thanks for the info
These have all been really interesting to read about. Sergej’s post about the ITP fighter/bomber escort got me to thinking about Soviet bombers. I don’t know if this is the correct thread, but since it’s about CCCP planes I’ll give it a shot. Did the Soviets develop any heavy bombers to bomb Germany, or did they leave that to the US and Great Britain? I guess I mean strategic bombing.
I read something about that just some days before. The only Soviet strategic bomber
that could reach germany was the Pe-8 also known as TB-7. but only 93 of
them were build. And only a few raids on Germany were made.
You’re right strategic bombing wasn’t part of Soviet doctrine.
Looking for heavy bomber I find this:
Kalinin K-7
From 1925 Kalinin made himself famous with a series of single-engined aircraft characterised by having a quasi-elliptical monoplane wing. In 1930 he sketched a gigantic transport aircraft, the K-7, with a tail carried on two booms and with four 1,000hp engines mounted on the wing, which was deep enough to house 60 passengers or 20 tonnes of cargo.
No engine of this power was readily available, so in 1931 he redesigned the aircraft to have seven engines of (he hoped) 830hp. GUAP (the Ministry of Aviation Industry) gave permission for the aircraft to be built, but with the role changed to a heavy bomber.
This meant a further total redesign, one change being to move the centreline engine to the trailing edge. This near-incredible machine was completed in summer 1933.Ground running of the engines began on 29th June, and it was soon obvious from serious visible oscillation of the tail that the booms were resonating with particular engine speeds.
The only evident solution was to reinforce the booms by adding steel angle girders, and brace the tail with struts.
Flight testing by a crew led by pilot M A Snegiryov began on l l th August 1933, causing intense public interest over Kharkov. On Flight 9, on 21st November, during speed runs at low altitude, resonance suddenly struck and the right tail boom fractured. The aircraft dived into the ground and burned, killing the pilot, 13 crew and a passenger; five crew survived. Kalinin was sent to a new factory at Voronezh.
Here a plan was organised by P I Baranov to build two improved K-7s with stressed-skin booms of rectangular section, but this scheme was abandoned in 1935, the K-7 no longer being thought a modern design.
The basis of this huge bomber was theenormous wing, of typical Kalinin plan form. It had (TsAGI) R-II profile, with a thickness/ chord ratio of 19 per cent, rising to 22 per cent on the centreline, where root chord was 10.6m (34ft 9%in) and depth no less than2.33m (7ft 7%in).
The two main and two subsidiary spars were welded from KhMA Chromansil high-tensile steel, similar lattice girder construction being used for the ribs. The wing was constructed as a rectangular centre section, with Dl skin, and elliptical outer sections covered mainly in fabric.
A small nacelle of Dl stressed-skin construction projected from [SIZE=2][SIZE=2]the leading edge. On the leading edge were six 750hp M-34F water-cooled V-12 engines, each with a radiator underneath, and driving a two-blade fixed-pitch propeller; a seventh engine was on the trailing edge.
Walkways along the wing led to each engine, and on the ground mechanics could open sections of leading edge to work on the engines without needing ladders. Metal tanks in the wings housed 9,130 litres (2,008 Imperial gallons, 2,412 US gallons) of fuel. Just outboard of the innermost engines were the booms holding the tail, 11 .0 m (36ft P/in) apart, each having a triangular cross-section with a flat top.
All flight controls were driven by large servo surfaces carried downstream on twin arms. Under the wing, in line with the booms, were extraordinary landing gears.
Maximum bomb load was no less than 19 tonnes .
Defensive armament comprised a 20mm cannon in a cockpit in the nose, two more in the ends of the tail booms and twin DA machine guns aimed by gunners in the front and rear of each gondola.
Total crew numbered 11, all linked by an intercom system. Though a fantastic and deeply impressive aircraft, the K-7 was flawed by its designer’s inability to solve the lethal problem of harmonic vibration. Even without this, it would probably have been a vulnerable aircraft in any war in which it might have taken part.
Wingspan was 54 meters and max speed about 250 km/h.
