IL 102 (What should have been instead of Su 25)

[sergey31]

It was a great design that lost to Su 25, Soviets at the time believed in a faster, smaller and cheaper ideal attack aircraft. Su 25 is an excellent plane but IMO IL 102 would have been better especially with modern updates/upgrades.
This plane looks very much like it's WW2 predecessor IL 2.

http://www.military.cz/russia/air/iljusin/Il_102/il-102_1.jpg
http://www.military.cz/russia/air/iljusin/Il_102/il-102_2.jpg
http://www.military.cz/russia/air/iljusin/Il_102/Il-102_motory.jpg
http://www.military.cz/russia/air/iljusin/Il_102/Il-102_streliste.jpg
http://www.military.cz/russia/air/iljusin/Il_102/Il-102_pumovnice.jpg
http://www.military.cz/russia/air/iljusin/Il_102/Il-102_podvozek.jpg
http://www.military.cz/russia/air/iljusin/Il_102/il-102_4.jpg
http://avia.russian.ee/pictures/russia/il-102.jpg
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/models_pages/modl_il-102_files/il-102_real_03.jpg
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/models_pages/modl_il-102_files/il-102_real_02.jpg
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/models_pages/modl_il-102_files/il-102_real_01.jpg

[sp2c]

looks kinda weird

but how are the flight characteristics???
an aircraft with this kinda combat roles don't really need speed but manouverability and survivability

[sergey31]

The flight characteristics were very similar to A-10.... It was quite maneuverable, but as fast as Su 25.

[sp2c]

nice

still it looks strange whereass SU25 is one sexy little bird :hug:

[QRO?]

The flight characteristics were very similar to A-10.... It was quite maneuverable, but as fast as Su 25.
Probably the most important flight characteristic of a ground attack aircraft is stability, especially when flying with heavy and asymmetric loads.

It doesn't do you much good to be manouverable if you can't keep a steady aim when expending ballistic ordnance (rockets, freefall bombs, gun rounds).

[sergey31]

It was very stable....... The wing span and area was quite large and tail was big compared to it's size.
Very good maneuverability = More stability.
Also.... the fuselage was somewhat narrow as you can see in this picture.
http://avia.russian.ee/pictures/russia/il-102.jpg

[QRO?]

It was very stable....... The wing span and area was quite large and tail was big compared to it's size.
Also.... the fuselage was somewhat narrow as you can see in this picture.
I have no doubt about that. I was just pointing out what is the design goal in ground attack plane aerodynamics.

It's not that important for example in FBW fighters operating in high altitudes and dropping smart munitions.

[sergey31]

This is the first attack jet Soviets ( IL ) built after WW2...
This is IL-40 built in 1953.
http://legion.wplus.net/guide/air/s/il40-1.jpg

[the_janitor]

Mmm, gotta love the rear machine gun... thanks for the pics, I'd never heard of this bird woot

[littlefrench]

Can it use air to ground missiles ?

[sergey31]

The IL 102 was displayed last time durring Moscow aircarft exabition of 1992.. I'm sure they could have use AS - 7 Kerry, AS - 10/12 Karen/Kelgar, AS-13 Kingbolt (with a bit of ad-ons/mods ), etc.

[sergey31]

Hey the_Janitor..... Do you play CS-2 with that name ?

[Werewolf01]

Looks like a mosh of an ME262, and HS219, and aa Il2. Don't see the need for the tail gun.

[tenda]

interesting...never see it before.... ;)

[sergey31]

You are wrong...... It's been proven in Soviet-Afghan war that rear gun suppressed attacks from the rear greatly once the aircraft flies over the target.
90% of fire Mi 24's received were from the rear, the aircraft passes after strafing the target, then Mujahids the pop-out from their hide-outs and start firing with all the have. It was common knowledge that it was pretty much a suicide to fire at the choppers or Su25 head on and they learned this quick.
Some Soviet light bombers/attack aircraft used tail gun with great psychological affect.

