WesWorld

Development of this aircraft was pursued as a joint Russo-German venture, with Hans Multhopp and Semyon Lavochkin leading the design and development team. The design was begun in 1943 with the intent of producing a fast, high-climbing interceptor; progress was plagued with trouble, with the first prototype disintegrating during a test flight in eastern Germany. Work was then moved to the Lipetsk test station in Russia, where the airframe was redesigned to address structural issues. Further delays were incurred due to lack of power from the intended powerplant – the BMW003, necessitating the switch to the Heinkel HeS011. The revised design made its first successful flight in September 1946, with an expected service introduction sometime in 1947.


General characteristics

Crew: 1
Empty weight: 2,575 kg
Gross weight: 3,850 kg
Fuel capacity: 1,060 litres
Powerplant: One Heinkel HeS011 turbojet, rated at 1,590 kg thrust

Performance

Maximum speed: 1,007 kph at 8,000 metres
Range: 1,145 km at 10,000 metres
Service ceiling: 13,500 metres
Rate of climb: 31.7 metres/second

Time to altitude:

5,000 metres in 3.1min
10,000 metres in 9min

Wing loading: 238 kg/sq. metre


Armament

Two 30mm MK108 cannon with 150 rounds per gun

Nice plane this.

A bit faster than the P-80 the USAF is standardizing on, but the P-80 is still comparable.

It should have little problem catching the B-29/B-32 that the USAF has, not that it is likely to need too, more saying that for comparitive purposes. The B-36 might prove a different proposition.

Quoted from "TheCanadian"

Nice plane this.

A bit faster than the P-80 the USAF is standardizing on, but the P-80 is still comparable.

It should have little problem catching the B-29/B-32 that the USAF has, not that it is likely to need too, more saying that for comparitive purposes. The B-36 might prove a different proposition.

The late models of the historical B-36 could do up to 670 kph; if needed, the Bf329 could catch them easily, though, as you say, it is an unlikely scenario. For an interceptor, its ability to get to altitude quickly is the far more important factor than dash speed.

Catching them yes, though the B-36 can go higher than the Bf329 interceptor. Rather irrelevant though.

Are there any high altitude bombers in Europe I wonder?

Quoted from "TheCanadian"

Are there any high altitude bombers in Europe I wonder?

France has a bunch of B-32s. But high altitude bombing doesn't really fit with the French (or Russian) air strategy. Bombing from that altitude is too inaccurate.

Quoted from "Brockpaine"

Quoted from "TheCanadian"

Are there any high altitude bombers in Europe I wonder?

France has a bunch of B-32s. But high altitude bombing doesn't really fit with the French (or Russian) air strategy. Bombing from that altitude is too inaccurate.

Germany's Heinkel He177 is good for 8,000 meters, but I agree with Brock, high level bombing with conventional weapons is much too inaccurate. Now incendiary bombs are another thing... or something else...

Junkers is working on a few ideas, but hasn't brought anything to fruition yet.

Quoted

Catching them yes, though the B-36 can go higher than the Bf329 interceptor. Rather irrelevant though.

Which one? When I look at what I can find, in most cases the Bf329 can fly higher than the B-36, with exception of the D, but 277 meters isn't really worth mentioning.
B-36A: 11918 m/39100 ft
B-36B: 12954 m/42500 ft
B-36D: 13777 m/45200 ft
B-36F: 13411 m/44000 ft
B-36H: 13411 m/44000 ft
B-36J: 12162 m/39900 ft
Bf329: 13500 m/44300 ft

... of course service ceiling isn't the maximum altitude an aircraft can fly, but it is the only value you got to work with when comparing the planes.

Quoted

Bombing from that altitude is too inaccurate.

Well it depends on what you want to achieve.

If you want to hit that factory over there near big city X, then you will have to accept that you will have to fly lower to increase the chances of hitting something (and even then you can miss it). If bombs are dropped at an altitude of 12 to 15 kilometers, you probably will have to accept that the bombs could hit the ground a few miles away from your intended target. And of course if it is cloudy, you won't even know where exactly you are, let alone where your target is down on the ground.

