Ilyushin IL-2 Sturmovik, Airframe, Connecting Rods and more
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 чер 2024
- Please support this channel:
/ gregsairplanesandautom...
Paypal: mistydawne2010@yahoo.com
My previous IL-2 video: • Ilyushin IL-2 Sturmovik
My Soviet P-39 video: • P-39 Airacobra U.S. vs... - Авто та транспорт
![The British Bomber That Looked Utterly Ridiculous | Handley Page Heyford [Aircraft Overview #91]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A4tr_INSnjk/mqdefault.jpg)
Love the Shturmovik pointing at the McDonald's arch.
That picture really says a lot.
Thanks to Putin, it's now called "Tasty, and That's It"
Just rolls off the tongue, eh? The food I mean.
As it's coming back up for air 😂🤮
IL-2 is the true Hero of the Soviet Union
@@NINE93THREEtasty period
@@Rokaize
Vkusno i tochka
Hey Greg! Thanks for all the time and energy you spend in putting out such high quality content. I really enjoy your videos!
Thanks Duffy
Totally agree!
There are many (way too many) persons who upload videos on UA-cam who do not have their facts straight!
Greg is shining example of someone who does his homework first and creates videos there after, and it clearly shows!
Quality content like this is like a breath of fresh air!
And I for one am grateful that he does put in all this effort.
Greetings bibia.
PS: ya'll remember to smash the 👍button, it's the least we could do 😉
Absolutely we’re all thankful for your dedication, especially your research, accuracy & precision. The Merlin was a knife ‘n blade conrod setup, but it has a effect on the firing order too.
H’mm so the Il-2 has a master slave conrod setup, reminds me of a certain tractor like motorcycle.
Self-sealing fuel tanks. I remember, I guess it was in the 90s, a german war plane was discovered in the ocean outside Copenhagen Airport.
I read that they were impressed that the rubber making the self-sealing still was "fresh".
Pretty impressive after 50 years in salt water.
I really appreciate this series. As an old fart (I'm 81) I have had a deep interest in WW2, and have learned a great deal about U.S., BRITISH and German fighters and bombers. However, Russian air planes have not been covered by the media. It has been very educational to hear about this plane. Breaking it into several videos has been great. Looking forwared to future videos. Thank you.
Nice to see the older folk join in on youtube, gregs videos have taught me so much aswell
You have a really good narrator’s voice.
I often love falling asleep to your videos (I mean that as a compliment, I have ADHD and if I don’t have something interesting to listen to while falling asleep, then my mind starts to wander and I am no longer sleepy when it does that). I really like how you deep dive into details that aren’t covered in most documentaries. I enjoy the 30 min runtime of the videos.
Interesting, I have it as well, and often use your same technique. I ‘discovered’ the phenomenon while watching The Universe series and found I was able to fall asleep reasonably (for guys like us) predictably. The problem I often have is I’ll wake up after an episode had completed, my mind starts going random, and I’d have to start the whole procedure over again. ADHD and insomnia really go hand in hand, it seems, and neither are no joke.
I hope you’re able to get medication if it would help you like it does for me.
i’m also part of this club. it just works, but i’m annoyed sometimes in the morning realising i only got to listen to whichever interesting content i chose for about fifteen minutes before drifting off.
About the Luftwaffe usage of Cannon vs Machine Guns- IMO it wasn't because of designed to take on the Russians or the British etc. The original models of the BF-109 was armed with 2 7.92mm machine guns. Experience in Spain quickly showed this wasn't enough, so they experimented with various weapons loadouts in the A-D models, including 2 nose MG, 3 nose MG, 2 Nose MG & 2 wing MG, 2 nose MG & 1 prop cannon, 2 nose MG and 2 wing cannon, etc, etc. All of these were tested before the war
True but the engine was designed for a central cannon ab initio.
This seemed an obvious point to me: both the 109 and 190 armament were settled before the Luftwaffe encountered with B17s or IL2s. The real outliers were the British with their eight 303s.
I suspect but can't prove that putting a 20mm onto a fighter was so obviously advantageous in the late 30s, it did not need combat lessons to be learnt for it to happen.
@@ThorneyedWT but the 2cm gun was preferred, from the start, the luftwaffe had to catch up with the rest of the world first, and that's why they used 8mm.
