WesWorld

With regard to the newly introduced Chinese transport glider, http://wesworld.jk-clan.de/index.php?pag…1126#post131126, what aircraft is projected to tow it?

I also have a question about the cost of the design, seeing as the Il-32 (which Bruce pointed out this aircraft is almost a verbatim copy of) was made out of aluminium. I would also note that said Il-32 only flew in 1948 which would place it outside the +3 rule if it sees service in a 1943 opp.

Quoted from "BruceDuncan"

With regard to the newly introduced Chinese transport glider, http://wesworld.jk-clan.de/index.php?pag…1126#post131126, what aircraft is projected to tow it?

China has the FW-200, the Piaggio P.108C, the Piaggio P.126C and the Nakajima L5N1 only to say some aircraft which can tow the glider. By the way there is also the Ju-390A. So i would say, towing the glider won't be a problem. All the aircrafts can be modified to tow the glider

Quoted from "snip"

I also have a question about the cost of the design, seeing as the Il-32 (which Bruce pointed out this aircraft is almost a verbatim copy of) was made out of aluminium. I would also note that said Il-32 only flew in 1948 which would place it outside the +3 rule if it sees service in a 1943 opp.

Have i mentioned, the glider is made out of aluminium ? NO .... so i see no problem introducing this aircraft in 1943 !!!

The mere fact that the four aircraft in question are four-engine designs does not automatically make them suitable towing aircraft for a glider weighing as much as yours. I have grave doubts that the Fw205 and either Piaggio design have sufficient reserve horsepower to adequately lift and tow the glider; the Ju390A may have sufficient reserve horsepower, but the numbers available to you are very small. All are in fact civil airliners, and would require much modification before being useful tow aircraft, if that were possible.

As to the question of construction of the glider, your design - both drawing and characteristics - are taken directly from the Ilyushin Il-32 design. It is therefore reasonable for an observer to conclude that the construction of the glider follows that of the Il-32, otherwise some of the characteristics - particularly the weight - of the design would differ Substitution of wood for aluminum would likely increase the weight or otherwise adversely impact the design. You do not seem to have taken this into account.

Well, the weights you use (which are identical to the Il-32) would suggest that it is made out of Aliminium. If it is not Aluminium, then it is going to be a lot heavier than the 9600 kg/16600 kg you posted.

Having looked at the Il-32 on wiki, I am not sure if the engines on the FW-200, P.108C, P.126C and L5N1 are powerful enough to get an Aluminium version of this plane into the air. You'll probably need 2000+++ hp to do so. The Russian planes that were planned to pull the Il-32 had 4x ~2500hp engines. A non-Aluminium plane would probably need more power than that.

The Ju-390A might probably do, but using the search option here reveals nothing so does it even exist at this moment? And if it does, has Germany delivered it to China? That I also cannot find. None of the planes you mentioned I could find in the Chinese encyclopedia.

If the specs are taken so directly from the IL-32, did you receive AdmK's permission to use the design?

Quoted from "Rooijen10"

The Ju-390A might probably do, but using the search option here reveals nothing so does it even exist at this moment? And if it does, has Germany delivered it to China? That I also cannot find. None of the planes you mentioned I could find in the Chinese encyclopedia.

Junkers did contract with Eurasia Aviation for the supply of a limited number of Ju390A civil airliners; deliveries were interrupted in the wake of China's departure from the League of Nations, but a small number of aircraft wee delivered.

Okay. The reason that I could not find it was because I was looking for "Ju-390" and not "Ju390"...

The thing is that I expect the historical 6-engined Ju-390 to be able to do it. Seeing the WW version, I'm not so sure. Probably if it was the Aluminium version...

BTW, what do you call a "small number"?

Quoted from "Rooijen10"

Okay. The reason that I could not find it was because I was looking for "Ju-390" and not "Ju390"...

