@@RemusKingOfRome The best plane for keeping warm was the Pe-8. Two of its gunner positions were located in the rear of the two inboard engine nacelles. These positions were cramped and smelly, but were also nice and warm.
I was actually amazed it reached a speed of 320mph given how non aerodynamic it looks. Imagine flying might have been scary for pilots with the propeller whizzing around a few feet from their face.
But they did like the idea of guns that could be trained down for strafing. I believe the Su-25 Grach (aka, per NATO, the Frogfoot) is the functional successor to the Sturmovik. It can mount gun pods that can be trained down.
@Inu Yasha The Il-40 might disagree, but that whole line of development wasn't adopted so the argument that the Su-25 is the real successor isn't misguided either. Many attempts were made to make a new Sturmovik, but the Su-25 was the one that ended up getting the job.
To get that visibility, and maybe give the pilots some survivability, it needed another engine. Beaufighters and Mosquitoes are examples of how they should of gone. There are some tricks a dual engine aircraft can achieve that single engine ones shouldn't.
It gets really weird, when one look at IL-20 next to AH-56 Cheyenne. Like you are like that since you are moving towards attack helicopter layout and on the other hand... Cheyenne your WW2 propulsion is at the wrong end of the plane. Did you make a mirroring mistake, when making copies of the blueprints to send to the factory. :) Also what is that weird upward propeller. Who put that on you. Isn't that inconvenient mate. You already have perfectly good wings. Dearie me Cheyenne.... do you have cancer? Do you need a doctor to take that tumor off of you? (While in USA US Army at their angry frenemy. _You see Air Force..... It is technically not airplane and thus we get keep it. Since it has the rotor also. We agreed we get to keep the rotary stuff. Agreement said nothing about us being forbidden to add wings also._ )
Generally speaking typical helicopter designs don't go near 300mph more like 150-200mph, even slower at the beginning of practical helicopter development, during the era this plane was designed, even today military helicopters are around 225-250mph, also generally with a lower range than airplanes for the same amount of fuel, and were relatively unarmored until a lot later. 5:56 speed reference. This truly hideous concept is surprising clever for certain situations especially for the time.
Practically everyone was thinking of moving the pilot behind the prop towards the end of the war. On most of these designs they put the engine behind the pilot, a la the P-39, but moving the cockpit further forward. There was the General Motors XP-75, Messerschmitt's Me-509, and Rolls Royce's proposal for a Crecy-engined fighter that was supposed to use P-51 wings (this got as far as the mock-up stage). If you think about it, all single engine fighter jets that came after used this configuration.
The more we learned about the novel and well-planned features of this unique purpose-designed ground attacker, the more I wondered how well it could possibly fly. Particularly compared to early jets. And "resistant" to 20mm? I checked how long was left in the video... about 90 seconds. And then Ed started to tell us it don't fly so good and got canceled in the missile age.
interesting I'd never heard of the defensive parachute bombs before thats a great idea. I thought I knew it all shows you there so much to learn even after 40 years of learning about WW2
Congratulations on this video and for the excellent technical examination of the Russian aircraft. A similar aircraft that had the pilot in such an advanced position and the engine put in a similar position was the Italian SM93 . In this Italian dive bomber the pilot was in a prone position to better withstand the number of G of the dive bombing. It would be nice if You could make a video. Thanks again from Italy
LMAO @ 1:37 I swear I'm taking this video seriously and I've never heard of the IL-20 even though I have heard of the IL-2 and the IL-10 NATO reporting name "beast" but again that clip that you inserted was hilarious
Ilyushin had a real successor plane to Shturmovik with Il-102 back in 80's and that would be a beast imagine Mi 24 but with proper wings and no rotors.
Every time I think you've found the ugliest, most ridiculous thing with wings, you come up with something new. Bloody hell mate, this one's a shocker. Nice work!
As a War Thunder player that frequently gets kills bombing enemy planes chasing me, I'd love if they added those time-fuzed para-frag bombs to the game. As long as I'm the one using them, that is.
@@choprjock a grasshopper hopper walks into a bar, and the bartender says ‘ we have a cocktail named after you ‘ Grasshopper says ‘ really? You have a cocktail named Marvin ? ‘
That looks ehm, unusual! But I think an twin engined platform like the PE-2 could have been a better starting point for an air support aircraft. It gives very good visibility and space for big nose mounted cannons, also it has a better redundancy and better streamlining.