There's way more to it, but long story short is the 2cm was first choice.
Greetings bibia.
I am glad to see all the VVS people making their interests known.
And a big thanks to Greg for his work.
What's a VVS?
@@jimmydesouza4375 Soviet Air Force, at least in World War II.
@@amerigo88 Thanks.
@@jimmydesouza4375
Voenno-vozdushnye sily Rossii
It's easier to spell VVS.
Greg noting that Patreon folks have a say is not hype. The voting for this was strong. Then again, you listen to him and you know - *you just know* - that Greg is immune to hype 😂
As far as I am aware overheating was and still is primarily an issue with the Shovels and Ironheads of the seventies, due to a combination of iron jugs, increasing compression and changes in the pump gas mixture that didn't really suit these motors. On a hot day you could cook them good. I once had blue smoke belching out of the oiltank when I took off the cap. It is like riding a barbeque.
It was the whole motor that suffered, not just a rear cylinder problem. That's why we have oil coolers on those things.
The Evo design cured the overheating with aluminum cylinders and a better head design for modern gas. I never needed an oil cooler on one of those.
Every now and then somebody put a rear cylinder air scoop on a Shovel or some sort of in between cylinder fan setup, but that never caught on big. Unlike the oil coolers.
So I'm inclined to believe from my experience that the oil is the number one important thing in cooling my Harleys.
If you think I'm wrong and it is primarily a matter of air flow, go somewhere where a bunch of Shovels and Ironheads are gathered for some oldtimer ride out or fair or whatnot and count the oil coolers, the fans and the scoops. If you can actually find a bike with a fan or a scoop. To me that says it all.
Fork and blade connecting rods are used on Harley-Davidson V-twins, which is why their cylinders are not offset. One advantage is that it restricts all the vibration to one plane.
And if you have ride an HD motorcycle you know that vibration..., on a plane that can not be good✈️ 🤔..
But on a bike 🚲it's all right 😅.
Greetings bibia.
Yes but it also hides the rear cylinder behind the front one, causing heating problems. With its massive clutch basket, the engine is already wide, so I can't understand the design.
@@yetanotherjohnairflow is not how air cooled motorcycle engines cool.
Ahhhh, Harleys, turning gasoline directly into vibration.
I'm kidding, there's some forward movement created too.
@@TheJustinJthen why do Ducatis orient their fins differently on the vertical and horizontal cylinders?
I mean, you're partially right, like air-cooled aircraft engines they are air _and_ oil cooled, but remove those cylinder fins and you'd have issues.
We call it anchor connecting rods , the same design is used in the russian T34 V2 engine.the longest build combustion engine.
I am still struck that it is similair to the master rod scheme used in radials. One connecting rod has a big end that attaches to the crankshaft, the other connecting rod(s) attaches via a pin to the first rod.
A brief history of AM-38 engine starts with M-17, that was a licensed copy of famous German midwar BMW VI and also had articulated connecting rods. Mikulin redesigned it introducing fork and blade connection rods, increasing power but keeping M17s dimensions and seats and named it M-34 (or AM-34). Subsequent power enhansing modifications had shorter lifetime until heavily redesigned and strengthed AM-34FRN (this redesign surprisingly included fallback to articulated connecting rods). Then it was modified to AM-35/AM35A and finally to AM-38.
Additionally, M-17/BMW -> M-34 transition involved migration from separate cylinders to engine banks blocks while retaining engine bore/stroke
The Soviets licensed the Hispano-Suiza 12Y engine, which used the articulated connecting rods, which became the Klimov M-100 and was developed into the M-105 used in the wartime Yaks. So I would bet that Mikulin borrowed the design of the connecting rods from the Klimov engines.
@@sturmvogel661 Most likely this is not the case. BMW VI originally had the same rod design and look at timeline: BMW VI (1926) - M-17 (1930) - M-34 (1932-40) - AM-35 (1941) - AM-38 (1941) vs 12Ybrs (1934 - true precursor of Klimov's line) - M-100 (1935) - M-103 (1937) - M-105 (1940). Mikulin probably did have a chance to make himself familiar with Hispano engine but articulated rod wasn't something new for him at that point.
Looking forward to this, I've been a fan of the IL 2 for a long time. I think Soviet WW2 era aeroplanes deserve to be better known.
Just ignore the gulag, slave and dissident labor.
