GeeBee?

This is coolbert:

It could very well be that the engineering development of the Soviet I-16 "Rata" fighter aircraft was very greatly influenced by the American GeeBee series of airplanes.

But NOT EXACTLY as I had thought.

Here is the Russian web site ["History of Creation"] in English describing the process by which the I-16 came into being.

The GeeBee series of aircraft were innovative and unique for their time. Very much so. In some respects far advanced.

"The GeeBee and its designers had until recently been given a bad rap for their aircraft designs. In actuality they were remarkable aircraft and contributed greatly to the technical advancement of aviation design and aeronautical engineering, and had monumental impact on the development of military and civil aircraft that followed."

Polikarpov MAY HAVE VERY WELL HAD THE "Model-Y Senior Sportster" IN MIND WHEN HE DID HIS SEMINAL WORK ON THE I-16?? NOT THE GEEBEE R-1 AND R-2 MADE SO FAMOUS BY JIMMY DOOLITTLE!!



Judge for yourself!!

Espionage was involved here?! If so, it was probably the work of Amtorg. American Trading Corporation. Handled trade matters between the Soviet Union and the United States BEFORE diplomatic relations were fully established.

"The Amtorg Trading Corporation is an American company based in New York that was founded in 1924 by the Soviet Union to serve as its buying and selling organization in trade between the USSR and the USA. It handled the bulk of Soviet-American trade until 1935 . . . Working as an Amtorg employee served as a convenient cover for Soviet spies"

Probably, if so, the work of the GRU. Soviet [now Russian] military intelligence.

There was in all likelihood, extensive espionage activity being conducted by employees of Amtorg. As witnessed by the enormous number of secret messages passed between NYC and Moscow during the early 1930's. Messages probably sent in an enciphered code system with one-time-pad additive. Unreadable under all circumstances if used properly.

"In 1930 Hamilton Fish . . . American Congressman . . . managed to lay his hands on 3,000 coded telegrams from the Soviet Trading Corporation "Amtorg" in New York"

Amtorg got their hands on - - the plans of the Model-Y aircraft? From whence came the I-16?

coolbert.

Rat!!

This is coolbert:

Those Soviet pilots fighting fascist forces in the skies over Spain [Spanish Civil War] and China [Second Sino-Japanese War], would have flown the Polikarpov I-16.

A fighter plane well advanced for it's time. Had many features that were "firsts", unique and deadly [to both friendly and foe alike!].

HAS AN APPEARANCE THAT CATCHES YOUR EYE RIGHT AWAY. AN AIRPLANE BOLTED TO A GIGANTIC ENGINE. STUBBY LITTLE FUSELAGE, WINGS, TAIL. THE PROPORTIONS ARE INTUITIVELY NOT RIGHT??!!

"Polikarpov I-16 Ishak (Rata) Though it looked like a stumpy racer, the Polikarpov I-16 was very much a fighter"

WAS VERY ADVANCED FOR IT'S DAY, BUT DID HAVE A GLARING PROBLEM! WAS DIFFICULT TO FLY AND CAUSED PROBLEMS FOR PILOTS THAT WERE NOT "ON THEIR TOES" ALL THE TIME! IF THE ENEMY DID NOT SHOOT YOU DOWN, YOU MIGHT VERY WELL CRASH IF YOU WERE NOT CAREFUL!

"Though it looked like a stumpy racer, the Polikarpov I-16 was very much a fighter, and the first in the world to go into service combining cantilever monoplane wings with retractable landing gear. It was also the greatest fighter of its day, but it was slightly marred by being tricky to fly and dangerous to an inexperienced pilot."

"The aircraft soon proved to be rather difficult to fly - it was almost unstable under all three axes, and had to be flown with ceaseless attention. On the plus side, its rolls and loops were so fast as to be quite startling."

