coolest "name" for aircraft

[Soviet Ace]

Originally Posted by Vulcan607

But radials were outdated technology.
oh course folk this is all in the name of fun

Well there are really just one Radial engine, that the La's used. But there are two makers. First there was the La-5 with just a plain old M-82 Radial engine, fuel injected (this is 42' so it was more common than in the 30s.) After the La-5F which was just a higher RPM M-82, named the M-82 Engine. The La-5FN came out, which was a M-82FN radial engine. Once again the RPM was just increased, and the engine was lightened for better performance.

Once the La-7 came out, a new developer took charge and it became the ASh-82 radial engine. Which once more was just a M-82FN lightened even more, and higher RPMs. (history less over. )

And everyone knows Russia in general likes keeping things simple. And Radial engines are probably one of the simplest engines out there. lol

[Vulcan607]

Originally Posted by Soviet Ace

Well there are really just one Radial engine, that the La's used. But there are two makers. First there was the La-5 with just a plain old M-82 Radial engine, fuel injected (this is 42' so it was more common than in the 30s.) After the La-5F which was just a higher RPM M-82, named the M-82 Engine. The La-5FN came out, which was a M-82FN radial engine. Once again the RPM was just increased, and the engine was lightened for better performance.

Once the La-7 came out, a new developer took charge and it became the ASh-82 radial engine. Which once more was just a M-82FN lightened even more, and higher RPMs. (history less over. )

And everyone knows Russia in general likes keeping things simple. And Radial engines are probably one of the simplest engines out there. lol

Thats all fine and dandy but its still not a rolls royce.

[Panzergranate]

Both the Hurricane and Spitfire had something that the Yak and the LaGG didn't have..... armour plating behind the pilot's seat and a firewall between the cockpit and the fuel tank.

The I-i53 ahd a terrible reputation for the airflow blowing through the undercarriage well turning the cockpit into a blast furnace when the non-self sealing or armoured fuel tanks caught fire. It is because of this that Soviet pilots never felw with the canopy cover ftted, as they needed to escape in a hurry when hit.

[Vulcan607]

Originally Posted by Panzergranate

Both the Hurricane and Spitfire had something that the Yak and the LaGG didn't have..... armour plating behind the pilot's seat and a firewall between the cockpit and the fuel tank.

The I-i53 ahd a terrible reputation for the airflow blowing through the undercarriage well turning the cockpit into a blast furnace when the non-self sealing or armoured fuel tanks caught fire. It is because of this that Soviet pilots never felw with the canopy cover ftted, as they needed to escape in a hurry when hit.

I take it this continues from mine and soviets discussion.

[Ancient Seraph]

Originally Posted by Vulcan607

I take it this continues from mine and soviets discussion.

Most of Panzergranate's posts involve randomly spewing historical info. Not always relevant.

[Vulcan607]

Originally Posted by Ancient Seraph

Most of Panzergranate's posts involve randomly spewing historical info. Not always relevant.

Thats not neccisarily a bad thing.

[Soviet Ace]

Originally Posted by Panzergranate

Both the Hurricane and Spitfire had something that the Yak and the LaGG didn't have..... armour plating behind the pilot's seat and a firewall between the cockpit and the fuel tank.

The I-153 ahd a terrible reputation for the airflow blowing through the undercarriage well turning the cockpit into a blast furnace when the non-self sealing or armoured fuel tanks caught fire. It is because of this that Soviet pilots never felw with the canopy cover ftted, as they needed to escape in a hurry when hit.

Actually, later LaGG-3s did have armor plating, but only experimental versions did, but the pilots didn't like it because it restricted their view. Second, the Yaks didn't need armor plating behind the pilot because they had bullet proof glass behind them. Which the La's also had, and LaGG-3s of later types.

And that's not the only reason I-153 Chaika pilots had their canopy open. But also because it gave them a better view, and they weren't restricted by the canopy. And it was only a a couple of types of I-153s that had canopies. Most were open cockpit like the I-16s.

Originally Posted by Vulcan607

I take it this continues from mine and soviets discussion.

That was a good discussion.

[Vulcan607]

Originally Posted by Soviet Ace

That was a good discussion.

Yeah i would have called it an argument but it was more freindly.
more of a gentlemans disagreement.

[Soviet Ace]

Originally Posted by Vulcan607

Yeah i would have called it an argument but it was more freindly.
more of a gentlemans disagreement.

Well I don't know about you. But I wasn't arguing. More like you said a gentleman's disagreement. But it was like me an FOZ, no real anger or anything. Just friendly rivalry.

Oh and Yak-3 wins every time.

[FOZ_1983]

Originally Posted by Panzergranate

Both the Hurricane and Spitfire had something that the Yak and the LaGG didn't have..... armour plating behind the pilot's seat and a firewall between the cockpit and the fuel tank. Ok im not sure how this fits in with the "engine" or "cool name" but erm.... thanks?

The I-i53 ahd a terrible reputation for the airflow blowing through the undercarriage well turning the cockpit into a blast furnace when the non-self sealing or armoured fuel tanks caught fire. It is because of this that Soviet pilots never felw with the canopy cover ftted, as they needed to escape in a hurry when hit.What exactly does this have to do with the yak/lag spitfire/hurricane?? or "cool name"??

Panzer, yet again you confuse me with completely random talk lol.