Jump to content


Il-16 (VIII), Il-28 (IX) & Il-30 (X)


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
16 replies to this topic

PressureLine #1 Posted 08 December 2013 - 12:03 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Open Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 840
  • [FTE] FTE
  • Member since:
    07-31-2012

As we all know, the USSR GA line splits after the Il-2(t) into the Il-8 and the Il-10. I want to carry the split further, all the way to the top.

 

I would continue the Il-8 => Il-20 => Il-40 => Il-40P progression and add in:

 

Researched from the Il-10:

 

VIII: Ilyushin Il-16

Essentially a scaled-down version of the Ilyushin Il-10, fitted with a Mikulin AM-43NV engine. Never produced due to problems with the engine.

 

IX: Il-28 (NATO: Beagle)

This also came in an attack variant, the 'Il-28 Sh'. Fitted with 12 underwing pylons for rocket pods.

 

Well liked by aircrews in Afghanistan, because after a low level pass the tailgunner could use his guns to 'discourage' anyone from breaking cover to make a man-portable SAM attack on the plane.

 

IX: Il-30

A swept-wing version of the Il-28 with more powerful engines and bicycle undercarriage. Given that the Il-28 Sh was reasonably  successful, one would imagine that an Sh version of this would be produced too.

 

Comment?

Thoughts?


Edited by PressureLine, 14 December 2013 - 10:27 PM.


Heh #2 Posted 08 December 2013 - 12:04 AM

    Sky Whale Historian

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 11,960
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
I have a few objections when it comes to mutating the sky whales.
Heh - aeromarine biologist

View Posthahiha, on , said:


OMG Heh you have had so many posts O_O

PressureLine #3 Posted 08 December 2013 - 12:09 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Open Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 840
  • [FTE] FTE
  • Member since:
    07-31-2012
Care to explain?

Heh #4 Posted 08 December 2013 - 12:34 AM

    Sky Whale Historian

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 11,960
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostPressureLine, on 08 December 2013 - 12:09 AM, said:

Care to explain?

 

Don't supersize them please. You're turning them into flying plesiosaurs.


Heh - aeromarine biologist

View Posthahiha, on , said:


OMG Heh you have had so many posts O_O

PressureLine #5 Posted 08 December 2013 - 01:29 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Open Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 840
  • [FTE] FTE
  • Member since:
    07-31-2012
Physically the Il-28 isn't that large, slightly (~1 metre) longer than the Fw 57, and 3.5m shorrter wingspan. Significantly heavier though [about as heavy as an Il-40/40P] (and dat payload... up to 192x57mm S-5 rockets on the wings, in 12x16 tube launchers)

Nelson2011 #6 Posted 08 December 2013 - 02:00 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Alpha tester
  • 0 battles
  • 65
  • [BULBA] BULBA
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
Ha all those rockets would be fun.... but probably expensive..

Tunnel_Snakes_Rule #7 Posted 08 December 2013 - 04:37 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 33
  • [LABS] LABS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
Who needs accuracy when you have almost 200 rockets to hit things with? I like the look of the swept wing IL-30, mmm mmm. Apart from the obvious extra ordinance, what differences between the two lines would there be? If it's coming off the il-10, would they potentially be faster/climb better than the other line, at least without LOLrockets? Hoho, wikipedia says the IL-30 was supposed to be armed with 6 23mm's, that sounds delightful.

Edited by DrLunchmeat, 08 December 2013 - 04:39 AM.


