The Ground-Attacker That Couldn't Attack: Ilyushin Il-40
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 июн 2023
- In this video, we talk about the Soviet-made Ilyushin Il-40, a post-World War II ground-attack aircraft with a rather unique double barrel look and a rather unique problem in that it couldn't use the weaponry it had. We discuss why the plane was designed in this fashion, how it evolved to solve its weaponry issue, how the project failed, and even how the project was unexpectedly revived.
![Jordan Adetunji - KEHLANI REMIX (feat. Kehlani) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EeJ8n5PxFGE/mqdefault.jpg)
I’d say Attack would actually be the second most important aspect for a combat aircraft.
The most important aspect being “fly”
Dammit, you beat me to it
Yeah, that was my answer too. Beat me to it.
no no no! this is a cleverly designed decoy, to be allowed to fall into the enemy hands so as to confuse them and lower their guard...
Yeah I was thinking that too. Pretty important.
flying is part of attacking.
Most importantly it must fly! There are many aircraft that didn’t even do that very well.
To split hairs I would argue that any Aircraft that did not fly is actually a “Terracraft” and if it never moved then it’s a paperweightcraft
Exactly
@@xgford94 ...no.., because a hot air balloon is an aircraft but it floats.
I was about to say the same
@@RobinsVoyageit does not fly, it fools around like a jellyfish in the sky 💀
What is the most important thing a military combat aircraft needs to be able to do?
Being able to fly seems to me to be the obvious answer.
Or maybe it can drive around killing people like that Stuka from Carmageddon 2.
Ground attack F-104 drag racer
totally didn't copy the "flying being most important capability from another comment . . ."
@@BufferThunder Almost half the comments here are that, get off your high horse
@@TheWhoamaters bruh this ain't the wild west, calm your britches cowboy.
@@BufferThunder Totally didn't copy your letter, sentence structure, grammar and vocabulary from the english language 💀
With the il102 in the 80s Ilyushin tried to return to the business of constructing battle planes. Only problem was: the Su-25 was already in service.
Well, if you dive a little bit deeper, the state competition for the new attack craft started in the 70s, but since the sukhoi bureau was working on an attack plane since 1956(!), By the time the design inspection phase of the competition came, while the Ilyushin bureau presented some blueprints, the Sukhoi just rolled up with a flying prototype, and immediately secured the competition. That's why the il-102 first flew in 1982,even though the su-25 was put into service in 1981.
I have no idea how good the IL-102 may or may not have been, but I'm guessing that if it managed to be beat by the fucking Frogfoot of all things, it must have really been a hunk of junk. Also wild that even in the 80s there were still banking on the exact same design philosophy they used for the IL-2. I know that plane is iconic and all, but come on. It's a 40 year old design.
@@joaogomes9405 Not really, at least on paper, the IL-102's flight characteristics were moderately superior, and its' max payload was better, too. Also, obvious bait, but I'll bite: what's wrong with the Frogfoot? Seems like an alright plane to me, even in comparison to the A-10.
@@joaogomes9405 "if it managed to be beat by the fucking Frogfoot of all things, it must have really been a hunk of junk"
That sounds very delusional and ignorantly stupid considering how effective the Su-25 has shown itself to be in the REAL world.
And how many western aircraft do you know that is capable of flying 6, even 8 missions per day?
Oh right, doesn't exist.
@@joaogomes9405SU25 is great aircraft.There is nothing wrong with it even today
It took a long time to figure out boundry layer aerodynamics and intake design. Its why the 50s projects were some of the most fascinating
The ill-fated Supermarine Swift suffered from the same gun problem. When an early varient had two extra Aden Cannons bunged on, they were mounted right at the nose. Result? As with the Il-40: flame- ut for every burst of gunfire! I found this out from a neighbour who is now 90 and who did his National Service with a Swift squadron!