More information:
[LEFT]The Ultimate Shturmovik: Sukhoi’s Long-Ranging Su-8[/LEFT]
Shortly after the start of the new year 1942, with the German invasion just 6 months old, Kremlin planners were already preparing for the moment when the Red Army would go over to the offensive and pursue the enemy across the vast spaces of western Russia. For this, they reasoned, the excellent Il-2 and Su-6 assault aircraft would need the assistance of a larger, longer-ranging aircraft, preferably with twin engines. The large aircraft would strike at columns of retreating troops and vehicles far ahead of the front lines, while the smaller Shturmovik airplanes concentrated on close support along the forward edge of battle. The enemy would thus have no respite, even in flight, and every attempt at tactical disengagement or regrouping would be likely to turn into a route. Kremlin planners called this airplane the DDBsh (the Russian abbreviation for “twin-engined, long-range armored attacker”) and ordered two prototypes from Pavel Sukhoi’s design bureau.
Under the desperate conditions prevailing in contemporary Soviet Russia, nothing much could be done about Project B, as the proposed aircraft was also known. But, as the war began to turn against the Germans and their allies, the Kremlin committee’s far-sightedness became increasingly evident. By the winter of 1943-1944, when the first prototypes appeared, Germany’s retreat to the west was already at times so precipitous that the Il-2s could not reach them from their most advanced landing grounds. Soon, advanced Soviet forces would be outrunning their air support as well.
Sukhoi’s Su-8 emerged as the most powerful, most heavily armed, and best protected attack aircraft of the war. The designers set out to build the smallest airframe that could carry the requisite fuel and two of the most powerful engines available, Shvetsov ASh-71F 18-cylinder air-cooled radials each offering 2100 hp.
The narrow forward fuselage housed the pilot, a large fuel tank, and the radio operator/air gunner in a fully structural armored shell up to 15-mm thick. Extensive bullet-proof glazing in the canopy and lower nose gave the pilot a good view for this type of aircraft. Over 1600 kg of armor was used in all. Twin fins and rudders provided redundancy in the event of damage and gave the air gunner a better field of fire above and to the rear. Defensive armament consisted of a 12.7-mm Beresin machine gun flexibly mounted in the rear cockpit (or in a small power-driven turret, according to some sources) and a 7.62-mm ShKAS machine gun firing from a ventral position. The aircraft spanned 67 ft 1 in, was 44-ft 7-in long, and had a wing area of 646 sq-ft. Empty they weighed about 20,000 lbs, loaded about 27-29,000 lbs.
The offensive armament was, of course, the aircraft’s real reason for being, and here the design team excelled themselves. The main armament consisted of a battery of heavy cannon sized to defeat even the heavy Tiger and Panther tanks. The guns were housed in a broad, shallow pod under the center fuselage. The first prototype had four 37-mm 11P-37 (later NS-37) automatic cannon, each loaded with 50-round clips by the air gunner.
Each gun could fire 735-gram shells at about 250 shots/min with a muzzle velocity of 900 meters/sec. They would penetrate 40-mm armor at any angle up to 45 degrees. In the second prototype, these weapons were supplanted by a quartet of 45-mm OKB-16-45 (later NS-45) automatic antitank guns, essentially the same weapon with a larger bore and shorter barrel.
These formidable weapons fired 1065-gram shells at the same rate with a muzzle velocity of 850 meters/sec, and could guarantee penetration of 58-mm armor. These, too, were clip-fed in the prototype. But the OKB-16 design team already had a fully automatic feed system in test. On their own, these guns fired approximately 1 ton/min, the heaviest weight of fire achieved by any wartime aircraft. For sighting and for attacks on soft targets, eight 7.62-mm ShKAS machine guns were mounted in the wings immediately outboard of the propellers, each gun being capable of rates of fire between 1800 and 2700 rounds/min. In addition, four 150-kg FAB150 general-purpose bombs could be carried in bays between the engines and the wing guns.
Many, perhaps most, heavily armored attack aircraft have emerged overweight, underpowered, and ill-handling. Even the successful ones were often tolerated for their utilitarian virtues rather than loved for their flying qualities.
But the Su-8 was reportedly an excellent airplane, with first-rate handling at all design weights. Maximum speed was 311 mph at sea level, 342 mph at 15,000 ft. It could takeoff in 1300 ft and land in 1528 ft at a modest 87 mph. It could climb to 10,000 ft in 7.3 min and to 16,000 ft in 9 min. Service ceiling was 28,000 ft. Range with maximum weapons load was 373 miles, 932 miles without the bombs.