The thing is that I expect the historical 6-engined Ju-390 to be able to do it. Seeing the WW version, I'm not so sure. Probably if it was the Aluminium version...

BTW, what do you call a "small number"?

IIRC the original order for Eurasia was on the order of a dozen aircraft; deliveries might have amounted to six before the stoppage. Even had they all been delivered, it would have been a small number. China was not granted a manufacturing license for the type.

First i have to say - i will not offend anyone and also didn't make a reproach to anyone personally - I just write my thoughts. I have long thought whether I am going to write all this, but then i decided to do it.

- Have i written that this glider is build out of alu ? NO

- Have i written the glider is in serial production and numerous are build ? NO only 10 prototypes

- Will cause the same / similar requirements to the same / similar aircraft ? YES doubtless

- Will tests show there is no ideal towing aircraft ? MAY BE

- Is it possible to tow the glider in a troika-tow like it was done in OTL with the Me-321 Gigant ? YES doubtless

- Have i the permission to use the Il-32 ? I must say, NO - but - what could the countries do which had not such a development in OTL so there is no chance to get such material ? In the eyes of some they have to use what they had in OTL without the allowing of development of anything. Will there be the same discussion if i have used an own drawing (also if it's a copy of the IL-32) with the same stats ? YES because it's China !

By the way ..... where is the discussion about this aircraft - Ripon GT-1- the heavy glider from atlantis. The pic is showing the IL-32 too. And according to the ency it's still in service and sure for some years !!! Now China is developing some years later a similar glider .... but no ... China couldn't develop it because it's a 1948 aircraft and there is no towing aircraft and and and and.........

It's really getting boring .... it looks like that everyone say NO China couldn't develop such a glider/aircraft or what else because they are all farmers and didn't develop such things in OTL. Other countries could build jet fighters without a big war shows the need of them or the shortcomings of propeller aircrafts. Where is the need to build such a fast jet aircraft when there is no fight against a Thunderbolt or Mustang or fight against a huge bomber fleet. Yes of course ..... the "legitimate fact" is, that it was built in reality at this time. But why was it built ? I'm only saying one word: WW2. Have we here at wesworld this research boost ??? NO.


Asking yourself why more and more leave the simulation or are barely here. If you are part of a certain "family", there is no or only hardly heard allegations but if you are not part of this, so everything is always in doubt.

I am sorry to say that I have less and less desire to still be part of this simulation - if you ban me beeing part of the sim, because of my thoughts i have written above, do it - life will still go on also without wesworld.

Quoted from "parador"

- Have i the permission to use the Il-32 ? I must say, NO - but -

This is the spot where I have a problem. For years now, we have generally agreed that the OTL owner of the piece of equipment must give their permission to someone who wants to use the picture or exact specs. It's not always been done, and there have been borderline cases, but it's still been the trend to respect other people's rights to their own stuff.

I don't have a particular problem with the use of a glider outside the three-year rule. We have on several occasions now allowed lower-tech aircraft (like trainer aircraft and such) to exist outside the three-year rule. I think it's reasonable for a glider to fall into that category. That's why I don't object to the Atlantean use of the IL-32 picture.
If we're shooting down the Chinese glider solely on the basis of its date, then we need to do the same for the Atlantean version to maintain a consistent stance. I don't think there's any reason to do so to either, however.

Quoted from "parador"

It's really getting boring .... it looks like that everyone say NO China couldn't develop such a glider/aircraft or what else because they are all farmers and didn't develop such things in OTL...

Asking yourself why more and more leave the simulation or are barely here. If you are part of a certain "family", there is no or only hardly heard allegations but if you are not part of this, so everything is always in doubt.

I feel compelled to point out that the grass is always greener on the other side. Personally, I have felt at different points in the past that the players of the Asian countries got a lot less flak for some of their equipment than the players of European countries. I'll say this point-blank: when you're the one feeling the heat, it feels very unfair, like you're the only one being targetted. But I don't think that is the case.