1) USSR was less an ally and more a co-belligerent relative to the English-speaking nations and their future military historians.
2) Access to Soviet military and aerospace history was limited during and after WW2.
3) Modern English speakers largely lack a personal connection to the warfare on the Eastern Front. No father, grandfather, uncle, or female relatives typically served.
4) Frankly, given Stalin's totalitarian state, the purges, the gulag archipelago, the holmodor, Soviet espionage against the West, and the ingratitude for Lend-Lease aid reduced the Soviets to being viewed as barely better than the Nazis.
Greg tends to be highly apolitical, covering all WW2 aircraft pretty even-handedly.
Recent Russian behavior in Chechnya, South Ossetia, Georgia, Syria, Crimea, and Ukraine hasn't improved perceptions of the Soviet contributions to the Allied victory.
@@UkrainianPaulie what does any of this have to do with tony's comment?
@@thegenericguy8309 Thanks for you comment. Just for the record, I have no illusions about the Soviet Union or present day Russia either. I was born in 1949 and lived through the Cold War under threat of Nuclear War. One of my abiding memories is of the Cuban Missile Crises, which at the time I really believed was going to end in war. I have read extensively on the history the Soviet Union and of Russia both before and since the USSR, and am well aware of, and do not excuse, the horrors perpetrated upon the peoples of those lands. With regard the present war between Russia and Ukraine, my support and sympathies are fully with Ukraine, and I wish more than I can express for an early and just end to this Russian aggression.
All the above being said, this channel is about aeroplanes, and I have always had an interest in, and admiration for, many of the aeroplanes produced in Russia and the countries that comprised the USSR, in the same way that I have an interest in the aeroplanes and warships produced by Germany during WW1 and 2, even though my maternal grandfather was badly injured during a bombing raid by them during WW2, and going back to WW1, he faced the German High Seas Fleet at Jutland as a member of the crew of HMS Marlborough. I would hope we can look at the technology and admire what the engineers produced without needing to give the impression that we excuse the politicians their crimes.
Hey Greg, I also wanted to share my gratitude for your work and effort that you put into making this amazing videos with such attention to detail. You should have your own History of Military Aviation Channel on TV by now. Love to hear that voice and your manner of speaking is enjoyable. Thank you.
TV is not interested in accuracy or detail. They are only interested in mass-market sensationalism to garner more views. There aren't enough smart people in the TV audience to generate that view count. Aliens are the answer. And the dumber and more preposterous the story, the better.
Love this content. Very in depth and with a cautious aproach to known ”facts”. I cant get enough of it
17:35 One more point on going to single-seater is that it shifted the balance of a plane so that it would be controllable. Here is a playlist about the history of development and production of IL-2, but it is in russian and the series themselves are out of order /playlist?list=PL9ybxsKzafo0IzO1QClOWLbEzJWn_BgKj . It dives really deep into the history of IL-2 with archive documents and letters of the people involved.
I can listen to Greg talk plane engines for hours snd still be entertained. Top motch videos with incredible detail
"There is so much to talk about this airplane, that it's going to take multiple videos". I'm in!
Yep. That is a strange connecting rod setup indeed. The roller-bearing rods are a work of art but ye gods the expense!😳
It should be considered that back then there weren't any computers or complex models to calculate strength of a new conrod. So it's possible that a once licensed concept would be used for longer because there's a lot of empirical data on it. Especially in a wartime when resources, tooling and time for prototyping are scares.
Very Germanic. The Germans loved their roller bearings, even using them in tank engines. Meanwhile the Americans were moving on to modern thin shell bearings.
Now I think I understand why Daimler-Benz 6xx (classified as an excellent powerplant) had a different stroke and manifold pressure for left and right backs!
For all the talk about the ruggedness and armor of the IL-2, I think it's chief advantage was that there was a metric crap ton of these things built.
Like, _"Our Il-2's will blot out the sky!"_ type of numbers.
Agreed. Quantity has a quality all its own.
One thing to note is that there were also production IL-2's with original straight wings but added (unarmoured) gunner position under the new long canopy. The lack of armour was specifically because adding the armour would shift the center of gravity.
Yes, there were many versions, I couldn't cover them all, but there was a production two seater with an unarmored gunner position, there were a lot of them.