Modern fighter jets have a counter measure for it thats pretty simple. They have extra igniters that act as a backup, but also they all fire off when the gun is fired
@@invertedv12powerhouse77 Actually, what most fighters do is simply have the muzzle located behind where the engine intakes are. When this isn't possible, yes, the igniters do fire when the trigger is pulled.
@@anzaca1 its also with the hip station missiles they fire when the rocket gas can enter the intake yeah.
It looks like something straight outta Pre-war Fallout
Interesting that they kept the tailgun. The Navy's BuAero had determined that a tailgun and gunner were obsolete by the mid '40s. Both the Douglas AD-1 Skyraider and Martin AM-1 Mauler were designed as single-seaters early in development.
Yeah, but a tail gun is just cool.
@Derrick Cox OK, Yeah. And a remote tail gun is even cooler. But is it worth the C/G penalty?
Also, the USN had zero ZEKES to worry about as interceptors at that point.
The Red Air Force had NATO.
Some of the B-52 bombers still in service have tail gunners. I believe the last recorded tail gunner kill by a US bomber was in Vietnam against a MiG-21
@@fate3071 B52's tail gunners were all decommissioned. They removed them from all active B52s in service. the last airman that had the designation of rear tail gunner left the service in the 90s.
On bombers, there are no more tail gunners. We still have them on helicopters. Many old B-52 tail gunners moved to helicopters in the early 90s. Some as gunners, some as flight engineers.
MiG-9 can make a good company for IL-40, 'cause it wasn't able to shoot its guns without speed and altitude restrictions
Ah yes the military parade only plane.
Elbonian Air Force idea?
Yeah, I remember watching a video on that one. Having a fighter aircraft which can't fight means you just built a target.
@@dx1450 Paper Skies?
F86 Sabre: Nothing can scare me!
Meanwhile IL-40 with a sawed-off double barrel shotgun: 😏
I’m loving this channel, just working my way through each episode. Well researched, well narrated, with bone dry humour. Love it! Thanks!
Dude, I’ve never heard of this thing. It’s so badass wtf… u earned that subscriber
I really like the Il-102, it's a shame that they never put it into production. It's the true definition of a "flying tank". 😊👍
I wouldn’t be surprised if some African country decides to buy some.
@@JohnGeorgeBauerBuis That something Ilushin hoped for in the yearly 90s
Just wanted to say, your logo got me to subscribe. I get a chuckle every time I see it.
Very underrated channel. Hope you get to 10k soon!
Nice work man! You deserve more subs 😎👌
I honestly thought from the sketches, that the wings could collapse in on themselves. That would make storage and transport of them easier!
Those are wing fences, which are devices that help control the airflow to reduce stall issues.
what is the most important thing a military combat aircraft needs to be able to do?
fly, obviously! it would just be an oddly shaped car if it couldn't do that.
So knowing how pilots and ground crews have a way of nicknaming craft, I wonder what this thing would have been called if it had been put into full production.
Boomstick?
Shitbox
@@fallingwater I don't think the Russians had such a term. Given its ground attack role and large twin opening snout, maybe a pig joke would be in order...
@@subtlewhatssubtle Бумстик
@@fallingwater I mean that's the literal translation but I have my doubts it existed in postwar USSR...
Honestly, it looks like the most bad ass ground attacker i ever seen. The way they moved the engines forward and down doubles as protection for the Pilot and vital equipment.
I don't know why but the first line got a song stuck on my head.
"Hey everyone, did the news get around bout a guy named Butcher Pete"
0:08 here is the broad answer: it must be able to complete its mission and bring the crew home intact.
Imperial Japanese Army Airforce late in WW2: "It must be able to complete its mission"
Doolittle raid was a failure then?
@@HALLish-jl5mo in one sense yes, yet the aircraft was was doing several things it was never meant to do.
@@patrickradcliffe3837 - But, it still did it's job and the Raid forced the Japanese to attack Midway so they may finally finish off the American Aircraft-Carrier threat the Imperial homeland.
@@inisipisTV the mission had the desired effect, but was not wholely successful because the aircraft was asked to several things it was not designed to.