"The outbreak of Civil War in Spain on the 18th July 1936 led to urgent pleas from the Republicans to Russia for fighter aircraft. After a suitable payment in gold, Stalin dispatched a large number of I-16’s for Republican service. Straight into action, the stubby monoplane mastered most opposition with ease."

"In 1937 more than 250 I-16’s were supplied to China. These aircraft fought over China until 1943"

There were a number of "affectionate" nicknames for this aircraft:

* "The Red Army pilots nicknamed the aircraft Ishak (Russian: Ишак, Donkey)."

* "The Nationalists [Spain] nicknamed the stubby fighter "Rata" (Rat)."

* The Republicans [Spain] affectionately called it "Mosca" (Fly)."

The design of the I-16 bears a remarkable resemblance [not totally so] to the American racing aircraft, the famous Gee Bee R-1.



The Gee Bee in it's time was the FASTEST airplane in the world. Incorporated unique and advanced designs NOT SEEN anywhere else!

WAS ALSO DANGEROUS AND DIFFICULT TO FLY. SO MUCH SO THAT IT WAS SAID ONLY THREE PERSONS IN THE WORLD COULD PILOT THE AIRCRAFT, AND TWO OF THOSE WERE ALREADY DEAD!!

"But the R-1 rapidly earned a reputation as, potentially, a very dangerous machine. The small wings, very low polar moment of inertia, and tiny control surfaces made for an aircraft that could rapidly get away from all but the most skilled pilots. Unfortunately, this shortcoming was common to most air racers of the day."

Again, the huge engine way out of proportion in size to the rest of the aircraft. An airplane bolted to an engine.

Jimmy Doolittle in the years prior to World War Two [WW2] developed a cult following from his successful piloting of the Gee Bee during aircraft races.

I have often wondered if Polikarpov "borrowed" the basic design and concepts as incorporated into the Gee Bee during the design and development phase of the I-16? Or was this a case of parallel development?

coolbert.

Ekranoplan.

This is coolbert:

Here is that gigantic Soviet era float plane I remember reading about some years ago now.

The Ekranoplan. The Caspian Sea Monster.

Designed to be flown only a FEW FEET above the water. Would get a significant boost in lift from what is called "ground effect" [actually above the water in this case]!!

"Caspian Sea Monster . . . one of several Soviet military designs meant to fly only a few meters above water, saving energy"

"a vehicle resembling an aircraft but which operates solely on the principle of ground effect (in Russian эффект экрана effekt ekrana - from which the name derived). Ground effect vehicles (GEV) fly above any flat surface, with the height above ground dependent upon the size of the vehicle."



Resembles an aircraft. NO, it is an aircraft. Uses wings for lift and can fly as a conventional airplane does. Flies, however, only a few feet or so above the ground. Ekranoplan is a flying boat tremendous lift capability, range, speed [not excessive].

"Wing In Ground effect, which refers to the reduction in drag experienced by an aircraft as it approaches a height approximately twice a wingspan's length off the ground or other level surface (such as the sea) . . . has also been used to effectively enhance the performance of certain kinds of aircraft whose planform has been adapted to take advantage of it, such as the Russian ekranoplans."

"The ground effect was first encountered in the mid 1920s by pilots during taking off in and, above all, landing low-winged aircraft. There was a marked increase in wing lift, so that an aircraft continued to fly just above the ground, as though it did not want to land."

"developed by the Soviet Union as very high-speed military transports, and were based mostly on the shores of the Caspian Sea and Black Sea . . . were initially planned to enter military service in the Soviet Navy . . . to be deployed mainly for the Black and the Baltic Soviet navies."

Several comments here.

I had originally read that the Ekranoplan was designed as a hunter-killer anti-submarine aircraft. Would have incredible range and could operate over pelagic waters [deep-water] NOT confined to conventional bases. WOULD BE ABLE TO HUNT AMERICAN SUBMARINES ANY PLACE IN THE WORLD. Such a mission did not transpire.