The main idea about a special ground attack plane i can find in soviet literature is that during a cas strike, everyone shoots at a plane. Infantry with their rifles and mashineguns included. You can also find photos from 1941 when soviet soliders are trying to shoot german planes with rifles and maxim mgs. So the most lead coming towards an attacking plane is rifle caliber rounds and if the plane is resistant to it (the critical systems that can be fatally damaged by rifle bullet) it will drastically increase its combat survivability. I've also came across some bf109 pilots' complaints about cas sorties in 1941, they stated they are too risky, because there are numerous occasions when a lucky rifle shot damages the engine/cooling system/wounds the pilot, and the 109 can't make it home
Most accurate WWII airplane contentt I know on youtube, with some valid opinions on top
Absolutely love you talking about Soviet planes, especially the IL-2. I'm binging the whole IL-2 series today :)
Great video. By the way...the german nickname for the IL2 was concrete mixer.
Greg,
I was so happy to watch this.
So I joined your Patreon.
Thank you for your work, particularly on the VVS.
I encourage all other Russo/German history viewers to do the same.
.
ZA RODINU!!!
Thank you very much.
The USA did field a small number (500) of ground attack/dive bomber planes, the A-36, a version of the P-51.
Thanks for your videos, they are very well done and very informative.
The 190f is a good comparison. The hawker typhoon would be another choice. Love this series of programs on the IL2
When he says, "this is going to take multiple videos" I got excited :-D Thanks!
I recently visited the Flying Heritage and Combat Armor Museum. They have a Flying IL 2 along with a lot of other really cool pieces of history. It's absolutely worth a visit! Thank you Greg for all the work put into your videos.
One of the best aviation WW2 murseums in the world. Thanks to Paul Allen.
Presently working on a Stuka restoration.
Their IL2 is powered by a allison v12
For some reason, I read your first sentence as, "I was visited by..." and was thoroughly confused. lol
And then there's the story of "Ivan" the aircraft designer. The names are changed to protect surviving descendants.
A young aircraft designer was assigned to a new bureau and saw his predecessor being led away in chains.
"Ivan", he cried. "What did you do"?
"I told Stalin the new plane would go 400mph and it only goes 390 so he's sending me to prison".
"Ivan. Why didn't you tell him it would only go 390mph"?
"Because Dimitri told him it would only go 385 and was shot on the spot"!
Cheers!
next time i'm cold i'm going to think of those rear gunners in the open cockpits.
Another factor in limiting rpm is the shear size of the engine. Pistons can only move so fast up and down the cylinder before they start having problems with rings. When you have a long stroke engine the distance the piston must travel during one revolution of the crank will be greater than for an otherwise similar engine with a shorter stroke. The only way to prevent piston overspeed is to reduce the redline, which limits the peak horsepower capability of the engine. I don't know that this was the case with this engine but, back when it was designed, piston velocity was often a limiting factor in engine performance.
I really enjoy your indepth videos. Unlike many others you seem to know what you are talking about.
The Russians used the same con-rod set-up in their V12 diesel engines used in their tanks. Great video Greg, thanks :-)
I worked at a power plant for many years , part of the time early on i worked at a diesel power at a sub station. Seems like there was very large engine there that had a version of that arrangement. I never worked on it only what i was told..
Another great video, thank you, Greg! Very interesting pieces of information even though the air war on the Eastern Front has been one area of interest for me for many years.
Honestly, I can't wait to see you tackle the the workhorse of the VVS RKKA, the Yak-series fighter(s), some day. I've read so many interviews with Soviet veterans where they discuss how the M-105P/PA/PF Yak came close but never couldn't quite match the Bf 109... unless they received rather rare well build unit from the factory, had a good maintenance crew, used 100 octane US fuel, and then could take on the '109 in the vertical.
Not to mention the M-107, that engine has such a conflicted history...
You'd probably have some fun also reading the post war interviews with junior staff at the design bureaus, as they decades later reveal secrets about the infighting and political influence game between the bureaus and the factories, and the poor air force having to deal with it all.
And especially the amount of accusations against Yakovlev for being the worst engineer but also the best at backstabbing, sabotage, and being dangerous to know.
The IL-2 has acquired a mystical reputation just like the T--34 tank and the Katyusha rockets.