At least it doesn't talk like a robot, and has interesting content. 😊👍
great video. subbed!
very enjoyable video
In the USSR, there was another IL-76-40 aircraft project of the early 1970s, but it was not put into production due to the high cost of manufacturing the aircraft had 2 jet engines and a variable sweep wing, the interest was that the aircraft could fly at an extremely low speed of about 90 km/h. This it was achieved by changing the angle of the wings, it looked like a butterfly, that is, there were two pairs of wings, at high speeds they took the shape of an arrow, and at low speeds it looked like reverse scissors blades were supposed to, that the aircraft will be able to deliver cargo to the military technical to hard-to-reach areas for aircraft landing
Damn that first sketch actually kinda resembles the Su-25 and could have been solid.
Very interesting video on a very strange looking plane.
I swear the IL-40 is the William Afton of military aviation. It always comes back.
Finally it was offered for sale as IL-102, but everyone preferred Su-25.
very interesting video
Soviets loved wing fences on their aircraft to prevent airflow from defecting to the wingtips.
Wow those 6 cannons actually have around the same rate of fire as two GAU-8/A rotary cannons, albeit with a smaller projectile, but that's still a lot of firepower.
Being able to fly in the first place is kind of really important, especially for an aircraft...
I wonder if that problem with exhaust gases from the cannons was what contributed to the A10 Warthog having it’s engines mounted in such a novel way?
I think it was mostly to avoid them ingesting rocks when operating from unpaved fields. It also allows lower wings, which makes re-arming easier.
Hides the exhausts from IR on the ground
I do actually wonder why this isn't a more common problem with jet aircraft?
The A-10 has/had the same problem. Gas from extended firing of the cannon would cause engine flame out. It's been taken care of.
First answer that popped into my head was "survive" then after 3 seconds of thought "protect the pilot and crew" . A bit meta maybe?
Never saw this one. Great.
I would say that the most important thing a military aircraft need to do is fly. If it can't fly, it's not an aircraft.
Exactly what I thought
The longest lived aircraft that was never taken into service?
And wow, if it could hold its own against MiG-17 like that, they really should have tried making a fighterversion of it.
Remove 3/4 of the armor and, damn, you should have a pretty darn good flier...
Re-equip it as a missile launch platform and make it the first air superiority fighter/interceptor?
This was actually a very fascinating subject...
The engine flaming out due to the guns smoke+gasses getting in sounds just like the issue with A-10 development. In that case, i think that every time the cannon is firing, the engines are continually fed spark to keep them going/reignite asap.
How did the rear gunner actually aim the rear facing autocannon? Some kinda optical tunnel system? Walking tracers only?
I believe they had simple computers by that point for aiming defensive armament. Look at the americal B-29 or italian P.108B
The Prototype looks like it was inspired by the proposed improved ME262
Most important: fulfil its role.
Wonder how the rear gunner will eject with that cable above his escape hatch and the tall vert.stabilizer some 3m. away?
Many responses say it must fly, but an aircraft wouldn't be an aircraft if it couldn't fly. I would say the most important is that the aircraft must be able to keep the flight computer (the pilot) alive, for without a pilot all else is moot.
Nuclear weapons as close ground support seems a little over the top, just how close can you drop a nuclear weapon to your own troops without actually killing them as well.
In Soviet Union, Air Fresheners are always RED, comrade!!!
Most important thing a military aircraft needs to do is get the pilot home. Planes can be replaced as easily as the factory can churn them out experienced pilots are a lot harder to come by.
The Mig-9 also had problems with the gun choking the engines, which were not satisfactorily solved.
Concorde had a similar issue at the sound barrier. Blast can be a headache.
The most important thing is that it has to be able to be used in some way!
Hello could you please do a video on the Messerschmitt me 334 or the Messerschmitt m 34?
What happened with the double barrel planes?
So you're telling me this plane initially had the same issue as the MiG-9?
