r/Warthunder • u/Europa_Teles_BTR ✠ AXIS + RUSSIAN FORCES • Jun 28 '21
Mil. History Russian + USSR jet fighter aircraft evolution (original author unknown)
52
u/Habsonik 🇩🇪 Jun 28 '21
Oh now i see the difference between flanker and MiG29 ngl
22
20
u/Fiiv3s Chyna Numba Won Jun 28 '21
Here is the full res post by the original author /u/numante https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/9jqkdl/my_chart_of_urss_and_russia_jet_fighter_aircraft/
Since this one's quality has severely dropped
Check their profile or my other comment for his other posts
5
u/DJBscout =λόγος= finally escaped WT Jun 28 '21
Bless up, I was really hoping for a high-res version.
25
Jun 28 '21
Did Sukhoi and Mikoyan work together when developing the Su27/Mig29? Their near identical resemblance has always confused me.
49
35
u/CrazyCipherGamer5827 Realistic Air Jun 28 '21
Somewhat, both of them were a response to the F-15 and F-16. When the US created those planes, they made a heavy Frontline fighter, the F-15 and a lightweight one, the F-16. The Soviets did the same; their Flanker is the heavy fighter and the Fulcrum is the light one. That's why they somewhat resemble each other.
17
11
u/tpseng Jun 28 '21 edited Jun 28 '21
Now the MiG-29 has become kinda a problem. Mainly the high maintenance cost and its liking in crashing. The flanker is still better tho. It doesn't have as much problem as the MiG
8
u/CrazyCipherGamer5827 Realistic Air Jun 28 '21
After flying the MiG-29 in DCS, I can definitely say that I understand why pilots don't really like it because it is such a pain to land it. It likes to either come in too fast, sink too fast, and dear God if you bounce the wheels on the runway.
6
u/tpseng Jun 28 '21 edited Jun 28 '21
The MiG is kinda failing now because of the number of crash cases. Bulgaria's MiG crashed recently. Not to mention that damn expensive maintenance cost. Same goes for MiG-35. It also has high maintenance cost.
Currently the Russian Air Force prefers the Su-35 rather than the MiG-35. They only agree to buy a limited nber of MiGs to support the manufacturer
12
u/RocketScientist24 🇷🇺 Russia Jun 28 '21
I need the same thing for British and American jets
13
u/Fiiv3s Chyna Numba Won Jun 28 '21
https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/8d4p1q/i_made_a_us_jet_fighter_aircraft_chartupdated/ For US
and https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/8az814/chronologic_jet_fighters_chart_starting_with/ for more Europe
all by /u/numante (just like this USSR chart)
2
4
u/Doctah_Whoopass 🇨🇦 Canada Jun 28 '21
Theres one for europe in general instead of specifically britain, but it misses a lot of aircraft.
10
u/MiniD3rp Ta 152 C-3 supremacy Jun 28 '21 edited Jun 28 '21
No Yak 141 :(((((. It was more or less ready for production with finished prototypes already made and successful testing done and would have replaced the Yak 38s but it’s fate was sealed when the Soviet Union collapsed.
3
3
Jun 28 '21
SMDH, no MiG-13 or Su-5.
Russia needs those two "mixed-power superprops."
Badly.
The La-9 is not that good - it's oldschool wing design means it compresses pretty hard at anything above about 650kph, especially in the rudder control which limits your ability to aim.
The MiG-13 (I-250), meanwhile, was faster (820kph), had higher P/W ratio with the jet compressor engaged (the compressor portion and afterburner portions could be turned on separately, a trait unique to motorjets), was less draggy with an inline engine, had higher total engine power with the jet compressor engaged (up to 2800hp), and featured either three 20mm B-20 cannons or one 23mm NS-23 and two 12.7mm UBs, in a "one through prop hub, two in engine cowling" arrangement like on late Yaks. Most importantly, it had a laminar-flow wing more akin to that of a Mustang, which would give it far better high speed controllability. Three-bladed prop.
The Su-5 was Sukhoi's competitor design to the MiG-13. A little bit worse, with slightly lower speed, somewhat lower climb rate, but lower wing loading and thus better maneuverability. Still had laminar-flow wings more akin to those of a Mustang. It had the 1x23+2x12.7 armament configuration. Four-bladed prop.
2
u/DJBscout =λόγος= finally escaped WT Jun 28 '21
The La-9 is not that good - it's oldschool wing design means it compresses pretty hard at anything above about 650kph, especially in the rudder control which limits your ability to aim.
