STURMOVIC (hope it's spelt correctly)

Returning to the topic, there is a photo of the Il.10 in Beijing on the “Mystery P-61 status” thread.

Hi Alex,
Fair points. I think it’s easy to understimate the scale of costs for rebuilding a W.W.II era fighter; most often by huge ammounts. At the end of the day, a business can find it hard to justify ANY heritage spend; it simply doesn’t have a visible return on investment; and as a result can get cut. (Much as we forumites might disagree!) We agree on the sadness of it not getting rebuilt, I’m just trying to highlight why I can understand they (as you put it correctly) felt ‘it wasn’t worth it’.

Cheers!

Flanker Man yes, if I remember correctly the cowls were a unique piece formed in ground stampings (the same technique used for the tank turrets). A sturdy and robust machine indeed: in Erich Hartmann’s memories u can read a passage where he remembers shooting at one of these IL-2 from 100 meters and seeing his bullets (including the 151/20 cannon shells) ricocheting on the armored parts!! He found the weak spot in the oil cooler under the IL-2 belly, and that soon became the “most visited” area of german fighters 😉
Veltro, I dont think that again this thing is a valid justification.. I personally know and collaborate with one of the technicians who worked on the “phoenix project” and what he told me is that the Harvard there is the only one still owned by ITAF to be registered in the aeronautical register as an aircraft, and not as an “object”, as the other gate guardians are considered.. the papers were done, and even if they werent it really would have not been a problem to do them. It was just a matter of lack of interest in the thing by the Air Force, which I consider idiotic at least.. They allow the AMX to fly (ask any pilots who fly them what they think about it) and dont want a milestone of ITAF rebirth to take back to the air, pure nonsense to me..
JDK, of course we have to be grateful to ppl who keep on believing in what they do, and most of the times they do it against all odds, but I would like to share my thougths with u and hear yr opinion:
I passed some interesting time studying the structure of the Macchis. The wings and fuselage are really robust and well designed, and so is the layout of the machine, with the large landing gears giving a great stability on the ground, a steady rock if compared to the Spit or 109. Now the damage sustained by the airframe was surely relevant (but still I hear several versions about it:someone says it ground looped, somebody else says it flipped over etc..), but once more I would like to remember that Aermacchi has the priceless possibility to construct spare parts by themselves, and the cost is really nothing for a company like that, this is something out of any discussion: we were not talking about a blown up DB605 or a burned wreckage, but a structural damage. Stressed spars can be redone, and unless the whole ship was considered scrap(which I think it’s impossible, unless it carthweeled on the ground for 200 yards..) there was no unsormountable reason to give up.
I see a B-17 in airworthy condition zooming over me (a HUGE metalic structure with FOUR P&W engines that drink A LOT of fuel and oil…) at Duxford or Lufthansa flying a Ju52 and Bf108 and an aircraft company can’t repair a small airframe built by them and of which tehy still have the orginal quoted drawings?? Allow me to say bull**it!!!
U probably got the point: it wasnt worth it(at least for them).
I wonder if we will ever have another Macchi or G.55 flying again, even if I think it will remain a mere dream…

cheers

Alex

this doesnt justify their decision to give up.

If I may comment? Flipside is we should be greatful for those who chose NOT to give up, rather than (or as well as – as you wish!) castigating those who throw in the towel. In the case of the Veltro (tragic loss to the flying scene indeed) the cost implications of that level of damage was huge. And nigh on impossible for a company, which is supposed to show a profit, to justify. BAe (for instance) have put huge amounts of cash and resources into British historic aviation, but even here, among knowlegeable people, they don’t get the credit they deserve. Return on investment? Hmmm.

RSV Harvard

Alex,

The sad truth about the RSV is that they did not seek prior authorization to restore their T-6 to flying condition. They probably would not have received it if they had asked, but they did not ask. And do remember that in those years the MB.326s seemed to fall out of the sky every day, and pilots and engineers were tried for manslaughter.

Try to keep the paperwork of the former Viterbo gate guardian in order – and make sure everything is up to standard.

Veltro

OH that turned very nasty, very quickly!
It would be nice to see some more different aircraft flying on the display circuit, but I supose that only the glamerous ones attract the money.

Rgds Cking

You may want to check your PM’s italian harvard.

Cheers,

J.V.

I tapped the engine cowling of the Il-2 at Monino with my knuckles – and it hurt !!!!

That lower cowling is cast iron!!

Ken

it would be interesting to get in contact with the owners, I wonder what kind of obstacles they might have found, like corrosions or awkward building solutions 😉
I always liked the IL-2, (I even have one of the 37mm shells they used in 1943, simply impressive! 😮 )and really hope that some day one would take it back to the air.

