtrash
        sevtrash 23 November 2013 23: 37 New
        Quote: 0255
        Who told you about the inefficiency of IL-2 against armored vehicles?

        Read on the same site - "Ily" against tanks:
        "... The attack by the Il-2 plane of any German tank from the front, both from gliding and from low-level flight, was completely ineffective, and German medium tanks - also when attacking from behind ..."
        After the use of PTAB - "... On average, during the war, the irrecoverable losses of tanks from aviation actions did not exceed 5%, after the use of PTAB, in some sectors of the front, this figure exceeded 20% ..."
        After the introduction of dispersed orders "... The effectiveness of Il-2 strikes with the use of PTAB decreased by about 4-4,5 times, while remaining, on average, 2-3 times higher than with the use of high-explosive and high-explosive bombs ... "
        Did you read something about the loss ratio in tanks?
        Have you read this article - "Analysis of the effectiveness of Soviet submarines in the Great Patriotic War"? On this site, by the way.
        From the comments on the same site:
        "... On the account of" pikes "during the Second World War, there are 29 sunk enemy transports (82 brt; this also includes the Finnish steamer" Vilpas "and the German" Rein-Beck ", destroyed during the Soviet-Finnish war), Japanese a motorboat, as well as two German BDB, a submarine and a patrol boat.Another four enemy ships (211 brt) were damaged.It is necessary to immediately make a reservation that this list is clearly not final; the results of at least a dozen more attacks are to be clarified, after which the divers 18 transports and schooners of neutral states (168 Turkish, 19 Bulgarian, 10 Swedish, 5 Estonian; total tonnage about 3 brt), destroyed during the "unlimited submarine war" near the territorial waters of these states, stand apart.
        At the same time, we lost 31 Pikes. In other words - almost one to one ... "

        I can’t understand why to deceive myself? What purpose?
        It seems to me that the universal desire of a rational person is to get to the truth at least in some approximation. What do you dislike about this?
        1. loft79
          loft79 24 November 2013 11: 02 New
          I agree with you.
 хороший сайт, периодически туда заглядываю. Вот только новый дизайн не удобный. Имхо.
    3. Argon
      Argon 23 November 2013 16: 07 New
      Complexes located on "flying" carriers, capable of hitting a tank in motion, with a probability of more than 0.4 appeared only in the mid-60s, it seems to me that the effectiveness of attack pilots against tanks tends to 0, as well as infantrymen, submariners, and ordinary civilians. On the other hand, a PTAB hit, as a rule, led to an internal fire in the tank, with all the consequences, and even a 57mm projectile hitting, most often ended in a recochet, even a penetration of the armor led to the death of a PART of the crew, and only occasionally to detonation of the ammunition. , this material simply requires additional illustrations, in my opinion, the layout with the location of the engine behind the cockpit was not "squeezed". With successful implementation, it would be possible to reduce the drag, switch to a three-rack-mount chassis, and the weight of the armored hull could be reduced, i.e. because some area of ​​the engine would be covered by elements of the center section. Another thing is that the country mastered jet aircraft, built a nuclear shield. And the cost of the future attack aircraft before it was false to be no higher than a certain limit, and the fight against "characteristic" layout flaws was possible with the use of high (at that time) technologies (new structural alloys, ejection seats), which led to the complication of production.
      1. Albert1988
        Albert1988 23 November 2013 16: 49 New
        Quote: Argon
        , But even the impact of a 57mm projectile most often ended with a ricocheting, even breaking through the armor led to the death of the crew PART, and only occasionally to the detonation of the BC

