sovietwarplanes.com
March 24, 2017, 07:54:15 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The site's front page has been updated!
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Hurricane - detailed drawings of VVS fitted ShVAK cannon, UB guns, RS-82 rockets  (Read 10545 times)
Troy Smith
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 349


« on: October 12, 2010, 06:25:35 AM »

I mentioned this in a previous topic on 2 seat VVS Hurricanes.  
A while back I asked on Hyperscale about the regunning of the Hurricane, and was emailed drawings by Sergey Kosachev of Vector.

Points to note are the slight asymmetric layout of UB  guns in each wing. This is better shown in the frontal view with the dimensions in mm from the centre line.  I presume this is due to allowing for the ammo feeds of UB guns?  

The added underwing plates with the spent cartridges slots. These well the show the asymmetry of the UB's.

Small plates round the UB guns one wing leading edge.

The asymmetry of the RS-82 mountings.

I added in a photo of the ShVAK cannon, the grey object top left, to the same scale.  The rear gun access hatch looks a little narrow in the drawings, but the important details are well shown and look accurate.
I'm not sure why there are scrap views of the nose included in the drawings, but do provide some useful details.






this is with the internals of A type 4 gun wing shown.  The gun bays of the B type had an extra two browning fitted outboard of the landing light, but were not used by the VVS.




I will have to follow up the US restoration of a Hurricane with VVS guns, which has the VVS added mounting parts still in place, the email i got had the fascinating detail that the holes in the spar had been enlarged with a hammer!  They did say they would provide me with photos, if OK i will post here, or failing that, add drawings.

And, yes, i want to do a VVS Hurricane with the gun bays open!

note, UBT is often quoted as the gun fitted, but UBT is the Turret specification of the UB gun,
"Continued development resulted in the improved UB which came in three versions: UBK (Kрыльевой, Krylyevoi, for the wings), UBS (Синхронный, Sinkhronniy, Synchronized), and UBT (Турельный, Turelniy, for the turret), with UBS and UBK charged by compressed air."

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berezin_UB

also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ShVAK_cannon

Note that wiki gives lengths, so it is possible to get an idea of  scale from the walkrounds below.

http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/yuri_pasholok/shvak_20mm_aircraft_cannon/

http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/yuri_pasholok/ub_aircraft_machinegun/

http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/yuri_pasholok/ubt_aircraft_machinegun/

cheers
T

« Last Edit: October 12, 2010, 09:46:24 AM by Troy Smith » Logged
John Thompson
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1452



« Reply #1 on: October 12, 2010, 09:01:46 AM »

Great drawings, Troy - thanks for sharing! I doubt the model you're planning will be 1/72 scale, but just in case, you might be interested in these cast bronze guns from Mini World; the UBT and UBS are included in the range, but no ShVAK, so far:
http://plastic-models-store.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=30_34&sort=20a&filter_id=31&alpha_filter_id=0

John
Logged
KL
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1663


« Reply #2 on: October 12, 2010, 11:11:15 AM »

Troy, thanks for sharing!  Smiley

I am sick of those “fascinating details” about the primitive Russians.  Tells a lot about the attitude of those restaurateurs.  Did they provide any other, more relevant detail?

Isn't that only one of the stereotypes about the Soviet Union and Russians???



I am sure that every Western mechanic has a hammer in his tool box.

Cheers,
KL

Logged
learstang
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1659



WWW
« Reply #3 on: October 12, 2010, 11:26:58 AM »

Good point, Konstantin!  It's interesting how those "primitive" Soviets were able to get the B-25's to fly during the Russian winter, because when they first arrived from the U.S., with their nice fit and finish, and all their fancy radio and navigation equipment, they were useless for winter flying.  Hard to fly with burst tyres, ruptured batteries, broken hydraulic lines, etc.  (I know someone will point out that they weren't designed for the Russian winter, but the point is that the Soviets were very good at improvisation, such as winterising Lend-Lease aircraft.)

By the way, very nice pictures, Troy, and very timely as I had just asked on another thread about the Soviet armament on the Hurricane.  Thank you!

Regards,

Jason
Logged

"I'll sleep when I'm dead."

- Warren William Zevon

http://www.learstang.com
Troy Smith
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 349


« Reply #4 on: October 12, 2010, 01:03:22 PM »

Troy, thanks for sharing!  Smiley

I am sick of those “fascinating details” about the primitive Russians.  Tells a lot about the attitude of those restaurateurs.  Did they provide any other, more relevant detail?

Isn't that only one of the stereotypes about the Soviet Union and Russians???

I am sure that every Western mechanic has a hammer in his tool box.

Cheers,
KL

Hi Konstantin
no more details as yet, i'm split between 2 computers to the moment, and the emails are on the other one!

The plane is question, again, the details are at home but I was looking at an aviation magazine I got for 10 pence! I got a few a missed that this one had a VVS Hurricane restoration!!! When i looked it had a small pic of a detail i have been looking for for ages, actually HOW the guns were mounted, well, in this case, rusty metal strips in the bottom of the gunbay.  I emailed the restorer and he emailed me back, one of the things he said the surprise at how the holes had been enlarged, but the needs of war it made sense.  He said that he would send me pics. I will contact him again.  I don't think he was being derogatory.