Alex

Plus one in the US

Cees

Next to the Sturmovik projects in the UK, there are also 2 sturmoviks owned by AMPAA in france. But I don’t now if any restorationwork on those machines is planned or started.

J.V.

well, If u look at what happened to the tuskegee P-51 or the Bristol Blenheim u would understand what I’m talking about: despite de relevant damage those machines will take back to the air because the aim of the associations behind them is to preserve the memory of the machines and men who flew them making the darn thing fly! I guess u r italian, and so u know how much sweat, blood and pain our crewmen and pilots had to shed to be up there during the war. The tribute that the Macchi had to represent was obvious, but after such accident (that surely wasn’t minor, but knowing the potential of an aircraft industry like Aermacchi, it wouldnt have been so impossible to bear), they packed up everything and said “that’s enough, end of the game”. Let’s even say they probably made the wrong choice about the pilot, but this doesnt justify their decision to give up. This is not the only case in Italy: some years ago the RSV (the experimental squadron of italian air force) in Pratica di Mare completed the restoration of a Harvard IV, a job that saw a great group of specialists working hard to get the plane together. They got all the papers, the permissions etc.. but when an ITAF experimental pilot (who had NO experience on taildraggers) gave it a take off run trial he almost crashed the poor harvard.. he taxiied back to the dispersal and said “there’s no way to fly this stupid thing”.. now imagine the anger and disappointment of all the guys who worked hard on that project. Nowadays the Harvard is sitting OUTSIDE, taking rain, seasalt, sunlight… It’s in working condition (or at least that’s how they left it), but it’s just left there..
Now would u justify things like these??? We had a glorious decade in the 30s with out air force, but our country seems to forget this to concetrate on superficial things..
I’m getting rethorical and again going off topic, if u want to continue this discussion we can do it privately or in another topic, but trust me, the 205 could have been repaired and taken back where it belonged to: the sky.

cheers

Alex

P.S.
Veltro, this nick is not new to me, r u who I think u r? 😉

Minor accident?

Alex,

You couldn’t be farther from truth about the Aermacchi C.205 accident in 1985. The Veltro flipped on to its back, breaking the fuselage and overstressing the spars to the point of making them unusable. At the end of the day, Aermacchi decided that it would be easier to restore another airframe rather than rebuild this one. That’s how serious the damage was.

Be careful when spreading false information based on the fairy tales circulated by wannabe warbird pilots.

Veltro

well, I know there are at least a couple IL-2 Sturmovik projects in UK, they appeared in a Flypast issue that resumed all the warbird projects in UK. The machine itself is really heavy, being constructed like a tank, a real iron bird!! I don’t know if these projects are intended to be airworthy, but nonetheless they sound interesting. The main obstacle with “exotic” warbirds is the lack of spares, or, in the specific case of the IL-2, in the difficulty to import them. Russia is well known for planes and spares depots that come out in the sunlight after decades, but needless to say u might know “the right ppl” to get them. The other way is scratch-building the spares, but it’s a really expensive deal, expecially for engine components. The real shame in the warbirds world is the “allies-oriented” policy, but as I stated before this happens for factors like spares availability. Who wouldnt like to see more Bf109s, FW190s or planes like a Ju88 to zoom over the airshow crowds? I’d love to see italian planes too, like the Macchi family or a SM.79 Sparviero, but I’m afraid this will only remain a dream.. We had a Macchi 205 flyable here, but after a minor accident Aermacchi decided to turn it into a static exhibit.. I heard of a Cr.42 project in Duxford though that might change the things a little 😉
well, going off topic once again!!! :p

cheers!

Alex

Hi Gents
Could anyone help me. I am trying to find out if there are ANY Sturmovic aircraft left flying and if so where is it poss to see it??
Many Thanks for ANY HELP
SPIT :confused: :confused: :confused:

AFAIK, there are no Shturmovik a/c flying.

Like the German word Stuka – which could be applied to ANY dive bombing aeroplane – (Stuka was short for STUrzKAmpfflugzeug – Dive Bombing Aeroplane) – but came to be associated with the Junkers Ju-87, the Russian word Shturmovik simple meant Storm or Assault aircraft.

It came to be associated with the famous Ilyushin Il-2 armoured low-level anti-tank/assault aircraft.

I assume this is the aircraft you mean ???

The Il-2 was followed by the cleaned-up Il-10. Ilyushin tried to resurrect the idea with a jet-powered shturmovik, the Il-40 Brawny and its re-incarnation the Il-102 in 1993, but neither came to anything.

The modern Sukhoi Su-25 Frogfoot is also called a shturmovik – i.e. what we would call a ground-attack machine.

There is an Il-2 at the Russian museum at Monino – see attached pics – and another (IIRC) at Kbely in Prague, but none flying to my knowledge.

Ken