[a fleet of refuelling vessels would be strategically located to service the Ekranoplan flying boats?! Global reach achieved with relative ease?!]

The "thing" just DOES NOT LOOK RIGHT!! As with the American "Pogo" and "Osprey", the design IS NOT RIGHT!!?? Too top-heavy and ungainly. Look at those engines on TOP and the huge tail.

This aircraft will work well over shallow bodies of water?! The Caspian Sea or the Baltic?! WOULD NOT HAVE WORKED WELL OVER A BODY OF WATER WITH CONSIDERABLE WAVE ACTION, SUCH AS THE ATLANTIC OR PACIFIC!!??

[as long as you fly in a STRAIGHT LINE, there is not problem also! As a person [myself], who has actually flown an aircraft in ground effect, I can see that just trying to TURN the plane would pose a great danger. You run the risk at very-low altitude of having a wing tip strike the water - - with catastrophic results!!]

Only a handful of the Ekranoplan ever were built. Those in existence were primarily of the concept and testing variety?!

A combat variation of the Ekranoplan was also planned. The Lun. ONLY ONE LUN ever flew!




"The aircraft was equipped for anti-submarine warfare. It was therefore fitted with six missile launchers, mounted in pairs on the dorsal surface of the fuselage, and advanced tracking systems mounted in the nose and tail."

Eight engines and six missile firing pods atop the "beast". It too looks ungainly. Does not look right!! [I am not an aeronautical engineer. But my intuitive observation of the ekranoplan is valid?!]

The Ekranoplan just were NOT as effective as one would have liked. An interesting concept worthy of "investigation". But that is about all!?

coolbert.

Buffalo.

This is coolbert:

Here is a combat aircraft from World War Two [WW2[, that when used by American/British/Dutch aviators, fared poorly in combat, BUT, when used by Finnish pilots against Soviet air forces, fared very well.

The Brewster Buffalo.

"All about the Brewster F2A Buffalo fighter of World War II, which fared so poorly against the Japanese in the Pacific but was a star in the hands of Finnish pilots flying against the Russian air force in the 'Continuation War'"

The Brewster F2A 'Buffalo' was an American fighter plane which saw limited service during World War II. In 1939, the F2A became the first monoplane fighter aircraft used by the US Navy. In December 1941, it suffered severe losses with both British Commonwealth and Dutch air forces in South East Asia, for reasons unrelated to the basic design. It also saw action with US Marine Corps squadrons at the Battle of Midway. The F2A was derided by some American servicemen as a 'flying coffin', due to poor construction and perceptions of its general performance.

"US Marine Corps"

"The US Marine Corps flew F2As at the Battle of Midway, and suffered 15 losses out of 25 aircraft. The grim outcome was the primary source for the reputation of the Brewster being one of the worst fighters flown in combat. However, the main reasons for the losses included the obsolescence of F2A-3, inexperience of USMC pilots, who attempted to enter into a World War I-style dogfight with experienced Japanese Mitsubishi Zero fighters, and the fact that the Buffalos were outnumbered and caught at a tactical disadvantage."

[those of you that have seen the movie "Midway" will remember this air battle scene! Tom Selleck is shown witnessing the massacre of the Marine pilots from the ground and remarks to himself, "damned antiques" [referring to the Buffalos]!!]

In Finland, the Brewsters enjoyed their greatest success. The aircraft did not arrive in time for the Winter War, but their impact in the Continuation War (1941-44) was remarkable.

"Despite this reputation, the F2a proved a potent weapon with the Finnish Air Force, against the Soviet Air Forces."

"The poor performance of the USMC in the aerial battle [Midway] sparked Finnish Ace Hans Wind to write his combat manual on Brewster; he analyzed the air combat, the tactical errors the Americans made and proposed tactics which the Finnish Brewster pilots were to use when encountering different types of enemy fighters. They [the tactics proposed by Wind] were later used with remarkable success in 1942-43"

The fighter was never referred to as the Buffalo in Finland; it was known [to the Finns as]:

* "the Brewster"

* "Taivaan helmi ('Sky Pearl')"

* "Pohjoisten taivaiden helmi ("Pearl of the Northern Skies")."