        And if getting into the engine grilles?
    4. Taoist
      Taoist 23 November 2013 16: 11 New
      Well, apart from Rudel's "hunting tales" as a source, the effectiveness of German attack aircraft against armored vehicles also raises great doubts. Moreover, unlike the Il2, there was really nothing to use against tanks for a long time. The main attack aircraft of the Ju-87 backlash before the appearance of the "bird with a gun" could only rely on bombs (and the probability of being hit even with a dive of a tank with a bomb is very small) 129th Henschel in terms of combat load was also not "pleasing to the eye" ... Ampul AZ or PTAB Germans why it was never used. Well, the likelihood of aimed fire from 37mm suspended under the wing and, moreover, having an ammunition load of 12 shells, we will leave on Rudel's conscience. In general, the attack aircraft of that time is not very effective as a direct anti-tank weapon ... But they could place supply columns, crush artillery and cut off infantry from tanks - well, without these components, the tank is also not a weapon, but a target.
      1. makarov
        makarov 23 November 2013 17: 35 New
        SW komenty.
        In the book paradoxical BT, "unique" samples are generally described. There is even an installation of "all-wheel drive" 76mm guns through the propeller. It also tells about samples of aircraft with more than 20 cannon / machine gun barrels. The book is power, I value it.
  6. Bongo
    Bongo 23 November 2013 14: 51 New
    By the time of its creation, the IL-20 is hopelessly outdated, the era of jet aircraft has arrived.
    Much more successful was built in 50-x IL-40, neposhodshy in the series because of the position of Khrushchev.
    1. makarov
      makarov 23 November 2013 16: 33 New
      probably he didn't like the "nostrils", Nikita thought that this was a teasing subtext, so he got pissed off.
    2. 0255
      0255 23 November 2013 17: 40 New
      Quote: Bongo
      By the time of its creation, the IL-20 is hopelessly outdated, the era of jet aircraft has arrived.
      Much more successful was built in 50-x IL-40, neposhodshy in the series because of the position of Khrushchev.

      also an interesting airplane.
    3. tomket
      tomket 25 November 2013 22: 00 New
      eeeee, why is it hopelessly outdated ??? Skyrader flew in Vietnam and nothing, although he himself was flesh of piston flesh.
  7. Taoist
    Taoist 23 November 2013 18: 21 New
    The most offensive thing is that the "ideal attack aircraft" had already been created by that time - and besides, not just on paper, but in a completely "flyable form"