I am very happy you are doing another big series on the IL-2, your Jug series was just amazing. I like your comment on how the P-40 wing loading is higher than an IL-2 with the same Power/weight. In the game IL-2, the IL-2 41 easily beats a P-40 in a turn fight. Have you gone back and tried dog fighting the IL-2 in the game IL-2?
I am sure you will say in another video that the main reason the IL-2 was shot down in droves when it should be able to fight back is the pilots who flew it were not trained in dog fighting. It is interesting flying German and shooting down IL-2s with pilots who only ground attack because you know they could fight back, but they are just easy targets if they don't know how. I wonder what would have happened if every IL-2 pilot had a few hundred hours of dog fighting instruction and practice before going into combat.
Pointless speculation because if a pilot had that much experience and training, they would have been retained for the fighter groups instead.
Also, such flying heroes would have been viewed as politically unreliable.
@@GeneralJackRipper It is not pointless speculation because it would have been very useful to teach the IL-2 pilots how to dogfight because the plane could dogfight. The VVS just did not train their pilots very well.
In the game IL-2, the early IL-2 can dogfight pretty well. It turns very well, can take a lot of damage and has very good guns. It is not a fighter, but it can put up a fight if you know how to dogfight.
if every IL-2 pilot had a few hundred hours of dogfighting instruction they would not have been numerous enough to crew IL-2s as they rolled off the line and the IL-2 would have failed to be used in the numbers needed
@@thegenericguy8309 Maybe a few hundred is a bit much, more like 1 hundred hours of instruction and practice. They could have trained the pilots before the war much more and had a much better training pipeline, but they didn't
The Hispano-Suiza was influential on Soviet liquid cooled engines, being copied and then used as a basis for modified and derived designs just as the Cyclones and Wasps did for Soviet air-cooled engines.
Licensed. Not copied.
M-100 = Hispano-Suiza 12Ybrs, then developed by V.Klimov into M-103, M-105(VK-105), VK-106, VK-107, VK-108...
M-17 = BMW VI, then developed by A.Migulin into M-34, AM-35, AM-38, AM-42...
M-25 = Wright «Cyclone» F-3, then developed by A.Shvetsov into M-62, M-63, M-71, M-82(ASh-82), ASh-73...
M-85 = Gnome-Rhône «Mistral Majeure» 14Kdrs, then developed into M-86, M-87, M-88, M-89, M-90... Chief designers are A.Nazarov, then Ye.Urmin, then S.Tumansky.
So it's like the Vickers 6-ton of engines?
That rod setup is also used on the Harley Davidson V-Twin engine, such as my 1950 Panhead.
I have learned something totally new thanks to Greg! I had no idea how the Il-2s engine worked. The crankshaft/connecting rod design is really interesting. As an aside, it’s really hard to find clear pictures of these engine parts as I was trying to illustrate them to some folks at work. Thanks again Greg!
Excellent, as usual, Greg. The whole discussion of connecting rods and crankshafts was fascinating to an old airplane and hot rod enthusiast. The "articulated" rod arrangement was totally new to me - I've never heard it presented or discussed before. I confess I'd also never thought in terms of space requirements for the offset of opposite cylinder banks in the more typical "V"-type engines. Anyway, good stuff, and I look forward to the next one.
magisterial and superb scholarship, as always. i enjoy all your videos so very much. thank you!
I am really horrible viewer because I usualy forget to like the videos even if I really like it.. this time you said theres gonna be multiple videos and my brain rang alarm bell to hit that button straight away :D love your content no matter what part of the globe its pointing to... thank you very much for keeping me entertained
Thanks, Greg. I just watched your explanation of the different connecting rods in aircraft engines from the WW2 Era. I was an automotive machinest for nearly all my working life and have been retired many years, now. I have worked on and with many different con-rods over the years and have remachined and rebuilt engines of many different types from air cooled 2 cycle engines small enough to hold 4 or 5 at one time in one hand all the way up to marine engines so large a man can open a door in the crankcase and walk into the engine. (Of course while not running) With all that experience though, I've never run across an engine like the one you described as used in the IL2, at least not one with rods like that. I guess it worked for them but it seems sort of like betting on the three legged race horse. I understand the IL2 was a Tough airplane that did its job well but dang, seems like if they would have given up 6 or 8 inches more for length they may have gotten much more power from that engine with a "conventional" layout. I'm far from an expert and just thinking out loud about this but I can't believe they designed and built that engine the way they did just to save less than a foot of length. I must have missed something I guess or probably just are not as smart as I think I am more likely.
