Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: ramzey on January 15, 2003, 05:40:33 AM
-
http://airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/english/articles/golodnikov/index.htm
-
Thank u very much ramzey. Very interesting read.
-
Amazing read. He remembers so much from so long ago. Very informative.
-
There's an interesting bit at the end:
"A. S. Nikolay Gerasimovich, sometime relatively long ago I was speaking with a pilot—a frontline veteran. Right after the war they flew in captured aircraft. And no matter how hard they tried, they were unable to attain the speeds the Germans had written in their specifications. The shortfall in speed was significant. In the end, they prevailed upon a German, a high-level specialist, and asked him, “Why this shortfall in speed? Are we using the engine’s capability incorrectly?” His response was that they would never achieve the target speed, because the German specifications showed the theoretical speed, and they were attempting to attain that speed on their instruments.
Nikolay Gerasimovich, in your view, is this possible?
N. G. Of course. We had a group of specialists with us from NII VVS. They were examining specifications and were looking at speed. “What speed is indicated at 7,000 meters? 780? Take away 100. And what about 3,000 meters? 700? Reduce it 70 km.” This is how they calculated the instrumented speed and, characteristically, almost always hit their target. Perhaps they knew something about our focus on speed."
-
Fascinating... thanks.
-
Thanks!
This made me chuckle.
"You and the two-seater! No, we did not have a two-seater! "
:D
-
Makes me want to try an AH P-39.
Thanks for the good read.
-
Flyng I-16:
A. S. Did these sights permit normal precise aiming?
N. G. In our regiment we commenced firing at ranges of 70—50 meters, when we could see the rivets. One could not miss with either sight at that range. We never fired from beyond 200 meters. It was too far
:D :D :D :D :D Like AH.
-
He was also talking about the MG armed I16 that had terrible dispersion beyond those ranges... and the MGs were significantly weaker at greater ranges.
-SW
-
Thanks this was very entertaining and informative read! So rarely you see Russian war veterans being interviewed, prolly because the language barrier.
This was funny:
Let me say something else about the air frame. The Hurricane had a very light tail. We were based on sandy, insufficiently packed airfields. It was mandatory that a technician or mechanic sit on the tail when we were taxiing to keep it on the ground. We even flew with a technician sitting on the tail. We had a technician named Rudenko who flew around in a circle sitting on the tail. He sat with his back forward and was unable to jump off because his hands got caught in the skin of the vertical stabilizer. He sat there until the pilot landed the aircraft. There were cases when men fell off the tail and died
:eek:
-
there is a good book by I-16/Hurri/LaGG-3/La-5 ace Iigor Kaberov
"swastika in the gunsight" - i dont know of any others in english by VVS aces (actually i dont think Kaberov was VVS - he was naval aviation)
-
Well, look at this:
"N. G. Ours, without a doubt. The ShVAK was twice as reliable. The Hispano simply required an unbelievable amount of maintenance. The smallest exposure to dust, congealed lubricant, or any other kind of little thing, and the gun would not fire. Very unreliable.
The ballistics of our cannon were better. Our cannon had a flatter trajectory, which is significant for applying lead. When you talk about the Yaks, then one didn’t even need a sight. The tracers were almost straight, take aim and fire, and where the nose is pointing is where the rounds struck.
Our ShVAK had a higher rate of fire.
Regarding the target effect, these two cannons were about equal. In either case, there was no difference that I could see with the human eye."
Heh, PERK the Hizooka!
-
And then look at this:
A. S. Nikolay Gerasimovich, sometime relatively long ago I was speaking with a pilot—a frontline veteran. Right after the war they flew in captured aircraft. And no matter how hard they tried, they were unable to attain the speeds the Germans had written in their specifications. The shortfall in speed was significant. In the end, they prevailed upon a German, a high-level specialist, and asked him, “Why this shortfall in speed? Are we using the engine’s capability incorrectly?” His response was that they would never achieve the target speed, because the German specifications showed the theoretical speed, and they were attempting to attain that speed on their instruments.
Nikolay Gerasimovich, in your view, is this possible?
N. G. Of course. We had a group of specialists with us from NII VVS. They were examining specifications and were looking at speed. “What speed is indicated at 7,000 meters? 780? Take away 100. And what about 3,000 meters? 700? Reduce it 70 km.” This is how they calculated the instrumented speed and, characteristically, almost always hit their target. Perhaps they knew something about our focus on speed.
Perhaps we should adjust some flight models too :) I would imagine that at typical engagement ranges you would notice little difference between any second-generation belt-fed cannon.
Charon
-
I bet he was flying an La7 from Aces High :P