    Why this machine was not used is not clear to me. At one time I tried to use all the available engineering training + "post-knowledge" to sketch out an "ideal battlefield machine" for the Second World War ... I got almost the same thing as Sukhoi. Unless, in my project, the armament carriages were lowered (like the MiG15) and replaceable modules (like the German "rustic") - so that the versatility of the machine could be ensured. Well, and the rear firing point with a remote control on the selsyns - in order to ensure maximum firing angles and the shooter should be removed in one armored capsule with the pilot.
    1. Argon
      Argon 23 November 2013 23: 46 New
      The transfer of any type of combat aircraft, in the realities of total war (which the Second World War, undoubtedly, was) into a multi-engine class seems to be extremely undesirable, because ultimately the "influence factor" (let's call it that) of the sample will be violated, we will present it as a ratio of qualities machines for the available number above the battlefield and in the tactical reserve (we are considering everything rather conditionally). A twin-engine vehicle, a priori, is more difficult to manufacture, the laboriousness of maintaining it in a combat-ready state is more than twice as high (despite the fact that the attack aircraft is in fact consumables). Here the example of German reconnaissance will be appropriate; Fw-189 could not completely replace the "old man" Hs-126. The basis of the attack aviation (to replace the "Stuck") was planned for the Me-210 \ 410, but in fact this the basis was the Fw-190. The prerequisites for the appearance of technical specifications for the Su-8, like the Il-8, was the desire to combine the functions of an attack aircraft and a front-line bomber, caused primarily by the "crisis" in the development of the Pe-2, the planned serial production of the Tu-2, and in this regard By the time the prototypes were manufactured, the Air Force Flight Research Institute had carried out large-scale scientific and practical research, which showed that maneuverability was a key factor in the survivability of the attack aircraft, which forced the above plans to be abandoned in favor of the more specialized Il-10 and Tu-2 in combinations with Lend-Lease A-20.
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 24 November 2013 00: 19 New
        Well, partly this can be attributed as a reason ... but only partly. Believe me as an SD specialist, an increase in the number of engines on an airplane by two times does not at all cause an increase in labor intensity, cost and service time by the same 2 times ... There is an increase, but not more than a quarter. In addition, a twin-engine vehicle is more tenacious, has better thrust-to-weight ratio, etc. And the presence of "light attack aircraft" has not been canceled. Another question is that in wartime conditions, they rather did not want a discrepancy in the weapons system ... Although the same Bostons in the G modification were used with pleasure. Perhaps they did not feel special needs - Il successfully solved most of the tasks of direct support of the troops ... but the anti-tank capabilities of the aircraft of that time was always a big question - how many engines are not attached. And they probably ran into the same problem because of which the Germans did not manage to use their generally quite good Henschel 129 - the lack of suitable engines - everything was devoured by fighters.
        And the 210/410 was never planned to replace Stuke, because a heavy fighter is never a "direct infantry support" aircraft - which is generally understandable.
        The difference between an attack aircraft and any information security or front-line bomber is, first of all, the constructive ability to "hang over the front edge" - cutting out, at the request of the infantry, everything that "prevents it from living" ... That is why the Ju-87 is, according to the German classification, a dive bomber (Sturzkampfflugzeug); ... And all twin-engine messers are a Zerstoerer - it can (and have been used) as a multipurpose aircraft - the same IS. But IB is also not an attack aircraft (see above)
        1. Argon
          Argon 24 November 2013 13: 58 New
          I have no wrong grounds to doubt your competence. However, maintenance (or rather maintaining in a combat-ready state) of a piston and a jet engine is two big differences. (There is a personal "shock" experience of joint operation of the Mi-2 and Ka-26). Add to this that all of ours and the Americans were double-cut, had engines of different models (pavoy, left) and also of different rotation, and the interchangeability for spare parts was no more than 60% (on average). That is, for the regiment engineer, in fact, these are different engines. Not one twin-engine domestic car of that period could fly on one engine. The thrust-to-weight ratio is also not so simple (taking into account the physics of the propeller and the need for synchronous changes in parameters, and there were no automatic machines then). At the same time, the twin-engine is at least larger and more inert, respectively. It is easier to get into it. A-20G in our BAP, ORAP, MTAP, OPARv-ALWAYS were a burden, the first candidates for donors, to have a navigator on board was much more preferable to a heap of unreliable barrels (guns) with constant supply problems (BK) ( grandfather served in a regiment with a "twin-engine" squadron, by the end of the war, fully equipped with "Bostons"). The Hs-129 was not originally a promising vehicle for captured "Gnome-Rones" which were never installed on German fighters. The Me-210 was planned to be replaced "Stuke", in one of its incarnations, both in fact and in the concept of application (it was decided to abandon the dive). "Attack aircraft" and "fighter bomber" by the end of the war differed perhaps onlypercentage weight of armor in the structure, and according to the concept of application are identical, as an example, the "shock" modifications of the P-47 and the same Fw-190F, while one of them is another "attack aircraft". Hanging over the front edge did not work (in fact) Throughout the war, the Il "s simply did not have fuel for this, despite the fact that active opposition to our attack aircraft was carried out until the end of hostilities.
  8. pensioner
    pensioner 23 November 2013 20: 35 New
    This article is an excerpt from the book "Red Army Stormtroopers" or "USSR Attack Aviation" in 2010 and ... Somehow it is called so. Word by word. Especially about Kocherygin. And the book is very interesting. I have one, but finding it quickly is unrealistic ...
  9. unknown
    unknown 24 November 2013 09: 58 New
    The effectiveness of the IL-2 in its mass. They were released more than other types of aircraft in the USSR.
    And the real combat effectiveness of the IL-2 as a type of aircraft is in great doubt.
    German troops were extremely saturated with air defense, and the IL-2 armored capsule protected only the engine and the pilot. The wings and fuselage behind the armored capsule remained unprotected from shelling the MZA, as on any type of aircraft. Due to the tactical features of the IL-2, they were forced to operate at low altitude, in the zone of effective destruction of the MZA. The armored corps did not save, but because of its presence, the bomb load was approaching zero. Cannon armament IL-2 was ineffective against armored vehicles.
    In general, the problem of low bomb load is the problem of almost all aircraft of the USSR.
    Instead of releasing the AR-2 with its 1500 kg, they began to produce the Pe-2 with 600 kg, while the production speed of the Pe-2 was no higher than that of the Ar-2. Yak and La fighters could lift up to 200 kg, and the ruined I-185-500 kg.
    The best bomber of the war recognized the U-88 with 3000kg! Yu-87 raised to 1000 kg FV-190 in the version of attack aircraft to 600 kg, bomber to 1000 kg.
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 24 November 2013 12: 00 New
      Another fan of the "gloomy Teutonic genius" ... Learn materiel and not just stupidly compare performance characteristics. And at the same time, take an interest in the tactics of using "front-line aviation" - maybe then you will not repeat nonsense with a clever look ...