Charles, I'm right with you on this. I think it's a really poor solution for a connection rod. When I look at it I think it's a miracle it worked at all.
Thanks Greg, you're always managing to find some most interesting airplanes. Your Videos are simply the best I have found yet.
Really looking forward to the next installment and have enjoyed the parts I've watched so far.
Just a note, V engines with separate rods, pairs of which share a single rod journal should only have a left to right cylinder offset equal to the thickness of one rod at the crank journal end. Displacement / bore size would not change this. So the total length of the engine between conventional separate rods and articulating or fork and blade designs, all else being equal should only be the thickness of a rod. So we are talking about an inch. The exception would be boxer engines where the rods do not share a journal so you have a bearing journal in between each rod, thus more offset between left and right banks. You see this in Porsche, Subaru and other boxers where the offset is very noticeably large.
You are right about the width of the con-rod being the extra engine length.
There are many other reasons, including the great difficulty in calculating harmonic resonance with slide rules in the 1930s. It's greatly simplified to keep the torque impulse centered between the main bearings. This probably allowed a significant reduction in crankshaft weight. Instead of having to deal with asymmetric impulses.
Its also worth noting, that plain bearings were in their infancy at this time with bearing pressure limits of around 2,000psi. (Later 3-4,000psi due to manufacturing improvements by Allison). When you are severely limited in bearing pressure and you have a large piston with forced induction, you have to spread that pressure impulse across both bearings as evenly as possible.
Yes, it is the thickness of the rods that determines this.
Just cuting away the rear guners canope is such a soviet solution.
Mikulin's engines are direct development from M-17, which was licensed version of BMW VI. And connecting rods in IL-2 are directly inherited from BMW VI.
At around 7:30 when you mention the rear section of the IL2 being made of wood, I am reminded of a German Memoir I read recently (it was the odd case of Bruno Friesen, a Canadian/German being "sent back to the Fatherland" pre WW2, and ended up as part of a Panzer Crew. One of his recollections was how they learned that concentrated Mg34 fire, when aimed at the rear sections of the IL2 would literally 'shear off' the tail of the craft. Nothing heavier was needed, as long as you avoided aiming at the armored parts of the aircraft.
as a 24 year old aviation fanatic your content is fantastic! its really cool to hear about all of the deep, detailed, and very researched information you get into. bravo in regards to all of your videos.
17:30 The plane on the picture is BsH-2 (TsKB-55), equipped with AM-35 engine. Pre-series plane is based upon TsKB-57 project, equipped with AM-38, which had larger fuel consumption. At the time, Ilyushin could not make a plane, that had both the range and the tail gunner with AM-38.
Tech counsil of the VVS asked Ilyushin to build
1. On the second prototype to get rid of all the shortcomings, equip it with AM-38 engine, improve stability by changing the wing to swept design, add on the fuel tank, improve visibilty for pilot AND NAVIGATOR by 15 of june 1940
2. On the BsH-2 equipped with AM-35 add on 23mm guns by the 1 of june 1940
Source: Авиация и Космонавтика. Перов В., Растренин О. Штурмовик Ил-2
It goes in depth on the issue
Here is a fun topic - diesel engines on planes. It was surprising to me, that the only engine, that soviets could reliably use on long range bombers (Er-2) was Charomsky's M-30.
An excellent series on one of the most important combat aircraft of WWII. As to the articulated connecting rods, I recall that the Roll Royce Vulture X24 engine was defeated in part by its use of articulated rods.
Thanks for putting out these great videos Greg
Fascinating, as always. Thanks.
Excellent video as usual!
Great video, thanks for all your work.
Really liking this series on IL-2, thanks.
Awesome video as always Greg and thanks for continuing this series. Can’t wait for the next one :)
Hi. Just want to add that Hispano-suiza engines were produced in USSR by license. It had designation of M-105 and was issued to the Yak-1 plane and LaGG-3. I believe that's was one of the reasons why they used articulated connecting rods on this AM-38 engine. Simply because it was easier, faster and cheaper to use something that they already know how to implement it in their engine design, produce and maintain
I have time in like an hour or two. I will watch it then. Please don't think that this is boring or unimportant subject. I'll watch the %$^&# out of all your IL-2 videos. And all your videos in general.
