Jump to content

Greetings from a Canuk


tumblingmirth

Recommended Posts

Hello all.  I used to build models decades ago.  Life got in the way, but so did flying and working on my own aircraft.  Now it's time to get back to models.  

There are some obvious experts on here regarding not just models but also the technical details of the real machines.  I look fwd to the discussions. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dogsbody said:

Greetings from Alberta! 

 

Where y'at?

 

 

 

 

Chris

G'day Chris.  I'm ex-military, so I'm from all over but Alberta is where my heart is.  Will be moving back there soon.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to the site, mate, and have a great time! If you need to know about Soviet WWII aircraft, then I'm the self-appointed expert around these parts. Of course, I also love British and Commonwealth aircraft!

 

Best Regards,

 

Jason

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Learstang said:

Welcome to the site, mate, and have a great time! If you need to know about Soviet WWII aircraft, then I'm the self-appointed expert around these parts. Of course, I also love British and Commonwealth aircraft!

 

Best Regards,

 

Jason

Thanks for the welcome.  It's interesting that you, as a Soviet fighter pundit, showed up now as I was just researching the similarities between the French Dewoitine D.550 and the MiG-1. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're welcome! Now I have to go look at the D.550 (I'm fairly familiar with the MiG-1). I also know a bit about Soviet bombers, too, having written a book about Soviet bombers in addition to the book about Soviet fighters.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jason

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Corsairfoxfouruncle said:

Hello Tumbling … :post1: from somewhere south of you in Chicago, Im mostly aircraft myself. I think its fairly obvious what my favorite is by my screen name. 
 

Dennis

Good to meet you Dennis.  Chicago's Butch O'Hare is one of my favorite Navy pilots.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, tumblingmirth said:

Thanks for the welcome.  It's interesting that you, as a Soviet fighter pundit, showed up now as I was just researching the similarities between the French Dewoitine D.550 and the MiG-1. 

Construction was different certainly, however the aerodynamic concepts and configurations were stikingly similar. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always thought the MiG-1/3 looked like a racing aircraft. However, that big, supercharged engine and the aft-mounted cockpit might have looked rakish, but they didn't suit the aircraft for fighting in the Great Patriotic War. The Soviets needed aircraft that were easy to take off and land in, and were suited for low-altitude combat, not high-altitude like the MiGs. When it came out, the MiG-1 was the fastest fighter in the world, with a top speed of around 400 mph.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They would however have very much suited the requirements of the PVO, when it came to defending Moscow and other Soviet cities against German bomber raids.  Less so the Frontal Aviation, but as the first of the new generation fighters it is hardly surprising that they were thrown immediately into the battle.  Their problems were less those of general unsuitability as lack of reliability, poor armament, and poor training from a too-rapidly expanded air force.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Learstang said:

You're welcome! Now I have to go look at the D.550 (I'm fairly familiar with the MiG-1). I also know a bit about Soviet bombers, too, having written a book about Soviet bombers in addition to the book about Soviet fighters.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jason

Jason,

Construction was different certainly, however the aerodynamic concepts and configurations were stikingly similar. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

They would however have very much suited the requirements of the PVO, when it came to defending Moscow and other Soviet cities against German bomber raids.  Less so the Frontal Aviation, but as the first of the new generation fighters it is hardly surprising that they were thrown immediately into the battle.  Their problems were less those of general unsuitability as lack of reliability, poor armament, and poor training from a too-rapidly expanded air force.

True enough on all counts.  Soviets were emerging from their own technological dark ages and, IAW their philosophy, they "borrowed" western technology and let their own bright engineers adapt it to their needs and limitations.  A fascinating history. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The D.550 was also a later design, with a very different engine.  The MiG 1/3 was an extension of the Polikarpov "formula" for fighter design, witness its short-coupled fuselage, with a wing to the same planform as the other new generation of Soviet fighters (and indeed other types) which I see as a response to guidance from TSAGI on such matters.   The similarity in basic configuration between Soviet designs of this period is striking, compared to the variation seen within any Western country,   Any comparison between the MiG and the Dewoitine can only be a reflection of widespread contemporary knowledge and a concentration on speed to the (partial) exclusion of other factors.  The adoption of Western technology is largely restricted to their engines.  Soviet structures, armaments and metallurgies (where appropriate!) were home grown.