If you are dealing with hundreds of millions of angry and pesky Chinese who threaten to steamroll over your possessions in Asia then dumping your bombs on their cities to demoralize them would require less accuracy since the size of your target is fairly big.

Quoted from "Rooijen10"

Quoted

Bombing from that altitude is too inaccurate.

Well it depends on what you want to achieve.

Exactly. It reminds me of a US Air Force joke I heard once:

"Carpet bombing from B-52 is always very accurate. The bombs always hit the ground!"

The Bf329 finally makes its appearance (the eagle eyed will remember those grainy photos smuggled out of Poland that fell in London's lap two years ago.)
http://wesworld.jk-clan.de/index.php?pag…2268#post132268

This is probably the most advanced fighter if its kind in Europe at the moment in terms of layout, lots of experimental features (in British eyes), but the French are not behind and I feel with Messers Messerschmitt and Dassault to choose from, the Russians are probably in the most enviable position.

The photo above, led to a series of scale model tests at Farnborough and much has been learnt, this information and research will bear fruit on the drawing boards of a certain Mr W.E.W. Petter.

Quoted

This is probably the most advanced fighter if its kind in Europe at the moment in terms of layout, lots of experimental features (in British eyes), but the French are not behind and I feel with Messers Messerschmitt and Dassault to choose from, the Russians are probably in the most enviable position.

I feel that you do not give sufficient credit to Academician Lavochkin for his airframe design. In Russian service the aircraft will be known as the Istrebitel 174.

I haven't written much about the current state of Russian aviation. I think I've only really discussed the state of the AV-MF - the carrier-based arm in particular. Really I ought to write up a general analysis of the Russian picture...

Per AdmK, the Russians had a huuuge aviation industry. You didn't really see much of it in game aside from a few orders-of-battle in the old encyclopedia posts, but he left some figures on his own estimates in the FAR folder. Just to sample some of them... In 1946 he planned for the Russian strategic aluminium stockpile (primarily for kicking up aircraft production at the start of a major war) to measure 345,000 tons. In 1939, Russia manufactured 9,000 new aircraft, and in 1940, 10,000. To put that in context, between 1939 and 1940, Russia manufactured more military aircraft than Britain, France and Germany have in their air forces combined. In fairness, that appears to have been part of a massive modernization push to re-equip the Russian Air and Air Defense Forces with modern monoplanes. Personally, I feel that's a bit of "uniquely Russian excess", shall we say - but my point is to demonstrate the power and potential of the Russian aircraft industry.

The attention of that Russian industry is now turning to jet aircraft - albeit with some degree of sluggishness inherent in turning any object with great momentum and mass. I'd say Russia's biggest shortfall is that they didn't put enough R&D work into jets at the earliest stages, when Germany and Britain were doing their first investigations. That's showing up now in-game as a weakness in the engine-design departments, where the Russians are depending heavily upon infusions of French and German design work and, yes, deliveries of whole jet engines, in order to keep up with the cutting edge. But in terms of airframe design, Russia is definitely not behind - you don't build thousands of aircraft every year without picking up a significant amount of experience.

Academician Lavochkin has done well here - but he is not the only Russian working on these things. Ilyushin is designing a bomber. Artem Mikoyan has designed his first jet fighter, and is already working on a second. Alexander Yakovlev has converted some of his prop planes to jets, too. The trick, though, is getting quality engines in quantity from Klimov and Aviadvigatel (Shvetsov)...

Thanks for that useful précis Brock, it good to have some detail on what Russia is doing, I've always assumed they were on the curve in WW and never far behind any power. In fact, OTL Russia was probably ahead in jet theory than the West with Lyulka doing some work in the late 1930s. Without the purges etc., it possible more work was done. As you say quality is the big problem.
With Franco-German help I think it gives Russia a very stable basis, likewise for Germany. The GA pool of knowledge is great, but with 3 national manufacturers vying for orders at some point its not likely that MiGs will supplant Dassaults in Germany and Messerchmitts supplanting Atlantean types. Engine sharing would be very beneficial though.