Well, to hit on a few of your points.

-As stated by others, given that the posted stats are a direct copy of the Il-32 and no information was provided to the contrary we are well within our bounds to asume that the plane is built out of aluminium. Also, when you then add that it is not, we have the right to talk about how that change would effect the performance figures.

-Its not the number that prompted our initial concern, its that the design was posted without a period for public comment.

-There is a difference between basing stats off of similar aircraft to ensure realistic performance figures and outright copying them. This is compounded by the fact that you admit you did not ask permission to use the aircraft.

-It may be posible to get them airborne, but I dont think they are any airframes that can currently do it solo. The Soviets tried the mutli-tow plane approach and did not continue, hence our scepticisem that the solution would work.

-The Atlantian design you reference is just a picture, no stats only a "Under Development" note, on a post that has not been updated since 2009. I do not feel this is a comparable situation.

Problem with Atlantis is that there are a lot of "placeholder" posts and I am pretty sure that that post with the Ripon GT-1 was edited later with that stuff. Problem is that Wes is a mod and any changes he makes to posts are not indicated below like with the normal members so it is really impossible to see what he 's doing and when. He could have put it in there a month ago and you would not know it when looking at the post. I've never seen it before in the Atlantean encyclopedia but I am pretty sure that it was not posted back in 2009 as the date of the post suggests.

I would like to ask Wes to delete all those "placeholder" posts so when you add something to the encyclopedia, we can see what is being added.



I don't see a problem with using stats without permission. These are just numbers and I find it ridiculous to say "you can't use those numbers". I can understand it when using the picture of something though (one reason why I try to alter pictures).

I am also not sure why you bothered to upload the pic to photobucket while you could easily have linked the wikipedia picture.

(edit: test)
(edit 2: does not seem to work and it is hard to see what I am currently typing....)

Comparing some gliders:

Me321 Gigant (wood & textile):
Weight: 18,63 t empty
payload: 22 t
Length: 28,60 m
Hight: 10,15 m
Wingspan: 55 m


Hamilcar (wood & textile):
Length 20,73 m
Hight 6,17 m
Wingspan 33,50 m
Wingarea 153,98 m²
empty weight 8.346 kg
total weight 16.329 kg


Chinese glider / Il-32:
Length: 24.84 m (81 ft 6 in)
Wingspan: 35.8 m (117 ft 5 in)
Wing area: 159.5 m2 (1716.84 ft2)
Empty weight: 9600 kg (21,164 lb)
Gross weight: 16,600 kg (36,597 lb) each each


=> comparing with the dimensions and weight of the Hamilcar i would say the chinese glider needn't to build like the OTL IL-32 completely out of aluminium

And the Hamilcar was towed by Lancaster, Halifax or Stirling-bombers. So sure the chinese glider could be towed by chinese heavy bombers.


But may be some of you have other opinions.

If it is built out of wood, its going to be heavier. The (relative) closeness in weight comes from the difference in build materials. I think that the difference in weight between aluminium and wood-fabric construction would lead to the Chinese plane not being able to be pulled by heavy bombers of that sort, at least with any sort of load.

Quoted from "Rooijen10"

Problem with Atlantis is that there are a lot of "placeholder" posts and I am pretty sure that that post with the Ripon GT-1 was edited later with that stuff. Problem is that Wes is a mod and any changes he makes to posts are not indicated below like with the normal members so it is really impossible to see what he 's doing and when. He could have put it in there a month ago and you would not know it when looking at the post. I've never seen it before in the Atlantean encyclopedia but I am pretty sure that it was not posted back in 2009 as the date of the post suggests.

I would like to ask Wes to delete all those "placeholder" posts so when you add something to the encyclopedia, we can see what is being added.

I agree with this request.

Quoted from "Rooijen10"

I don't see a problem with using stats without permission. These are just numbers and I find it ridiculous to say "you can't use those numbers". I can understand it when using the picture of something though (one reason why I try to alter pictures).