      "Analysis of the combat damage of the 3rd VA attack aircraft, received from June to October of the 44th, shows that: 10% of all damage to the IL-2 structure fell on the center section (skin, ribs, spars), 15% - on the fuselage ( sheathing, stringers, frames), 20% - on the plane (console), 10% - on chassis structural elements (pyramid, struts, exhaust cylinders), 20% - on the tail unit with control wiring, 2% of damage - on the engine and hoods , 3% - for radiators, 2% - for oil tank, 3% of the damage was made up of holes in the blades and the cylinder for adjusting the pitch of the propeller, and the remaining 15% fell on various units and parts of the aircraft (crutch, armored back, engine armored covers, exhaust pipes, etc. ).

      The most radical way to reduce the losses of the Il-2 from the fire of the FORA at the final stage of the war was the fire suppression of anti-aircraft weapons by the forces of the Ilov themselves.
      To suppress anti-aircraft fire, special crews were allocated, the number of which depended on the total number of attack aircraft in the group and on the intended cover of the target FOR. In each assault air regiment, a number of crews began to be "trained" in a special way to suppress the firing points of German anti-aircraft artillery. These crews formed the core of the suppression group.
      When targeting with highly saturated anti-aircraft defense means, up to one third of the entire Ilov squad was allocated to the suppression group, and in cases of particularly strong anti-air defense, up to 50-100% of the total squad.

      In the Sevsk operation of 1944 (18.08/02.09/9/4) during the action in the Shvedchikovy area, the commander of the 50th shak, General I.V. Krupsky, due to the unprecedented density of German anti-aircraft fire in the area of ​​the breakthrough of ground forces (up to 2 batteries FOR small and medium calibers per one kilometer of the front), was forced, before the main corps forces were put into operation, to inflict a massive bomb assault on the German air defense systems in order to destroy its firing system. 10 Il-5s (35 groups of 3 vehicles each) were involved in the attack, which, in a general battle formation "circle of groups", "ironed" the positions of the German anti-aircraft gunners for 20 minutes. The force of the blow was so high that already after the 9rd approach, the calculations of the German FORA ceased fire everywhere. As a result of this blow, the Germans lost about XNUMX medium-caliber anti-aircraft guns broken (they were found by ground forces on the second day of the offensive) and a number of guns damaged (there is no information about the loss of MZA guns). The XNUMXth shak carried out combat missions on the battlefield for almost four days with little or no opposition from the German ZA. "(C)
    2. Herosw
      Herosw 28 January 2020 15: 35 New
      Extremely illiterate and stupid comparison. Why Yu-88 became the best, he was an average bomber.
  10. Tommygun
    Tommygun 26 November 2013 00: 11 New
    Interesting information about this project in another article previously published on the site:
  11. rubin6286
    rubin6286 27 November 2013 17: 18 New
    The IL-20 attack aircraft, which was developed during the war to replace the IL-2, did not correspond to the new concept of combat use of aircraft of this type by the end of the forties. In aviation, the era of jet aviation was approaching, presenting new requirements for structural elements, tactical and technical requirements (flight characteristics), and weapons. New, unconventional solutions were needed to sacrifice small things to achieve more. At that time, neither the design idea nor our aircraft industry were ready for this yet. Only with the outbreak of war in Korea did it come to understand that with the advent of MZA and radar in infantry combat formations, even with air supremacy, piston-powered attack aircraft could no longer "hang" over the battlefield, and an increase in the weight of armor protection did not protect the aircraft reduces such characteristics as maneuverability at low altitudes, rate of climb, worsens the conditions of piloting, increases the radius of the turn. The desire for the central location of machine gun and cannon weapons led to shaking and vibration of the structure when firing and significantly reduced its effectiveness. Attempts to increase firepower (salvo) associated with the placement of cannon-machine gun weapons in the fuselage for firing using the deviation of the gun barrels from the longitudinal axis of the aircraft were rejected, because complicated the control of the aircraft and the actions of the crew on a combat course, and automatic weapons control systems did not exist in the USSR then. You can still list for a long time what did not work on the IL-20 and TU-94, created around the same period. Another thing is important - the accumulated experience allowed us to move from the concept of an armored attack aircraft to the concept of a jet fighter-bomber, combining the speed of a fighter and the firepower of a front-line bomber, which was then successfully implemented on Sukhoi Design Bureau aircraft.