Question: 2x 30mm with 150 rounds each doesn't sound like a sufficient armament to shoot down bombers. As OTL experience with the Me262 showed you need to down a bomber with a single pass as you rarely will have a chance against that same aircraft again. Not sure if 2 guns will do the job... What do you think?

Quoted from "HoOmAn"

Question: 2x 30mm with 150 rounds each doesn't sound like a sufficient armament to shoot down bombers. As OTL experience with the Me262 showed you need to down a bomber with a single pass as you rarely will have a chance against that same aircraft again. Not sure if 2 guns will do the job... What do you think?

Good question, only time will tell. But...

I checked the armament of aircraft of the same configuration (nose air scoop) and broadly similar timeframe:

MiG-15 – two 23mm with 80 rounds each, one 37mm with 40 rounds
Lavochkin La-15 – three 23mm with 100 rounds each
Dassault Mystere IIC – two 30mm with 150 rounds each

This would suggest that two guns of 30mm, with 300 rounds between them, would be considered sufficient.

The Hawker Hunter had four 30mm, each with 150 rounds, but had more room in the nose due to its different configuration. Given the relatively small size and engine power of the design I do not want to overload it with armament.

F2H-1 Banshee - 4x20mm, 150 rpg
F9F-2 Panther - 4x20mm, 190 rpg

I get the impression that it depends on what the guys at the top think of it. It might be the case that with some nations they think "Be smart, be precise and make every round count" while others will think "Just spray the enemy with bullets. Don't worry. You will hit them."

Quoted from "Rooijen10"

F2H-1 Banshee - 4x20mm, 150 rpg
F9F-2 Panther - 4x20mm, 190 rpg

I get the impression that it depends on what the guys at the top think of it. It might be the case that with some nations they think "Be smart, be precise and make every round count" while others will think "Just spray the enemy with bullets. Don't worry. You will hit them."

Both those examples have the air intakes well away from the guns, in the wing roots. You underestimate the shock and vibration induced by firing large caliber cannon.

Yeah, I kinda messed that up by not reading it properly.

On the other hand looking at the Bf-262, what Hooman said does kinda make sense. You are going from 4x 30mm MK 108 cannons to just a pair of them with the Bf329 and is that really enough? On the other hand that is probably the limits of the La-15 fuselage. Not sure if it is an idea to sacrifice some range and put a pair in the wings (if they fit in there).

Quoted

On the other hand looking at the Bf-262, what Hooman said does kinda make sense. You are going from 4x 30mm MK 108 cannons to just a pair of them with the Bf329 and is that really enough? On the other hand that is probably the limits of the La-15 fuselage. Not sure if it is an idea to sacrifice some range and put a pair in the wings (if they fit in there).

You have hit the nail upon the head. The structure of the Bf329 is far lighter than the Bf262. There is no room in the wing to shoe-horn another pair of guns there, as in the historical MiG-19. Of course, I recall someone pinging me for employing four 30mm guns in the Bf262, opining that the armament was too heavy...

Quoted

The structure of the Bf329 is far lighter than the Bf262.

Nah, the Bf262 is only something like 50% heavier.

Quoted

There is no room in the wing to shoe-horn another pair of guns there, as in the historical MiG-19.

A shame as it would give the Bf329 some extra punch and make it slightly different from the La-15. Maybe you should have gone for 20mm cannons.

Quoted

Of course, I recall someone pinging me for employing four 30mm guns in the Bf262, opining that the armament was too heavy...

So the opinion of that someone is that the armament of the OTL Me-262a-1 is too heavy.

Reading the above, it is probably safe to say that that someone wasn't Hooman.

I don't recall who made the comment; it's not important. It just goes to prove that you cannot please everyone.