PressureLine #8 Posted 08 December 2013 - 05:10 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Open Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 840
  • [FTE] FTE
  • Member since:
    07-31-2012

The full ordinance load for the Il-28 Sh is a little *cough* excessive. What I think would be best is to have a pair of 250kg or 500kg bombs on the inner two pylons, and either 10xROFS-132 or 80xS-5 rockets (in 10xORO-57K 8 tube launchers)

 

The 6x23mm on the Il-30 were arranged as follows:

2x23mm NR-23 in the nose

2x23mm NR-23 in the tail

and

2x23mm NR-23 in a dorsal turret just behind the pilot

 

The idea of the line is to be more of a 'strike' line with better speed/maneuver, but less cannon power and armor (the Il-28 was a tactical bomber, and the Sh conversion was just the pylons, no extra armor [afaik]) than the Il-40 line.



pyantoryng #9 Posted 08 December 2013 - 06:10 AM

    Colonel

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 2146 battles
  • 8,433
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
57mm rockets...this much could turn it into something useful, because R4Ms aren't very useful and it got only 24 to spew out...

WoWP makes a great jousting game...especially with the 262 and people busy in furballs...
I am deaf, silent, and fly with unrealistic controls. Do not count on me to carry - my back's already broken from overweight.

PressureLine #10 Posted 08 December 2013 - 06:39 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Open Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 840
  • [FTE] FTE
  • Member since:
    07-31-2012

The ARS-57/S-5 has double the warhead weight of an R4M (1.1kg vs ~0.5kg) so it could easily have double the damage (300, vs 150 for an R4M and 450 for an RS-82) which with 80 rockets would be good for 24000 damage.

 

In saying that, you would still need to launch 50 to kill a tier X HQ, or 10 to kill a tier X AA gun (without using your nose cannons), which makes 80 seem a little lacklustre, but should be ok when combined with 2x500kg bombs and cannon use when appropriate



JDMFreakz #11 Posted 08 December 2013 - 09:17 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 106 battles
  • 1,654
  • Member since:
    10-20-2012
not sure if whale, or brontosaurus line.

 


PressureLine #12 Posted 08 December 2013 - 09:22 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Open Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 840
  • [FTE] FTE
  • Member since:
    07-31-2012

Again, the Il-28 is not that big, its only a few meters longer in wingspan, and only a little bit heavier (when carrying it's maximum 3000kg bomb load, those 1st gen nukes were heavy) than an IL-40. Its actually smaller than the Fw 57!

 

I'd go with it being the "More rockets than an episode of Macross" line.



JDMFreakz #13 Posted 10 December 2013 - 01:11 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 106 battles
  • 1,654
  • Member since:
    10-20-2012

View PostPressureLine, on 08 December 2013 - 04:22 PM, said:

Again, the Il-28 is not that big, its only a few meters longer in wingspan, and only a little bit heavier (when carrying it's maximum 3000kg bomb load, those 1st gen nukes were heavy) than an IL-40. Its actually smaller than the Fw 57!

 

I'd go with it being the "More rockets than an episode of Macross" line.

 

Uh oh, the camera angle make it looks freakingly huge lol


 


PressureLine #14 Posted 11 December 2013 - 04:17 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Open Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 840
  • [FTE] FTE
  • Member since:
    07-31-2012

Photos totally not to scale!



pyantoryng #15 Posted 11 December 2013 - 12:16 PM

    Colonel

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 2146 battles
  • 8,433
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

So...will this line lack AM-23 if it does get implemented?

 

...and IL-28's twin tail gun will be compensated by the only two guns on its nose?

 



WoWP makes a great jousting game...especially with the 262 and people busy in furballs...
I am deaf, silent, and fly with unrealistic controls. Do not count on me to carry - my back's already broken from overweight.

PressureLine #16 Posted 12 December 2013 - 04:54 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Open Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 840
  • [FTE] FTE
  • Member since:
    07-31-2012

1) Hard to say, since the Il-30 never finished trials as the project was canned, but to be a proper contender for tier X it's probably going to need them.

 

2) That and the utterly insane ordinance payload



JDMFreakz #17 Posted 13 December 2013 - 09:47 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 106 battles
  • 1,654
  • Member since:
    10-20-2012

View PostPressureLine, on 11 December 2013 - 11:17 AM, said:

Photos totally not to scale!

 

objects looks bigger if captured from below, and smaller from upside.


 





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users