[Midav]

What's interesting is how similar the YA-9 and SU-25 are:

http://modelingmadness.com/scotts/mod/us/ya9aphoto.jpg
http://www.shanaberger.com/images/A-9.jpg

More pics here (http://parisairshow.free.fr/walkaround/ya-9/page_01.htm).

[Werewolf01]

You are wrong...... It's been proven in Soviet-Afghan war that rear gun suppressed attacks from the rear greatly once the aircraft flies over the target.
90% of fire Mi 24's received were from the rear, the aircraft passes after strafing the target, then Mujahids the pop-out from their hide-outs and start firing with all the have. It was common knowledge that it was pretty much a suicide to fire at the choppers or Su25 head on and they learned this quick.
Some Soviet light bombers/attack aircraft used tail gun with great psychological affect.

How much faster does thing thing move than a helicopter?

[sergey31]

Why? Because it has ten paylons? Or two engines on it's sides with wings in the shoulders? It's very common.

It looks more like Cessna A-37 (Dragonfly) then Su-25.
http://www.fach-extraoficial.com/fotos/a37/601_1.jpg
http://www.fach-extraoficial.com/fotos/a37/guatemala3186.jpg

Cool armament......
http://www.fach-extraoficial.com/fotos/a37/canon.jpg

[sergey31]

You are wrong...... It's been proven in Soviet-Afghan war that rear gun suppressed attacks from the rear greatly once the aircraft flies over the target.
90% of fire Mi 24's received were from the rear, the aircraft passes after strafing the target, then Mujahids the pop-out from their hide-outs and start firing with all the have. It was common knowledge that it was pretty much a suicide to fire at the choppers or Su25 head on and they learned this quick.
Some Soviet light bombers/attack aircraft used tail gun with great psychological affect.

How much faster does thing thing move than a helicopter?

In an attack dive/strafe/close support? Not by very much......
.... Like I said, Soviets had great successes with their Tu 16 and An 12 aircraft and their rear gunner strafing the mountains and forcing those on the ground to take cover.
Once the Attack aircraft dives at the target, releases it's ordnance and when pulling up the rear gunner can protect it's rear hemisphere.....

[Misanthrope]

Great post. The Il-102 has always been a plane that facinated me. There seems to be very little information about it in comparison to other planes... Are there any books that deal with it specifically? I've never been able to find any.


You are wrong...... It's been proven in Soviet-Afghan war that rear gun suppressed attacks from the rear greatly once the aircraft flies over the target.Indeed. The Soviets actually flew Il-28s in that war. Its tail cannon made guys with MANPADS think twice about popping out to take a shot at it as it egressed.

The Il-28 is actually another one of my favorites. Ilyushin knows how to make some interesting planes.

[Bluezoo]

Interesting plane. :D

[M4ko]

an attack plane has to be movign faster than a bomber or a helicopter, therefore rear gun would be innefective.

CS-2 = CS:S? if so do you play cs_office?

[sergey31]

Once the Attack aircraft dives at the target, releases it's ordnance and when pulling up the rear gunner can protect it's rear hemisphere..... It's been proven affective.

I play Counter Strike source, Office is one of my favorite maps.... Compounds is pretty cool too.

[Werewolf01]

You are wrong...... It's been proven in Soviet-Afghan war that rear gun suppressed attacks from the rear greatly once the aircraft flies over the target.
90% of fire Mi 24's received were from the rear, the aircraft passes after strafing the target, then Mujahids the pop-out from their hide-outs and start firing with all the have. It was common knowledge that it was pretty much a suicide to fire at the choppers or Su25 head on and they learned this quick.
Some Soviet light bombers/attack aircraft used tail gun with great psychological affect.

How much faster does thing thing move than a helicopter?

In an attack dive/strafe/close support? Not by very much......
.... Like I said, Soviets had great successes with their Tu 16 and An 12 aircraft and their rear gunner strafing the mountains and forcing those on the ground to take cover.
Once the Attack aircraft dives at the target, releases it's ordnance and when pulling up the rear gunner can protect it's rear hemisphere.....