Fairey's solution, in particular for carriers where centre thrust was a bonus, was a series of designs culminating in the Gannet. Many of the early ones had dual Merlins mounted behind or at least partly behind the pilot rather than under the pilot, resulting in a plane with a much less deep fuselage. There were about a dozen or so such designs. My father has my book, though, so I can't remember all the details. Many were just paper designs feeling towards the Gannet. Two engines were preferred for two reasons - redundancy when over the sea, and fuel efficiency for longer loiter times. Submarines aren't exactly nippy so one engine would have been enough to chase one, although they might have given the Short Seamew a run for its money.
I always wondered why single seat fighters never had a rear facing gun as a defense against enemy planes from behind. Pilot controlled to discourage enemy aircraft from getting a close in shot from behind. I wouldn't think a 30cal would affect performance more than the survival advantage.
Yeah, even straight out of the back could be controlled somewhat; it seems too, like they could have just dropped all sorts of crap out of the back to get stuck in or damage the prop of the other planes and obscure sight too.
They could prolly have fixed the Il-20 if they went with a layout simular to that of the Pe-2, so they could mount the pilot lower AND/OR fit those 6 23mils in there. Maybe eight 23mils?
Ok, adjusting the angle of the wing mounted arms is pretty slick. And whoa, wait…3000hp?? So this is a super-prop? Addtl edit, 320mph seems pretty fast, and really? The Russians had crew safety concerns??
@@StromBugSlayer Well then it might be water or an air intake. The cut is on both sides, and I think you're really jumping to a conclusion in assuming it's for a big gun. I see no reason why a mount for a gun would have a large exposed open area in the wing root like that does.
Unless the put a s#!tload of ballast to the aft of the plane, I imagine the CG would have been way off, and having the cockpit that far forward of the CG would be problematic pulling out of dives as far as G forces were concerned.
honestly most of the weight distribution seems the same as for something like the il-10... after all you've only actually moved the pilot forwards, nothing else has really changed. In addition to that, you can always move the wings forward, or make the control surfaces bigger, if it was a real problem. Definitely better to have a CoM too far forward than too far back, so you won't get a statically unstable aircraft :P
@@matthewturnock8725 The way I am seeing it is the armored bathtub is less spread out since the engine and crew are concentrated ahead of the wing, instead of the weight being spread from the nose to aft of the wing in the earlier planes, or at least over the wing.
@@300guy sure but you've got to bear in mind what forces are being applied to the aircraft in flight... namely weight and lift. As long as you move the lift forward (ie the wings) to compensate for the CoM being moved forward then it's all good. A similar scenario (but the other way around) is actually why you see slightly swept wings on certain later versions of the IL2s (think the IL2-M). Due to design changes (I can't remember the specifics rn) between the original IL2 and the M, the CoM moved backwards compared to the original design, but of course moving the location of the whole wing root is a bit tricky, so to apply more lift force to the rear the solution is to give the wings a slight sweep. I hope I'm making myself clear, it's a bit hard to explain stuff like this without a nice diagram :P
Considering how EASY it would be to make either a 2 engine attack plane with good field of view or else an unconventional pusher... it seems a rather unneeded excessively complex design to solve a mostly non existent problem.
I don't buy that the 10 AG-2 aerial grenades were nearly as effective as claimed or you know darn well German veterans would have mentioned them repeatedly. Think about it, the German fighter would need to be really close, otherwise the Grenades would have fallen too far to be effective. The Soviets were famous for their wildly exaggerated victory claims (believed largely by the children of leftwingers and brainwashed school children). If they were so effective they would have been adopted by others and there would be documentation warning about these weapons. Even the Soviets discontinued them. If anything, the grenades probably distracted some German pilots who were puzzled to see them. I'd have to see some evidence from the receiving end to buy into this claim.
That was honestly the best Monty Python cutaway I have ever seen. 👏🏻
Excellent video as usual!
Yeah I don't normally think cutaways are funny but I laughed pretty hard at that
@@_Itchy_Bones_ Yeah me too
I could have used some warning before that one - had to stop the video for a bit :)
look at the bones!
Hilarious and completely appropriate!