* "Pylly-Valtteri" ('Butt-Walter')"

* "Amerikanrauta ('American hardware' or 'American car')"

* Lentävä kaljapullo ("flying beer-bottle").

The Brewster was regarded [by the Finns] as being an excellent aircraft:

* "very easy to fly"

* "long range and endurance"

* "good maintenance record."

There were many other modifications to the B-239 that were made locally in Finland during its career. To include:

* "installation of pilot seat armor"

* "dispensed with most of the US Navy gear . . . resulting in a considerably lighter aircraft"

* "replacing the single 0.30 in (7.62 mm) machine gun with a 0.50 in (12.7 mm) machine gun."

[original versions of the Buffalo had one fifty caliber [.50] and one thirty caliber [.30] machine gun.]

* "Finnish Väisälä T.h.m.40 sights, which were based on the Revi 3c — were installed"

* "metric instruments"

The Finns were able to do with the Brewster as the Israelis were able to do with the American F-4 "Phantom" decades later. Take the basic aircraft and make modifications that "created" a more potent and deadly weapons system.

It is obvious to me why the Buffalo was a success when used by the Finns but not a success when employed by the American/British/Dutch aviators. The Finns maximized the pluses of the aircraft in combat while avoiding the weaknesses. Did NOT engage in aerial battles when the circumstances were to the detriment of the Finns. Use the aircraft [or any other weapons system for that matter] appropriately and you will be victorious.

Is it as simple as that??

coolbert.

Grrrrrr!!!

This is coolbert:

If you have Boeing stock, news is good for shareholders. Boeing sales are up for the year, with results beyond expectations? The mix of civilian and MILITARY sales provides in both fat and lean times.

The latest Boeing military aircraft just released for operational use by the U.S. Navy is the EA-18. The “Growler”




Replacing the “Prowler [EA-6]”. Get it? “Prowler” replaced by the “Growler”!



The “Prowler” was a DEDICATED electronic warfare aircraft that first saw service in 1971. Now to be supplanted by a more robust, agile, and versatile aircraft, the “Growler”!

The “Growler” will evidently have a two-fold mission:

* Conventional electronic warfare [EW].

* SEAD [Suppression Enemy Air Defense].

The functions of the “Prowler” [EW] and the “Wild Weasel” [SEAD] all rolled into one.

This is sound!! Take an existing proven winner, the F-18 Hornet, modify the fuselage, add an additional crewmember [Electronic Warfare Officer] along with the most-up-to-date EW “suite” AND a capability to employ ARM and HARM missiles, and you have an EVEN MORE PROVEN WINNER!!

[the entire panoply of EW equipment taken as a system is referred to as a “suite”!]

The Russians too have taken a proven winner [the MiG-25], modified it, and came up a NEW, improved, much more robust and versatile aircraft. This is the MiG-31 [“Foxhound”]. An aircraft that has a slightly different mission than the “Growler”. The MiG-31 is a DEDICATED air defense [AD] aircraft with an autonomous capability. As with the “Growler”, a modified fuselage, an additional crewmember [again, the Electronic Officer], new engines, a brand-new air defense “suite”!



The MiG-31 also has improved engines and will sport the latest Russian air-to-air missiles!!?? And can play the SEAD role too!! A MiG-31 in the AD or SEAD role can employ the:

* AA-9 Amos.

* AA-X-13 Arrow.

* AA-6 Acrid.

* AA-8 Aphid.

* AA-11 Archer.

* AA-12 Adder.

* AS-17 Krypton [ARM].

* AS-11 Kilter [ARM].

Very impressive, isn't it!! Dig this stuff too. Four MiG-31's are all that is needed to provide air defense coverage for the entire British Isles!!??

coolbert