By the time the Su-8 appeared, however, its time was already past, in the eyes of officialdom at least. Russia was clearly winning the war, and anything that might interfere with the production of the existing, war-winning aircraft types was frowned upon.
No doubt this was the right decision, given the outcome. But there can also be little doubt that many a Soviet soldier would have been glad of the assistance of this last and greatest of the Shturmoviks, especially during the last, frantic dash for Berlin, when Soviet spearheads often faced elephantine heavy tanks 150 miles or more from the nearest air support.
http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/gallery/?id=552&gallery_id=&cur_gallery_id=
Thanks Panzerknacker! That was some good reading! Sorry if we got off trail for a bit!
No problem, is topic related, not off-topic.
Yakovlev Yak-3K
In mid 1944 the VV-s made an attemp to heavily arm its more famed fighter, the Yakovlev Yak-3 with its “krupnokalibr” variant.
An OKB-16 designed NS-45 45 mm automatic cannon was mounted between the clinders banks. It was spected that the muzzle brake fitted would reduce 70 % of the felt recoil: however in flying test the aircraft showed several failures, mostly caused by the excessive vibration and stress imposed by the big gun when firing. The recoil was so severe that affected the airframe durability.
Clearly was an “overgunned” aircraft, only two prototypes were manufactured, no further development for placing such big gun in such light fighters continued.
Regarding the ITP, I know that the Soviets had a seemingly insurmountable problem with the development of more powerful inline engines in general and their cooling in particular. Most of their fighter aircraft development was handicapped by this problem. The M-107 was a case in point. Its bugs were only squared away by 1944 though it had been in development since 41’ or so. Apart from the need to use non-strategic materials, this issue with their water-cooled engine development hindered due progress on the Yak and LaGG series fighters especially. This was offset brilliantly however by the excellent aerodynamic designs which combined small, light airframes with superb aerodynamic features… This legacy continues to this day in some sense…
About the I-16 I have read from recent reports that it was in fact quite fast, and perhaps more importantly had good acceleration. The nose for example used some ingenious aerodynamic features that negated the rather flat profile! This was accomplished by a clever use of openings on the front as well as the exhausts nacelles. These features were redescovered by a company in Australia that built a few exact replicas. Even more interestingly, the lovely I-153 Biplane (a personal favourite of mine) was nearly as fast as the I-16! Again, a very interesting aerodynamic design allowed for a surprisingly efficient drag coefficient… They were slower than the Bf109F of course, but were better in every respect than the Hurricane for example…
One more thing I’ve never been able to understand and perhaps one of you illustrious cognoscenti might be able to enlighten me. Why did Polikarpov not provide the I-16 with a modern, 3 blade constant speed propeller? It seems that especially the the later, more powerful M-62 engine models would have benefited accordingly… 
One more thing I’ve never been able to understand and perhaps one of you illustrious cognoscenti might be able to enlighten me. Why did Polikarpov not provide the I-16 with a modern, 3 blade constant speed propeller? It seems that especially the the later, more powerful M-62 engine models would have benefited accordingly…
I am not sure, probably those type were reserved for teh new generation of Fighter like the Lagg-3 , Mig-3, Yak.1 etc.
About the I-16 I have read from recent reports that it was in fact quite fast, and perhaps more importantly had good acceleration. The nose for example used some ingenious aerodynamic features that negated the rather flat profile! This was accomplished by a clever use of openings on the front as well as the exhausts nacelles. These features were redescovered by a company in Australia that built a few exact replicas. Even more interestingly, the lovely I-153 Biplane (a personal favourite of mine) was nearly as fast as the I-16!
Interestingly some people tried to combine the benefits of a monoplane with the maneouvrability of the biplane, check this:
Yes the IS-1. The main problem it had was that it was realized that any damage to the wings would in all likelihood hamper the mechanism from returning to the biplane configuration, and since the landing gear was lowered in this same process, the plane would have to perform an emergency belly landing! Not very practical I’m afraid! That and the fact that it was very expensive limited its appeal. In fact its pretty clear that the I-153, whith its modern retractable landing gear (much more modern that the I-16 with its manual mechanism) achieved the same goals as the IS-1. Most people don’t realize that the I-153 came years after the I-16!!
