Beyond The Sprues
Modelling => Ideas & Inspiration => Aero-space => Topic started by: dy031101 on August 13, 2018, 02:56:01 AM
-
'Always thought of the Il-42/102 as sort of an "ugly-cute" machine. Many publications I've come across that mentioned the Il-102 would concentrate on laughing at it for having a tail gun, and it did lose out to the Su-25 for Soviet mass-production, but judging from what little I was able to find, the aircraft itself isn't bad.
What-if Polish machine. With LRMTS in the nose.
More HERE (http://adolfoalfonzo.blogspot.com/2010/11/ilyushin-il-102.html). I do not speak the language, however, so I have next to no idea about the text.
-
The use of a tail gun and gunner in a close support aircraft should not be overlooked. The Soviets in Afghanistan found that when they used their older Il-28 Beagle bombers for close air support, they tended to suffer fewer casualties than the more modern Su-7 aircraft. They put it down to the rear gunner being able to suppress ground fire after the aircraft had passed overhead. So, it's not as silly an idea as it first appears...
-
The use of a tail gun and gunner in a close support aircraft should not be overlooked. The Soviets in Afghanistan found that when they used their older Il-28 Beagle bombers for close air support, they tended to suffer fewer casualties than the more modern Su-7 aircraft. They put it down to the rear gunner being able to suppress ground fire after the aircraft had passed overhead. So, it's not as silly an idea as it first appears...
Yup! Keeps the guy with the Stinger ducking for cover, rather than aiming & firing. :smiley:
-
The use of a tail gun and gunner in a close support aircraft should not be overlooked. The Soviets in Afghanistan found that when they used their older Il-28 Beagle bombers for close air support, they tended to suffer fewer casualties than the more modern Su-7 aircraft. They put it down to the rear gunner being able to suppress ground fire after the aircraft had passed overhead. So, it's not as silly an idea as it first appears...
Yup! Keeps the guy with the Stinger ducking for cover, rather than aiming & firing. :smiley:
Stinger's (and Blowpipe's) value was more moral than material. There was never a single aircraft reported to be hit by either missile system. The Mujihadeen weren't very well trained and tended to fire them either too early or too late to actually hit the targets they were aimed at. The DShK and other MGs were much more effective weapons, stationed on the high ridges, firing down on the aircraft as they attacked their targets in the valleys. What the MANPADS did was force the attacking aircraft to release their bombs higher, with less accuracy as nervous pilots didn't press home their attacks as well as they should have.
-
For some reason I like the look of that aircraft. Anigrand do a kit of it (or they did a kit of it)
-
'Always thought of the Il-42/102 as sort of an "ugly-cute" machine. Many publications I've come across that mentioned the Il-102 would concentrate on laughing at it for having a tail gun, and it did lose out to the Su-25 for Soviet mass-production, but judging from what little I was able to find, the aircraft itself isn't bad.
In that case my friend, I give you this:
https://youtu.be/M6l6dHosCWs
M.A.D
-
I found this very interesting - re the IL-102:
"By 1982, Ilyushin had completed 2 prototypes under private funding and re-attempted pitching the IL-102 to the Russian military through completing costs assessments and 372 demonstration sorties. The results came out to that when compared to the Su-25, the IL-102 costed less to build & maintain, was heavier (by ~10,000lbs) but better armored, had more redundancy built-in structurally, and could carry 3,800kg more offensive ordinance. Despite all these benefits, none were ordered and the IL-102 failed to enter mass-production."
Also of interest is the following scaled drawing comparing the difference in size between the IL-102 and the Su-25, and for that matter, the A-10!!
M.A.D