(edit: test completed, Walter!)

Generally agreed; I have less concern about the stats than the pictures. When I 'borrow' specs, I tend to go find two similar things and then calculate an average of their specs (rounding numbers where necessary). That way I'm not using the exact specs, but I'm getting close to something that's real.

Looking at my copy of 'OKB Ilyushin';
It was designed as expendable and therefore of basic construction for mass production.
The first prototype was towed by an Il-12 airliner (2x1850hp TO-rating) with the Il-32 at a reduced all-up weight. Eventually the Il-18 (4x 2,720hp TO rating ASh-73TK) was used enabling a towing speed of 203mph at 9,840ft (327 km/h at 3000m) with an all-up weight of 16,000kg. However, the USSR did not put the Il-18 into production, the planned Tu-75 was some way off and the Tu-70 had not been put into production and the Tu-4 was in too few numbers to spare. Experiments were made to see if towing the Il-32 behind two Il-12D transports in extremely tight formation were feasible by testing two Li-2 with a Tsybin Ts-25 glider. Then close formation flights with Il-12Ds were tried without a glider but it was clear piloting was difficult and it was risky. Therefore the Il-32 was abandoned.

There was a proposal to fit two ASh-82F radials to the Il-32 to create the self-propelled Il-34, sharing the concept of the British Hamilicar X. A tail turret would have been added too.

So I feel the tug issue is serious and multiple towing might not work, and if its wood the weight will be higher than the Il-32 stats. You need around 10,500hp I'd say to have a reasonable chance in the cruise and perhaps 11,500-12,000hp for take-off with maximum payload. The Me 321 had a freaky He-111Z tug and I think building such tugs is probably wasteful. I don't forsee serious problems turning an Ju-390 into a tug but you would need some structural mods around the tail, perhaps some reinforcement in the fuselage and of course removal of civil fittings. But that kind of combo makes a huge and slow AA and fighter target.
If 7,000kg payload isn't critical you could consider the 3,500kg payload Yak-14 which could be towed behind an Il-12D easily and which you could build in bigger numbers. Your battle experiences with the ten prototypes might lead you to a smaller design anyway...

Hamilcar (total): 16329 kg

Chinese (total): 16600 kg (I say for certain reason here not IL-32)

Hamilcar was towed by heavy bombers. The chinese couldn't ????



For the original IL-32 you are surely right, Wes. If the speed is the problem .... i have NO problem to reduce it ... the Hamilcar was towed with 240 km/h so i will sure reduce it to this.

If the plane is made out of aluminium, then that weight argument is possible (however OTL clearly shows it does not hold water). If you are changing the construction material then it is not valid at all as wood+fabric is heavier then aluminium by a significant margin.

Did the Il-32 have an aluminium fuselage? I've seen that said on wiki, quoted from a 1995 book but Yefim Gordon's Ilyushin OKB makes no mention of aluminium construction and given the specification comparison with the Hamilcar and the expendable design of the Il-32 (and the shortage of aluminium for aircraft use even in 194 it seems odd the Soviets would use aluminium and the weights seem too similar to me and I can't see much weight saving if the Il-32 was part aluminium (since the wings would be wooden anyway) over the all-wood Hamilcar.

I think what killed the Il-32 in the USSR was the lack of a suitable bomber, they had nothing comparable to the Halifax or Lancaster in production. If China has four-engine bombers with 6,000-6,500hp then it should be doable, BUT, I'm sure I've read somewhere that the RAF tugs had high cruising hp which would lead to faster wear and tear on the engines. The Soviets seemed to be heading for bigger B-29 class tugs rather than older Stirlings or Halifaxs etc. in terms of performance.

Don't take this as an attack Parador, I'm getting intrigued into facts behind these gliders and tugs and such, this thread is probably going to be educational for everyone in the end.