I am starting to spot a certain trend in Soviet engineering...
Being cheap to build and look good in military parades!
Everything else is an optional extra that wasn’t specified!
Nobody thought of wingtip armament pods like the F89 scorpion? Cheapest fix!
What is the most important thing a military combat aircraft needs to do? Fly, unlike the Bloch 150 of the Christmas Bullet!
*or the Christmas Bullet!
The first time you said the name of the plane, your pronounciation made me understand "Illusion Il-40". What I find quite funny for that aircraft. 😆
The SU-25 was & is a great ground support aircraft
Not really. It's slow and vulnerable. Plus the gun is basically useless today. Guided weapons mean low-speed/low altitude flying isn't needed.
@@anzaca1 In your opinion
You ever wondered why the Soviets didn’t just mount the guns next to the engines like the f15?
Piston driven prop plane. Sir, do you even A2 Skyraider? That thing saved friendly downed pilot lives, took enemy lives by the bushel, and was piston driven prop plane from the end of the 40s.
It had it's greatest run in Vietnam. The 1960s. An airplane driven by air-cooled radial, was attacking and annihilating ground targets while rescuing downed pilots. It could handle all pak 1-3 targets at least, and was deadly accurate
With attack aircraft the question is: how slow can you go? A2 sub sonic, performed great tons of armor and durability
F100? Can drop willy Pete or napalm on our own guys because when you're going 800mph below 500 ft, I believe there's a chance to misidentify the target as everything in front of you is a blur
Illyushin would design some of their more successful Aircraft over the years along with Mikoyan
Every military builds ugly birds that don't perform well. Hence the needs for test pilots and the process of development of ones military technology
Attacker than can't attack. Water than can't flow. The sunrise at the west. This is such an army thing
The exhaust gas of the guns causing the engine to stutter, wasn't that the except same problem on the mig 9. (Or at least one of them)
The most important thing a military combat aircraft needs to do is the job it’s designed to do.
I’d say the most important thing a military combat aircraft needs to do is be able to fly
_What is the most important thing a military combat aircraft needs to be able to do?_
Flying. Everything else is optional and depending on its role in combat. 🙂
Most important thing a military aircraft needs to do is fly.
IL40-P...as in "Pig" as it looks like a snout! The MiG-15/17 had the same gun configuration right below the intake with the barrel in front of the intake? Did that cannon not put out enough to foul the intake?
How do jets usually avoid sucking in the gases from their own guns?
The combined rate of fire of 4800-7200 rounds per minute rivals common Gatling guns, but with a different mode of failure and wear mitigation, and a more "shotgun-like" dispersion pattern, rather than the Gatling gun's "If one round misses, they're all likely going to be off-target". It's probably heavier and requires more maintenance to have 6 individual guns, but it seems like they could also be more useful if they were pulled from the plane and mounted on "Technicals", if a given situation were to become so dire, or for a renewed life after the plane's obsolescence. The American solution, which is the M-61 Gatling gun, can really only be placed on another airplane, since it is the standard sidearm. We don't even see them using older ones that have been slowed down and put on armored vehicles for airfield defense, and the CIWS systems probably use factory fresh guns, because they must hit a smaller target, and accuracy is supercritical... Then again, the available in-field footage of CIWS in action is that they tend to run out of ammo without hitting anything, so maybe they are using "refurbished (sham scammed)" guns.
Not really much harder to maintain then 6 gsh-23. M61 compensate it by having 6 barrels and electric motor. Also gatlings have same (if not worse) shotgun pattern. Just look up ridiculously low accuracy of A-10 gun.