1:37 that edit had me in the stitches
Me too.
I warned you😂
Q. "Is it behind the aircraft"?
A. "It IS the aircraft"!!
Love the area from post war to the jet age. There was a lot of crazy designs that looked much better on the drawing board than in reality.
In the most Pythonesc way this would make members of Royal Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things proud and happy.
The Blackburn squared seemed to have put the pilot on top of the engine, and still not given him a great field of view. That takes skill.
British engineering at its finest
But both planes give the pilot a warm butt .. so, great design.
@@RemusKingOfRome The best plane for keeping warm was the Pe-8. Two of its gunner positions were located in the rear of the two inboard engine nacelles. These positions were cramped and smelly, but were also nice and warm.
@@anzaca1 lol .. I'm sure after each mission, these gunners had hearing problems .. what?
No, the Blackburn did have a great field of view.
I was actually amazed it reached a speed of 320mph given how non aerodynamic it looks. Imagine flying might have been scary for pilots with the propeller whizzing around a few feet from their face.
WOW!!!
Not only did I know nothing of this...thing.
I also knew NOTHING of these 'air mines'!
You did it again, Ed!!!
Thank you.
☮
But they did like the idea of guns that could be trained down for strafing. I believe the Su-25 Grach (aka, per NATO, the Frogfoot) is the functional successor to the Sturmovik. It can mount gun pods that can be trained down.
So could the Su-17. Unfortunately, in practice, those pods proved to be basically more trouble than they were worth.
@Inu Yasha
The Il-40 might disagree, but that whole line of development wasn't adopted so the argument that the Su-25 is the real successor isn't misguided either. Many attempts were made to make a new Sturmovik, but the Su-25 was the one that ended up getting the job.
Excellent Quality Content, Mr. Nash.
I find myself returning for more most days.
Chin-chin!
I had wondered if anyone had ever thought about grenades on parashioth against enemy that had gotten behind them. You learn something new everyday.
As I have commented elsewhere You have to love the Warhammer 40k aspect to Soviet military design.
In classified documents destroyed before the collapse of the USSR, the military was secretly known as The Fast Army.
Interesting. It's almost as if they never forgot this design, and went back to it and adapted it to a more modern setting with the il-102
The Il-102 was an oddball.
To get that visibility, and maybe give the pilots some survivability, it needed another engine.
Beaufighters and Mosquitoes are examples of how they should of gone.
There are some tricks a dual engine aircraft can achieve that single engine ones shouldn't.
It's primary defense was it's ability to get away while the enemy pilots were laughing.
In simulated combat tests several bogey pilots were lost in crashes, their final radio transmissions only hysterical guffaws.
As usual, you introduced me to something I wasn't aware of. Thanks!!
Sort of like a prop plane trying to be a attack helicopter - the area of view, armament, and speed are similiar.
If helicopters were meta in ww2 it's probably what it would have been
It gets really weird, when one look at IL-20 next to AH-56 Cheyenne. Like you are like that since you are moving towards attack helicopter layout and on the other hand... Cheyenne your WW2 propulsion is at the wrong end of the plane. Did you make a mirroring mistake, when making copies of the blueprints to send to the factory. :)
Also what is that weird upward propeller. Who put that on you. Isn't that inconvenient mate. You already have perfectly good wings. Dearie me Cheyenne.... do you have cancer? Do you need a doctor to take that tumor off of you?
(While in USA US Army at their angry frenemy. _You see Air Force..... It is technically not airplane and thus we get keep it. Since it has the rotor also. We agreed we get to keep the rotary stuff. Agreement said nothing about us being forbidden to add wings also._ )
Generally speaking typical helicopter designs don't go near 300mph more like 150-200mph, even slower at the beginning of practical helicopter development, during the era this plane was designed, even today military helicopters are around 225-250mph, also generally with a lower range than airplanes for the same amount of fuel, and were relatively unarmored until a lot later. 5:56 speed reference. This truly hideous concept is surprising clever for certain situations especially for the time.
Practically everyone was thinking of moving the pilot behind the prop towards the end of the war. On most of these designs they put the engine behind the pilot, a la the P-39, but moving the cockpit further forward. There was the General Motors XP-75, Messerschmitt's Me-509, and Rolls Royce's proposal for a Crecy-engined fighter that was supposed to use P-51 wings (this got as far as the mock-up stage). If you think about it, all single engine fighter jets that came after used this configuration.