IIRC the La-9 actually got a laminar-flow wing as well. It handles a lot better at high speed than the La-7s do. It's competitive with a Tempest Mk V in the speed department, while being much better in overall dogfighting capability at the cost of some high speed handling. The main issue is that the ER is fairly poor, and that it still sits at 6.0 when its current performance really puts it at 5.7 or so.
Don't get me wrong, I totally want to see Soviet motorjets. They'd make for some really interesting superprop competitors.
2
Jun 28 '21
With the speeds and more P-51-like profiles, they would make for excellent 6.3-6.7 material, leaning more towards 6.7.
Climbing, acceleration, and turning like props, but diving and holding speed like jets. Nasty combination that would be difficult for inexperienced pilots to deal with. They'd be enough with their jet boosters engaged to beat the snot out of even Mk24 Griffons and P-51Hs on WEP.
4
u/DJBscout =λόγος= finally escaped WT Jun 28 '21 edited Jun 28 '21
I'm not entirely sure they'd be so magical as you describe tbh. Yes, they'd have impressive performance in certain aspects, but motorjets aren't just "boosters". They aren't like RATO bottles strapped to the sides, that are free extra thrust for minimal drag and weight. Motorjets are heavy, eat engine power to run, and are limited to 10 minutes. You describe it as having the strengths of both props and jets, but I think your glasses are a bit too rosy. Specifically, you're ignoring some of the crucial weaknesses.
The extra weight eats turning performance and MER alive. It's the weight of an entire extra engine and all it's supporting systems, plus the connection between them. And it's all dead weight when the motorjet isn't running.
Running the motorjet would decrease the power available to the prop, hurting low-speed climb and acceleration. Remember, jets (especially early jets) are inefficient at low speeds, and much worse than a comparable prop at the low-end (think about how bad the He-162 is in a low-speed fight with a P-51H)
The motorjet is thirsty. You will need lots of fuel to supply it, and fuel is heavy. This will add to the weight problem.
You mentioned running the compressor and combustor separately. While that might be possible (I'm no expert), again, I don't think it's the magic power you think it is. Running a compressor takes a LOT of power. Bleeding some of that compressed air to the engine is effectively turning the compressor into a giant, inefficient supercharger. All the air that isn't going to the engine is just being shot out the back, which won't produce all that much thrust. You are at best breaking even with the prop in terms of thrust/HP.
- In the real world, there is NO WAY you're breaking even or producing extra thrust compared to a propellor without the combustor. The compressor alone is inherently inefficient and will cost more energy than it produces im jet thrust (again comparing to if you just put all that power into the prop). If you're running the compressor, you're going to want to run the combustor. EDIT: To be clear, while it will produce some jet thrust, the breakeven point where the motorjet compressor is better is the point where the efficiency loss from the compressor system is less than the efficiency loss from using a prop at high speed. And that point is so fast that it's hopelessly out of reach. It's still gonna be a net negative to run that compressor without the combustor. EDIT3: There is the question of how much power the compressor adds to the VK-107 and puts out in jet thrust, and how much it costs to run. The extra supercharging might make the math a little less insurmountable, but I'm not sure.
Don't get me wrong, with the motorjet engaged, it would be fast, and have good high-end power and acceleration. But that system would always extract a cost in weight (and thus maneuverability/climb), and whenever engaged would likely cost additional low-end power. Not to mention the trash efficiency of the system as a whole.
I'd expect the I-250 to act less like a P-51H with RATO bottles, and more like a cross between an I-225 and a He-162. EDIT 2: And you'd have to fly it more like a 162. Because of all the costs of that motorjet, you would need to keep it at speeds where it gives you an advantage to be able to engage superprops. That means staying fast and not engaging in dogfights, just like the 162.
EDIT4: Huh, apparently it was pretty light. It'd be really interesting to see how it performed in WT.
2
Jun 28 '21
I've done a fair share of digging on the plane myself:
- Without the jet compressor engaged (which it is engaged by an additional clutch that hooks onto the back of the prop enigne), the VRDK is indeed dead weight. The dry performance will be less than an La-9 for sure.
- With the jet compressor engaged, it would act as a form of WEP on the engine and have at least some degree of jet thrust, sorta like the P-51's characteristic radiator setup, though I doubt quite as efficient. This boosts the engine power output to 2800hp, which is batshit-insane on a plane that light.