@@alexturnbackthearmy1907 We seem to be saying the same thing, differently. Thanks for adding the notoriously bad GAU-8 to the party though. A gun so bad that publicity enhancement (ie., propaganda) has to refocus all discussions to the sound it makes. Having sat and watched the A-10s gracefully flying around the mountains of S.Korea, I think it's a shame that it be burdened with a horrible show-piece of a gun. It's like when people start criticizing the policy of a female politician, and from nowhere, people jump in with "those boobs", "mommy", "she's hot". The A-10 could probably do so much more, and better, if it simply deleted the gun and used that nose weight for systems that work. Maybe even put a second seat in there, and have a chin turret with optics that can - at least - see the enemy. The thing has so much wing and engine that it could likely do a lot of the work that the B-52 does, but with much less meat, money, and paperwork.
I'd say It's supposed to perform a mission which changes the outcome in favour of the deploying side,
i.e. if the aircraft's combat role is to be an airstrip decoy, then it doesn't need to be particularly fast, maneuverable or have large firepower... :)
Can we appreciate the idea of a ground support tactical nuclear missile.
Who would have thought the ilyushin would be an illusion
Since we are talking about aircraft - fly?
I dunno I guess to be able to perform its assigned mission set that it was intended to perform after the final design stage cuz from step 1 to the finish of the design the missionset/s might differ because of changes in politics or strategy
I really want the IL-40P in Warthunder
Couldn't they just mount the guns to the wings? That would the muzzle flash problem and has getting sucked into the engines.
It does rather look like a shot gun. I wonder what gauge that might be?
It needs to bloody fly mate! They tried some that didn't
Exactly how close could nuclear close air support be?
Look up davy crockett nukes
0:35 what is that plane?
that rear turret 😵
Hey, this is why we call things “experimental”. You pretty much figure out problems at first as you go then just keep improving until you have something that works. Sometimes you end up with something that works really good. Sometimes you end up with something that, just works, but barely. And sometimes you end up with something that just stops receiving government funding.
Except this thing was never meant to be an experimental aircraft in any way.
Whilst its not 100% relevant to the IL40, one thing hawker hunters had a problem with, was the spent casings being ejected, and subsequently being sucked into the compressor blades.
They did learn from this though, and later marks have big bulges on the underside specifically to collect spent casings
what about military reacon planes or military cargo n transport planes?
You see, comrade, its a GROUND Attack Aircraft
And if it hits you on the ground, while starting/landing/crashing, you will go down.
It works as intented.
No I would say "Fly" is the most important thing for any aircraft to do.
Fly?
The most important thing is to be able to FLY and not CRASH.
0:18)The Flying Boxcar. C119.
4:41)About the same rate of fire as the Civilian Model Thompson Submachine gun. 800 rounds per minute. 13.1313 a second. 50 round drum magazine was "dry' in about 3.5. 100 round was less than 8 seconds of continued fire. Navy Model is 600 RPM. "Dry" quicker. Box magazines hold 30-32 rounds.
A military aircraft must be able to reliably get into the air (preferably quickly) and stay there, with ideally a good loiter time and rugged durability to stay in the air after coming under fire.
The ability to fly is number 1 for me...
Yes! They could have used the green tree airfreshener! Those were invented in 1952 so were available! 😂
Soviet General: "Comrade Special Operators.. today, KGB asks you to undertake GREATEST MISSION of INCREDIBLE DANGER against hated capitalist pigs of United States, for The People!"
Soviet Operator: "Da! We blow up Hoover Dam?! Knock down imperialist Statue of Liberty?!"
Soviet General: "No, Comrade.. you must steal.. _Little Trees!"_
Soviet Operator: 👁👄👁
Shit like this would be a cool thing to add to warthunder as a event vehicle.
Nice to know that the USAF was not alone in the pea-brain scheme of completely abandoning ground attack in favor of nukes.
Wow, that's a rare bird you find there.
The Mig 9 had basically the same issue
Personally I would say that the most important thing for _any_ aircraft of _any_ type, is to be able to fly. All else is secondary.
edit: I don't mean this as a joke either. Just look at the plethora of so-called aircraft that could never take off.
The ultimate task of every military tool is simple.
To support the common infantryman in his job to force its nations will on the enemy.
Plain and simple.
All sizzle and no steak