The more we learned about the novel and well-planned features of this unique purpose-designed ground attacker, the more I wondered how well it could possibly fly. Particularly compared to early jets. And "resistant" to 20mm? I checked how long was left in the video... about 90 seconds. And then Ed started to tell us it don't fly so good and got canceled in the missile age.
interesting I'd never heard of the defensive parachute bombs before thats a great idea. I thought I knew it all shows you there so much to learn even after 40 years of learning about WW2
Same here... especially if brightly painted or shiny
Congratulations on this video and for the excellent technical examination of the Russian aircraft. A similar aircraft that had the pilot in such an advanced position and the engine put in a similar position was the Italian SM93 . In this Italian dive bomber the pilot was in a prone position to better withstand the number of G of the dive bombing. It would be nice if You could make a video. Thanks again from Italy
LMAO @ 1:37 I swear I'm taking this video seriously and I've never heard of the IL-20 even though I have heard of the IL-2 and the IL-10 NATO reporting name "beast" but again that clip that you inserted was hilarious
Great video Ed, a must watch as always
Very interesting if odd aircraft, ty for another excellent vid.
Ilyushin had a real successor plane to Shturmovik with Il-102 back in 80's and that would be a beast imagine Mi 24 but with proper wings and no rotors.
That clip at 0:14 just looks savage, and to me is everything you would think of the IL2.
Great for keeping your feet warm during those winter months.
What a monster 🤯 imagine a squadron of these heading for you, failure or not, a scary beast
The ground targets might die screaming but the enemy pilots will die laughing.
Looks as fearsome as the Short Seamew. The enemy would piss themselves, not with fear, but laughter.
The cockpit configuration would show up again in 1965 on the Transavia PL-12.
I don't comment on videos often, but that Sir. Was bloody beautiful. 'Jesus Christ' - 'I warned yea'
Every time I think you've found the ugliest, most ridiculous thing with wings, you come up with something new. Bloody hell mate, this one's a shocker. Nice work!
another excellent insight Ed.............learned more than before.well done...Howard........merry xmas!!!!!!
As a War Thunder player that frequently gets kills bombing enemy planes chasing me, I'd love if they added those time-fuzed para-frag bombs to the game.
As long as I'm the one using them, that is.
Ilyushin Design Bureau: "What do you think comrade Stalin?"
Stalin: "Will it reach Siberia?"
Ilyushin Design Bureau: Tell you what, I'll take a full load of fuel and find out. Won't go to Switzerland, pinky promise.
And all this time I thought Q was the original with the parachute bombs from Little Nellie in You Only Live Twice.
You should continue this Il series of videos about Il-40 and Il-102
The IL-20 reminds me of a wildebeest.
Look at the Blackburn "Blackburn" ('I'm a Gnu').
The IL-20 looks like the Soviets stole most of it from that 1950s British carrier based WTF , or maybe the Soviets ‘ let ‘ the British steal the IL-20
I was thinking more along the lines of a grasshopper.
Hillary?
@@choprjock a grasshopper hopper walks into a bar, and the bartender says ‘ we have a cocktail named after you ‘
Grasshopper says ‘ really? You have a cocktail named Marvin ? ‘
Good God that is hideous looking. Great video, as always!
That looks ehm, unusual!
But I think an twin engined platform like the PE-2 could have been a better starting point for an air support aircraft.
It gives very good visibility and space for big nose mounted cannons, also it has a better redundancy and better streamlining.
Fairey's solution, in particular for carriers where centre thrust was a bonus, was a series of designs culminating in the Gannet. Many of the early ones had dual Merlins mounted behind or at least partly behind the pilot rather than under the pilot, resulting in a plane with a much less deep fuselage. There were about a dozen or so such designs. My father has my book, though, so I can't remember all the details. Many were just paper designs feeling towards the Gannet. Two engines were preferred for two reasons - redundancy when over the sea, and fuel efficiency for longer loiter times. Submarines aren't exactly nippy so one engine would have been enough to chase one, although they might have given the Short Seamew a run for its money.