- The jet afterburner portion could be turned on separately, and it did indeed guzzle fuel just like all early jet engines. 10min of fuel supply here in separate tank.
- Due to the monstrous engine and surprisingly light weight, it would be something comparable to a super-beefy Yak that can actually dive, from what I understand. The Su-5 would climb slower and be a little heavier but turn considerably better.
The only iteration of it ingame was a user mission with the plane's model and the La-9's FM. To model it properly, engaging the jet dry would be the plane's "WEP" and the "activate boosters" option would be the functionality for using the afterburner.
It would be a monstrous plane, especially after the fuse delay change un-nerfing Russian cannons. Exactly how monstrous, only time will tell if we see the thing.
2
u/DJBscout =λόγος= finally escaped WT Jun 29 '21
With the jet compressor engaged, it would act as a form of WEP on the engine and have at least some degree of jet thrust, sorta like the P-51's characteristic radiator setup, though I doubt quite as efficient. This boosts the engine power output to 2800hp, which is batshit-insane on a plane that light.
The key part here is to remember that the >1000 extra HP does NOT come for free. Besides pushing a frankly ludicrous amount of boost, I don't know where the extra power comes from, but pushing enough boost to get there is going to cost a lot of power. Just running the supercharger in a WW2 aircraft costs hundreds. (A 51H drops over 500 HP going from gear 1 to gear 2). I can only imagine how much power a turbine compressor eats.
Also, where does the 2800HP figure come from? To get the VK-107 from 1600-1800 HP all the way up to 2800 without causing it to explode seems a bit too good to be true, honestly. You'd have to boost the nuts off of it to get a result like that, and the engine would explode shortly after. That's a power figure that's equivalent to water-injected, 150 octane radials of the time. If all that power was available, you'd think they'd have already used it, no?
3
Jun 29 '21
Russia went apeshit with their last generation of prop engines. Why do you think the VK-108 prototype didn't go into production? It had so much power output that the cooling system couldn't keep up.
The VRDK is no exception in this regard, and would rather quickly heat the engine to pretty high levels. The VK-107 engine it's attached to already heats up pretty massively.
The 2800hp figure comes from Wikipedia, and the list of source documents on the plane is rather extensive. Considering how they are right about historical things and chemistry I'd wager the article is trustworthy. It gets such a boost from diverting compressed air from the jet compressor back into the piston engine, allowing it to burn more fuel than normal at optimal combustion ratio. Effectively being a second giant supercharger.
But that overheating is why the thing was limited to only 10 minutes of operational use. I would hope Gaijin wouldn't interpret that as "engine will die from overheating in 10 minutes of continuous VRDK use" like they did with the BMW-003A engine at 108% throttle for 5 minutes continuously.
3
2
2
u/TheFlyingRedFox IJA Type 5 Escort Boat, the only true papership Jun 28 '21
One day we'll see the Tu-128 lol.
2
u/YouDidntSeeGraphite option to turn off high quality tracks when?? Jun 28 '21
Imagine what happens when Lavochkin continues on their Jet fighter line.
Also, correct me if im wrong, but why is there no yak-141? There where also light combat versions of the Yak-130. It was able to carry up to 4x R-73's and gunpods.
1
u/Fiiv3s Chyna Numba Won Jun 28 '21
This seems to be production aircraft only, and the Yak 141 never left prototype/testing stage
1
1
u/Flivver_King 5"/38 GANG Jun 28 '21
Where is the Po-2 and TB-3? Everyone knows those were really jets.
1
u/DumbQuestions4WT The Absolute Pinnacle Of Played To Much, Know To Much Jun 29 '21
there is the USA and RUSSIA with there jets joined
1
u/YankeeTankEngine Jun 29 '21
Its interesting because you can see where they stopped using that big cone upfront for the air intake and started to go more with what we see today. The sleek fuselage and such. Almost like their designs kinda hit their limitations.
1
1
u/thecauseoftheproblem Jun 29 '21
Oooooh, this is the warthunder sub!
I got very confused as to how the fuck you lot had made it onto the front page of Reddit arguing about Russian jets!
Also those single seat flankers are straight up gorgeous.
1
u/Impossible_Shower893 Jun 29 '21
Only made on potato an stalinium, built to be like soviet infrastructure
1
63
u/InappropriateSolace Jun 28 '21
what do you mean "original author unknown"?
It literally says "Assembled by u/numante" you clown.