Just a very different attitude to machinery as well, in one book there is a report that the Soviets complained about poor performance from Merlins engines, Rolls Royce sent technical staff who found 50 engines outside rusting providing spares for engines installed at great improvisation already, saying that Russian planes worked OK under these circumstances. 

50 years of cold war propaganda does not go away overnight, it was in Soviet interest to play down the sheer amount of materiel supplied, and also to complain about how it was not as good as Soviet equipment, the lend-lease site has plenty of Russian moaning about Hurricanes, while I have never read similar complaints from RAF pilots though.
The British complained about how if the planes are not maintained properly, or they don't get 100 octane fuel they won't work properly. 
Yes, some equipment supplied to the Soviets was not cutting edge equipment, like the Hurricane, but was there, and was used until better came along,  but much was essential to the Soviets in their fight. (the 6x6 truck is a good example, see below)
yes, equipment needed modification for use in Russia, but Soviet industry was not capable of producing certain items to the required standard either.   The ultimate expression of this is reverse engineered B-29 as the Tu-4.

I think Mr Carl-Fredrik Geust puts it better than me.

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/geust/aircraft_deliveries.htm

" In addition to the aircraft deliveries American Lend-lease deliveries to Russia included also more than 400.000 trucks, over 12.000 tanks and other combat vehicles, 32.000 motorcycles, 13.000 locomotives and railway cars, 8.000 anti-aircraft cannons and machine-guns, 135.000 submachine guns, 300.000 tons of explosives, 40.000 field radios, some 400 radar systems, 400.000 metal cutting machi­ne tools, several million tons of foodstuff, steel, other metals, oil and gasoline, chemicals etc. A price tag was naturally attached to all deliveries, with following typical fighter prices:

P-40 Kittyhawk - 44.900 dollars, P-39 Airacobra - 50.700 dollars and P-47 Thunderbolt - 83.000 dollars.

Regardless of Soviet cold-war attempts to forget (or at least diminish) the importance of Lend-lease, the total impact of the Lend-Lease shipment for the Soviet war effort and entire national economy can only be characterized as both dramatic and of decisive importance. The outcome of the war on the East front might well have taken another path without Lend-lease. There were undoubtedly big difficulties in the early period: aircraft modified for tropical conditions were delivered to Arctic ports, Russian-language instructions were lacking, a big number of aircraft were grounded because of lack of spa­res, ammunition, bombs or high-octane fuel. Soon many technical problems 'were overcome, Soviet guns and bomb racks were installed, and numerous other technical improvisa­tions were made in Soviet AF frontal units. Soviet specialists developed also ingenious technical improvements and modifi­cations of the original aircraft versions. In parallel the new American technology was systematically investigated in research and design institutes, and the total impact for the modernization of the Soviet aviation industry was certainly immense. The ultimate peak of this learning process was the post-war copying of the Boeing B-29 in only two years time, resulting in the Soviet nuclear-bomb carrier Tu-4.

Lend-lease aircraft amounted to 18% of all aircraft in the Soviet air forces, 20% of all bombers, and 16-23% of all fighters (numbers vary depending on calculation methods), and 29% of all naval aircraft. In some AF commands and fronts the proportion of Lend-Lease aircraft was even higher: of the 9.888 fighters delivered to the air defense (PVO) fighter units in 1941-45 6.953 (or over 70%!) were British or American. In the AF of the Karelian front lend-lease aircraft amounted to about two-thirds of all combat aircraft in 1942-43, practically all torpedo bombers of the naval air forces were A-20G Bostons in 1944-45 etc.

Some American aircraft types were simply irreplaceable and very highly appreciated on all levels during the war, e.g. P-39 Airacobra fighters, A-20 Boston and B-25 Mitchell bombers and C-47 transport aircraft."

personally I'm fascinated by the VVS modifications of British and US equipment, there is a thread in in itself about modifications of the A-20, fitting of Soviet turrets and the modification of gun noses

Anyway, more when I get more to post.

It's a pleasure to share this with you VVS afficionados!

cheers
T
Logged
marluc
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 419



« Reply #5 on: October 12, 2010, 07:21:59 PM »

Thanks Troy for sharing these great drawings and the good information.Greetings.

Martin
Logged
Graham Boak
Full Member
***
Posts: 100


« Reply #6 on: October 13, 2010, 05:13:37 AM »

I hope no-one believes that Russian aircraft engines wouldn't rust if left outside in all weathers?  As an answer, it sounds like bluster from someone caught out.  The Russians did have problems maintaining the Merlin, but the lack of 100 octane is enough to explain the lack of performance without added rust.  The Russian engines were significantly larger, with lower boost.

I assure you that there are plenty of examples of RAF pilots complaining of the Hurricane's shortcomings as a frontline fighter in 1942, and that's with the benefit of 100 octane and superior spares/training provision.  It was past its best: however, it should still have been superior to the I-16, as intially noted during the handover.
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!