I always wondered why single seat fighters never had a rear facing gun as a defense against enemy planes from behind. Pilot controlled to discourage enemy aircraft from getting a close in shot from behind. I wouldn't think a 30cal would affect performance more than the survival advantage.
Yeah, even straight out of the back could be controlled somewhat; it seems too, like they could have just dropped all sorts of crap out of the back to get stuck in or damage the prop of the other planes and obscure sight too.
pilots are too busy to do that as well
the russian idea of dropping air mines is more feasible
Polish: "Our L.W.S.6 Zubr is the ugliest plane in the world" Ilyushin: "Hold my beer"
Well at least the Il-20 was not killing its own officers.
So very cool. Love to the hi vis cockpit but definitely would be called the Warthog of it's day. Bravo on the upload!
The Shorts Seamew also seems to have beaten the Il-20 to the punch.
As soon as I saw the thumbnail I thought…Shorts Seamew!
@@daviddou1408 Seamew last flight 57, Il-20 canceled 1959. First where it counts!
Didn't the Italians have a design that was similar - a ground attacker with the cockpit over the engine? I can't remember the designation.
They could prolly have fixed the Il-20 if they went with a layout simular to that of the Pe-2, so they could mount the pilot lower AND/OR fit those 6 23mils in there. Maybe eight 23mils?
And now you know where the idea for the Shorts Seamew came into play
It looks very similar to the Short Seamew carrier aircraft!
been watching your stuff for over a year. just noticed i wasnt actually subbed.
sorry about that. rectified now.
Thank you excellent information. Very interesting.
J.C., I warned you!!!!!! Love your sense of humor. (by the way, I need a shrubbery. Got one?)
Reminds me of the GOAT, The Gannet. Love it.
Love the Monty python clip.👍
Seen one flying at Pecs Airshow a few years ago. I think it was reconfigured as a crop sprayer.
The IL20 violates the golden rule: If it looks good it is good.
Considering its success, I think it met the rule in an inverse manner, didn't look good, wasn't good.
Then why so many sleek, needle shaped jets were rather bad?
@@mladenmatosevic4591 Like the Douglas X-3, perhaps? Underpowered due to the intended engines not being ready.
@@Markle2k For example F-104 or MiG-23.
@@mladenmatosevic4591 Those aren't good examples of "rather bad" aircraft.
The B-25 strafer and the A-1 Skyraider showed us how to do it right.
... I gotta admit the Soviets really liked the Airacobra & King Cobra.
Now we know where Shorts got the idea for the Sea Mew!
All or nothing scheme. The battleplane!
Thanks
That Holy Grail cutaway made me laugh out loud!
They could have just made it a small twin-engined plane like the Me 410, though. Would have saved a lot of hassle.
yeah a really clever idea of putting the fuel tank between the pilot & the rear gunner
so that they can protect it with their bodies.
Well son, when a Seamew and a T-34 fall in love....... o___O
Fairey had a go at making planes like it before it came up with the unparalleled beauty that was the Gannet.
Crew placement ensured a toasty trip once airbourne.
Just imagine sitting up there with all that return fire coming straight at you and hitting that glass 😳
And 1(ONE) was made! Clearly a HIT even in CCCP ;-D
Standing by for the TU-91. (insert big smiley face).
Ok, adjusting the angle of the wing mounted arms is pretty slick. And whoa, wait…3000hp?? So this is a super-prop? Addtl edit, 320mph seems pretty fast, and really? The Russians had crew safety concerns??
The Shorts Seamew has the same outline
You stated the idea of a larger gun never went forward, but the photos show a right side fuselage cut for a heavy weapon firing through the prop.
Pretty sure that's an oil cooler
@@dubsy1026 No, the oil cooler is a box shape centerline under the fuselage.
@@StromBugSlayer Well then it might be water or an air intake. The cut is on both sides, and I think you're really jumping to a conclusion in assuming it's for a big gun. I see no reason why a mount for a gun would have a large exposed open area in the wing root like that does.
Low top speed is not a problem for ground attack/close air support types.
Good point... but they're Russian
@@JTA1961 Did I miss something here?
Now I know where Disney took the inspiration for Tembria planes in Tale Spin.
Unless the put a s#!tload of ballast to the aft of the plane, I imagine the CG would have been way off, and having the cockpit that far forward of the CG would be problematic pulling out of dives as far as G forces were concerned.