I'll bet if you ditched the tail gunner and all of his extra gear you would gain so much speed you wouldn't need him. The A10 does just fine without a tailgunner. Its a cool aircraft, don't get me wrong. I would prefer an A10 though, or even an A7 or an SU25 from what I know of the bunch.

[berkal]

another beautiful aircraft that never made it: the BAC TSR2

http://www.enygmag.com/aviation/photos/tsr2001.jpg

http://www.enygmag.com/aviation/photos/tsr2002.jpg

[sergey31]

You are wrong...... It's been proven in Soviet-Afghan war that rear gun suppressed attacks from the rear greatly once the aircraft flies over the target.
90% of fire Mi 24's received were from the rear, the aircraft passes after strafing the target, then Mujahids the pop-out from their hide-outs and start firing with all the have. It was common knowledge that it was pretty much a suicide to fire at the choppers or Su25 head on and they learned this quick.
Some Soviet light bombers/attack aircraft used tail gun with great psychological affect.

How much faster does thing thing move than a helicopter?

In an attack dive/strafe/close support? Not by very much......
.... Like I said, Soviets had great successes with their Tu 16 and An 12 aircraft and their rear gunner strafing the mountains and forcing those on the ground to take cover.
Once the Attack aircraft dives at the target, releases it's ordnance and when pulling up the rear gunner can protect it's rear hemisphere.....

I'll bet if you ditched the tail gunner and all of his extra gear you would gain so much speed you wouldn't need him. The A10 does just fine without a tailgunner. Its a cool aircraft, don't get me wrong. I would prefer an A10 though, or even an A7 or an SU25 from what I know of the bunch.

IL 102 speed was 900km/h..... That is plenty fast and if you ask me speed is not that important in close support aircraft, Maneuverability and Amour protection is more important... Infect if you fly to fast you will over-fly the target before you have a good enough chance of hitting anything.
Speed is good for Strike Aircraft but not Attack/Close support..... Jaguar and Mig 27 are two examples of good and fast Strike aircraft.

[bloddyaxe]

an attack plane has to be movign faster than a bomber or a helicopter, therefore rear gun would be innefective.

Actually to bomb a target with accuracy they slow the Su-25 down to something like 400-500 kms per hour from the average cruise speed of 800. Faster than a helicopter, but slower than a bomber dropping its cargo in level flight at 700 - 800 kms per hour.

Though it would be better if the tail gunner had better visibility to the ground...

[Werewolf01]

You are wrong...... It's been proven in Soviet-Afghan war that rear gun suppressed attacks from the rear greatly once the aircraft flies over the target.
90% of fire Mi 24's received were from the rear, the aircraft passes after strafing the target, then Mujahids the pop-out from their hide-outs and start firing with all the have. It was common knowledge that it was pretty much a suicide to fire at the choppers or Su25 head on and they learned this quick.
Some Soviet light bombers/attack aircraft used tail gun with great psychological affect.

How much faster does thing thing move than a helicopter?

In an attack dive/strafe/close support? Not by very much......
.... Like I said, Soviets had great successes with their Tu 16 and An 12 aircraft and their rear gunner strafing the mountains and forcing those on the ground to take cover.
Once the Attack aircraft dives at the target, releases it's ordnance and when pulling up the rear gunner can protect it's rear hemisphere.....

I'll bet if you ditched the tail gunner and all of his extra gear you would gain so much speed you wouldn't need him. The A10 does just fine without a tailgunner. Its a cool aircraft, don't get me wrong. I would prefer an A10 though, or even an A7 or an SU25 from what I know of the bunch.

IL 102 speed was 900km/h..... That is plenty fast and if you ask me speed is not that important in close support aircraft, Maneuverability and Amour protection is more important... Infect if you fly to fast you will over-fly the target before you have a good enough chance of hitting anything.
Speed is good for Strike Aircraft but not Attack/Close support..... Jaguar and Mig 27 are two examples of good and fast Strike aircraft.

But, slowing dwon is easy.

[faithless]

very cool looking

hey sergey reminds me of your drawings

[sergey31]

very cool looking

hey sergey reminds me of your drawings

Yep... It was one of my inspirations.