Another informative video on the famous IL-2. Learned some more good stuff today.
The il 2 is pretty cool. Learned a bunch. Thanks Greg.
Great video! Interesting and accurate technical info, that’s what I love from your channel, thanks a lot!
Great. Good details
Excellent as always
Very excited to see this series is continuing!
Great video Greg!!!!
Thanks for your detailed documentary on the Il2, I look forward to part3.
Great as always Greg. Looking forward to the next part on the Il-2.
Thank you Greg, another great video.
Woo hoo thanks Greg was hoping you will do this next part fantastic
Неплохой обзор.Про Ил-2 в русскоязычном сегменте очень много написано,теперь и англоязычные читатели многое для себя откроют.
Thanks.
Tnx, nice in detail part about the engine!
Great! Thanx Greg!
Another masterpiece from Greg!
Fantastic. This answered a lot of questions I had about the Il-2. I'd long since given up hope for answers so it's been a pretty pleasant surprise.
"stay tuned.." the most exciting words I have heard all day. thanks for another great installment!
Very interesting miniseries Greg.
Thanks for this, it's been an enjoyable series. Looking forward to the discussion on employment, operation performance.
Harley Davidson also uses a forked rod, which puts the rear cylinder behind the front one, thus causing heating problems, especially as the rear exhaust valve is in the very back, getting little cooling air. But hey, in a water cooled engine, it's frikken rad!
Another excellent effort and production Greg! Keep 'em coming on the Il-2 (and other Soviet WWII aircraft)!
Oh man... this is starting to get really good. I am not at all disappointed!
Thank you, Greg!
Excellent!
I'm really enjoying these.
Just joined the patron. Only basic as the world it trying to make me go broke right now.
The P47 trim box is coming along. Hope to have it finished soon.
Hi Madkit, I'm looking forward to seeing it.
Outstanding!
The very best channel on yt for this content, thanks.
You do them the BEST GREG!
A fine series indeed. 🐻
12:02 Maybe what people are referring to is the use of the 30mm caliber, because the MK108 entered service in 1943.
The MK108 was, as far as I know, mostly used in a bomber killer role (Me262, Fw190A-8/R2, Bf110G-4 etc.), with the only exceptions being the Ta-152 and the U4 conversion of some Bf109G types.
IL2 NUMERO TWO! Thanks Greg
Your videos just get better and better. The production quality, especially audio wise (I’m an audio producer) is brilliant now. Keep up the great work and thank you.
Outstanding
Hi Greg, Great content! I appreciate your focus on well researched facts, rather than the "popular" myths. Your speculation on German cannon adoption is interesting (perhaps to destroy Russian wood airplanes?). I would add that earlier, Germany encountered some British airplanes with wooden elements. Light MG had proven ineffective vs all Fighters, and most airforces switched to heavy MG and 20mm cannon. The US lacked reliable 20mm cannons, and used 50 Cal. Germany vs Big Bombers adopted 30mm with HE Mine Shells.
I learned something entirely new to me about the connecting rods. I'd always pictured aero V-engines with the offset-by-one-rod-width bank positioning, same rod on both sides, and longer crankpins I'm used to from automotive V-engines.
The wing sweep change to move the center of lift and accommodate the rear gunner made me think of how the F-4 Phantom got its distinctive upward tilt of the outboard ~1/3rd of the wing; the Phantom needed its wings to average more dihedral, and like sweeping the Sturmovik's outer wing sections that was the way to implement the change without a major tear-up of the fuselage or innermost part of the wing.
The F-4 issue is a good analogy.
This was a very informative video. Thank you. The most interesting part was about the local modifications to add a rear gunner position. I have read how Patton was big on doing that with tanks based on recommendations from his men (e.g., so they could punch through the French hedges), but I have never heard anyone talk about doing this with airplanes. That would make a fascinating video of itself.
Hi I'm a great fan, Love watching your work.
Solving the center of gravity issue was really clever. Swept wing used to move the center of gravity forward sounds almost like an American solution. Must remember they were Fighting for survival not trying to impress anyone. I am always amazed at by the details your research brings to life, plus the ability to explain it. Thanks for more unique Knowledge.