Probably why they angled the cannons down, if you dive it may not stop.
honestly most of the weight distribution seems the same as for something like the il-10... after all you've only actually moved the pilot forwards, nothing else has really changed. In addition to that, you can always move the wings forward, or make the control surfaces bigger, if it was a real problem. Definitely better to have a CoM too far forward than too far back, so you won't get a statically unstable aircraft :P
@@matthewturnock8725 The way I am seeing it is the armored bathtub is less spread out since the engine and crew are concentrated ahead of the wing, instead of the weight being spread from the nose to aft of the wing in the earlier planes, or at least over the wing.
@@300guy sure but you've got to bear in mind what forces are being applied to the aircraft in flight... namely weight and lift. As long as you move the lift forward (ie the wings) to compensate for the CoM being moved forward then it's all good. A similar scenario (but the other way around) is actually why you see slightly swept wings on certain later versions of the IL2s (think the IL2-M). Due to design changes (I can't remember the specifics rn) between the original IL2 and the M, the CoM moved backwards compared to the original design, but of course moving the location of the whole wing root is a bit tricky, so to apply more lift force to the rear the solution is to give the wings a slight sweep. I hope I'm making myself clear, it's a bit hard to explain stuff like this without a nice diagram :P
1:37 Put her back in! She's not done yet!
Back To teh planes - very good!
I think the xp-77 would be a good video to go along with your m.20 video
At first sight you say 'Whaaat?' But after watching the video, the logic becomes a lot more apparent.
In the event of a belly landing (landing gear failure) wouldn't the propeller blades peel back and strike the cockpit?
In Russia earth peels away from victorious Soviet warriorbird.
Another great video, love the ‘Pythons’
Id like to see a video of WWII aircraft that were used post-war
ua-cam.com/video/8WOdS1FoL3M/v-deo.html
Absolutely superb Soviet seasonal lubricant.
Considering how EASY it would be to make either a 2 engine attack plane with good field of view or else an unconventional pusher... it seems a rather unneeded excessively complex design to solve a mostly non existent problem.
3:34 they should have kept the original design & added an inverted periscope for underneath view.
Honestly, in 2021, the IL-2 wouldn't be a bad thing to have for close in ground attacker.
It is underpowered, specially for modern standards. Make one with a turboprop and now we're talking. Super tucano?
This analysis helps clarify some of the advantages of the German henschel (duck)
Have to admit, I never heard about this parachute flak grenades. Pretty genius, if you ask me O_O Bit like a dogfighter`s chaff on steroides^^
The tail looks like it was taken from a Skyraider. If they had ditched the rear gunner and turret, it would have improved performance.
Why not a mid-engine-concept, behind the pilot, with an axle between his legs?
Nice centre of gravity, good visibility, low drag.
This wasn't Ilyushin's last go at an armored ground attack aircraft either. There was the Il-102, the jet shturmovik. Which was also gloriously ugly.
6:28 the ilyushin illusion
You can fix your engine during flight , which is a great advantage in combat...
& shave...
Always remember that quantity was all that mattered from the party's perspective. It didn't matter if it flew or not so long as my made your quotas.
Ed, do the Il-102.
What a beast
Looks rather similar to the Short Seamew, if anyone remembers that
I don't buy that the 10 AG-2 aerial grenades were nearly as effective as claimed or you know darn well German veterans would have mentioned them repeatedly. Think about it, the German fighter would need to be really close, otherwise the Grenades would have fallen too far to be effective. The Soviets were famous for their wildly exaggerated victory claims (believed largely by the children of leftwingers and brainwashed school children). If they were so effective they would have been adopted by others and there would be documentation warning about these weapons. Even the Soviets discontinued them. If anything, the grenades probably distracted some German pilots who were puzzled to see them. I'd have to see some evidence from the receiving end to buy into this claim.
Lovely, a next gen Blackburn Blackburn. And almost more ugly ;-)
Monty python, bit was golden. From JDS in AZ usa
It's uglier than the Seamew, that's not possible !!!!
I was trying to remember the plane it looked like! 😁
How let’s go with, snug must that cockpit be?
Bleedin' hell!! All this to finally find out didn't come up to requirements. That's 7 mins I'll never get back. Monty Python was right!
That wasn't the end of the story. There was Il-102.