Performance data for VVS aircraft?

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

One has be careful with Soviet data. What was achieved under test conditions was not necessarily obtained with what came out the factory door to operational units.

That could be said about any nation's air force. Bullet holes, patches, dust, dents, grass stuck in rivets, poor mainenance, bad gaskets, all of these things will cause a degradation in performance. I very much doubt that BOB-era spitfires and hurricanes were in the same polished condition as Supermarine's test aircraft were.

Everything I've read indicates Soviet workmanship problems were largely solved by mid-war, particularly when it came to fit and finish of the aircraft bodies.

[Al Schlageter]

How many a/c came out of the factory door with bullet holes, patches, dust, dents, grass stuck in rivets, poor maintenance, bad gaskets etc, etc, etc?

[CaptainDoggles]

I don't understand your point. You were saying test data was often different from what was used operationally. I was outlining many ways by which that condition could occur. Who gives a XXXX how they come out of the factory?

First of all I don't subscribe to the belief that a majority of soviet aircraft were of awful quality. I am sure the early Soviet designs had workmanship problems but I believe the extent to which those flaws pervaded has been overstated/exaggerated. I suspect that is a Germanic superiority myth started during the war and perpetuated in the West during the Cold War. What really matters in terms of a long conflict is serviceability rates and if you look at the winter of 42/43 the Soviets actually had better serviceability rates than the Germans. That tells me they didn't have wings falling off left right and center.

Secondly if we're going to be receiving La 5's as per some other threads I've seen then we're in the mid war, by which point the Soviet production issues were largely corrected. Therefore your entire argument is moot and I see no point in continuing the discussion.

[Sven]

Who gives a XXXX how they come out of the factory?

Yeah I know right, not that the actual crates came from factories, no way man, I heard they grew from the LA-5 tree in Eastern Siberia.

Editing of certain 'numbers' by the government in the USSR was not uncommon (post-war mostly). The whole FM thing is so complicated the guy over at developers studio must have nightmares from it.

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by Sven

Yeah I know right, not that the actual crates came from factories, no way man, I heard they grew from the LA-5 tree in Eastern Siberia.

I bet they were actually flown from the factory to the front line in many cases. My point is that what comes out of the factory is not necessarily what is fighting, regardless of which air force we're discussing. You think no Spitfires or Bf 109s were damaged between factory and operational airbase?

Editing of certain 'numbers' by the government in the USSR was not uncommon (post-war mostly). The whole FM thing is so complicated the guy over at developers studio must have nightmares from it.

Whatever. I'm looking for as many different sets of numbers as possible. The truth will come out. You can enjoy your conspiracy theory about how the Soviets edited their documents post hoc.

[JG52Karaya]

From my experience of looking at Soviet test data, the most important thing is to differentiate between testing of serial produced aircraft and so called "etalon" production standard setters, the latter usually being way better than anything that ever came out of a factory to front lines units and thus being completely unrepresentative.

[Korn]

Soviet aircraft had notoriously bad manufacturing standards, especially early in the war when they needed many machines fast. Much more so then any other country. So differences between a test plane and a real fighting plane could be huge, depending on batch and even on an individual basis.

Also the commie propaganda machines would make sure to crank up to numbers for "morale".

Sorry for my poor english, i'm in a hurry.

[VO101_Tom]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

I don't understand your point. You were saying test data was often different from what was used operationally. I was outlining many ways by which that condition could occur. Who gives a XXXX how they come out of the factory?

First of all I don't subscribe to the belief that a majority of soviet aircraft were of awful quality. I am sure the early Soviet designs had workmanship problems but I believe the extent to which those flaws pervaded has been overstated/exaggerated. I suspect that is a Germanic superiority myth started during the war and perpetuated in the West during the Cold War. What really matters in terms of a long conflict is serviceability rates and if you look at the winter of 42/43 the Soviets actually had better serviceability rates than the Germans. That tells me they didn't have wings falling off left right and center.

Secondly if we're going to be receiving La 5's as per some other threads I've seen then we're in the mid war, by which point the Soviet production issues were largely corrected. Therefore your entire argument is moot and I see no point in continuing the discussion.

I do not want to argue with this, there were reasons like this certainly. But there are so interesting reports :


"— You accomplished one mission, and were sent to Gorkii, and then regiment was pulled back. How long did it last?

I returned from Gorkii, fought for some time and then we were pulled out. We came there at winter time, and by spring we were at 3rd Pribaltiiskii Front, there we were based near French “Normandia”. «Normandia» was formed in Tula, they flew Yaks, we La-5s. And we had not a regiment formed, but whole division. Division commander Colonel Andreev was a friend of Marshal Novikov. We received La-5 airplanes at Gorkii plant, new ones.


— Did you have a possibility to choose airplanes?

Yes. They stood in rows — choose any one you would like. I bought my plane for a pack of cigarettes. A boy said to me:
— Man, for cigarettes I’ll show you best airplanes. Go over there, planes there are excellent! They, — he said, — are made of dry wood, from pre-war stocks.
He showed me:
— This one, number 25.
Airplane I got was a good one, but engines were assembled by children, and when we ferried airplanes from Gorkii, one cylinder fell off almost completely. I was covered by hot oil, and flew over Volga, while commander talked to me over radio:
— Hold on, Serezha, hold on, hold on, my dear friend. Hold on, if you will fall here, you will drown.
I made it to base, engine did not stall, but I landed soaked in oil. When engine cowl was opened, two cylinder heads were almost completely torn off…"

Source:
Interview with Sergei Isakovich Nasilevec, VVS research page