 

PS  The recent Warpaint on the MiG 3 is worth reading, although I think it could have done with a stronger editorial guide over some translation "bumps".  I'm sorry I can't find to to credit the Russian author.

 

Another recent book I would strongly recommend is Mikhail Timmin's  Air Battles over the Baltic 1941, which has a much wider interest than the title may suggest.  It helps to explain the unreadiness of the Soviet Air Force, the poor training of its pilots, and the problems afflicting the MiG.3 in particular.  Not to mention problems caused by higher level decisions made without awareness of the true situation.  Fascinating insights.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

The D.550 was also a later design, with a very different engine.  The MiG 1/3 was an extension of the Polikarpov "formula" for fighter design, witness its short-coupled fuselage, with a wing to the same planform as the other new generation of Soviet fighters (and indeed other types) which I see as a response to guidance from TSAGI on such matters.   The similarity in basic configuration between Soviet designs of this period is striking, compared to the variation seen within any Western country,   Any comparison between the MiG and the Dewoitine can only be a reflection of widespread contemporary knowledge and a concentration on speed to the (partial) exclusion of other factors.  The adoption of Western technology is largely restricted to their engines.  Soviet structures, armaments and metallurgies (where appropriate!) were home grown.

 

PS  The recent Warpaint on the MiG 3 is worth reading, although I think it could have done with a stronger editorial guide over some translation "bumps".  I'm sorry I can't find to to credit the Russian author.

 

Another recent book I would strongly recommend is Mikhail Timmin's  Air Battles over the Baltic 1941, which has a much wider interest than the title may suggest.  It helps to explain the unreadiness of the Soviet Air Force, the poor training of its pilots, and the problems afflicting the MiG.3 in particular.  Not to mention problems caused by higher level decisions made without awareness of the true situation.  Fascinating insights.

Thanks for the suggested reading, Graham.   I'll need to catch up on Soviet aircraft engineers and the Soviet engine developments. 

Ref timeline, the D.550 first flew on 23 June 1939, MiG-1 first flew Apr 1940.  The D.551, military derrivative of the D.550, was ordered in Dec '39 and the first 3 were ready for test flights in June 1940 when France capitulated. 

Ref the strive for speed through aerodynamics, I've been trying to research the airfoil used on the D.550 / D.551, to no avail.  It was clearly a thinner airfoil than the D.520 at 20% t/c ratio.  The MiG-1 was 14% I believe and in keeping with lessons learned by Supermarine, Macchi, NACA & German aircraft designers.   The Mig-3 (and I believe the MiG-1) also used the british Meredith effect with a buried radiator. From what I can tell, the D.550/551 did not.   It was a fascinating time of innovation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the correction on the dates of the D.550.  I still see the two types as independent designs.

 

It has occurred to me since that although the Soviet engine industry of the period was largely based on the Hispano Suiza V12 and the Wright Cyclone, in  single and double row variants, the Mikulin design of the MiG.3 was (as far as I know) entirely original.  How much detail technology was shared may be another matter, but the design was not closely derivative.  I don't know a good book on Soviet engines in particular (and indeed few directly on anyone else's) but there are some excellent works coming out of Russia on the aircraft.  Obviously these are not without useful information on the engines directly concerned.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Graham, I do believe you've brought me around to your way of viewing this as I have enjoyed researching some Soviet designs.    Their ubiquitous wing design was indeed homegrown.  Certain new aerodynamic concepts were shared/copied by all nations' engineers, so it was unfair of me to single out the Soviets.   I'll keep reading up on Soviet engine development.   Good discussion. It forces me to shift some of my paradigms.  Cheers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Warpaint on the MiG 3 was written by Nikolay Yakubovich - it does go on to cover the later high-altitude prototypes.

 

It says that work began whilst Polikarpov was away, and he was not impressed to find a new bureau established.  It will be interesting to read what is said on the subject in Volume 2 of the Fighter King biography/history.  The first volume is superb, but only covers the biplanes.  Hopefully the later volume will appear before too long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...