Note how the IS-1 had the M-63 motor and a 3 blade prop! :shock: I don’t see why the VVS would exclude the adaptation of a newer prop from new build airplanes? Remember that the I-16 type 29 and the I-153 were built up to 1940! Very odd! I know that a 3 blade prop, with variable pitch (the 2 blade props used also had variable pitch of course) would have provided a more efficient use of the 900+ horsepower, particularly in rate of climb which is essential in vertical combat. Why develop the I-16 with a bigger, more powerful engine, and not also give it a ‘proper’ (and widely available by this time) propeller? Odd… (I suppose it was a political decision, like Pekerman not bringing Zanetti to Germany…no te pa?) 
The New gen fighters used inline engines and totally different props, mi coronel
I know I know, but the russian razionalization was very much like that, remeber the Il-2 began as all metal monoplane and ended as mixed constrution for metal saving reason.
I think the same coul be said about the case of the propellers, beside the Il-16 was already a obsolecense design, it probably didnt worth to invest more money on it.
[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=6][LEFT][FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]Polikarpov Malyutka
[/LEFT]
[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][LEFT]Purpose: Short-range interceptor to defend high-value targets.[/LEFT]
[LEFT]Design Bureau: OKB of Nikolai N
[/LEFT]
[LEFT]Polikarpov, evacuated to Novosibirsk. This was the last aircraft of Polikarpov design, and he oversaw its progress himself. It was an OKB project, begun in June 1943.
Constructionof a single prototype began in early 1944. Progress was rapid until 30th July 1944, when Polikarpov suffered a massive heart attack and died at his desk.
Even though the prototype was almost complete, work stopped and was never resumed. The key to the Malyutka (‘Little one’) was the existence of the NIl-1 rocket engine. Developed by the team led by V P Glushko, this controllable engine had a single thrust chamber fed with RFNA (concentrated nitric acid) and kerosene. Maximum thrust at sea level was 1,200kg, but in this aircraft the brochure figure was 1,000kg (2,205 Ib).
Bearing no directrelevance to any previous Polikarpov fighter, the airframe had a curvaceous Shpon (plastic-bonded birch laminates) fuselage sitting on a wing of D-l stressed-skin construction.
The tail was also D-l alloy. The pressurized cockpit was in the nose, behind which was the radio, oxygen bottles and gun magazines, followed by a relatively enormous tank of acid and a smaller one of kerosene. The tricycle landing gears and split flaps were operated pneumatically, and the armament comprised two powerful VYa-23 cannon. Had it run a year or two earlier this might have been a useful aircraft, though it offered little that was not already being done by the BI and Type 302.
At the same time, the death of the General Constructor should not have brought everything to a halt.
[/LEFT]
Ok it was obsolescent, but they were still developing new variants in 1940! (the type 29) Why develop new variants and not add a new prop? We have a 930hp engine in an aerodynamic and small, relatively light plane! I’d just wish my friend Yefim would have mentioned something… The same argument could be made for the Hawker Hurricane; it too was obsolescent by 1940 but it was developed further. Earlier variants of the I-16 could have been easily made more competitive with new engines and props. The Soviets always did this. There are many instances where the weapons system that was intended to be replaced continued in service and in production side by side with the new weapon. Many times weapons were upgraded when they came in for repair or refurbishment (the T-34/76 remanufatured as a T-34/85 comes to mind) As an interceptor (not a fighter) and ground attack the I-16 could and in fact was used well into 1943. Stukas are slow after all…
I’d even add that the I-16 itself was not so woefully obsolescent as is commonly thought. The VVS’s tactics, its relative inexperience, and its lack of radios were bigger factors…
My point is, here you have a plane which numbers in the thousands, the backbone of your air defense, make the most of it! And I suppose in an inexplicably incomplete way they did! But with obsolescent propellers… :rolleyes:
OK NO MORE, I promise!!! haha
The I-16 wasn’t obsolet at all for it’s time- end of 1930yy.
It had an amazing maneuvreability ( one of the best in its class).
The soviet I-15s were better fighters then Japanes Ki-10 and I-16 successfully shoted down the Ki-27 Nate in 1937-38 in Halkin-gol, during the SOviet-Japane hostilities.
During the Spanish Civil war the both I-15 and I-16 might fight effectively with Italian Fiat CR-32 and GErman He-51A1.
To the contrast of traditional view - the most of Soviet I-16 were losed on the ground during the German bombings in june of 1941. In air it wasn’t the “easy booty” for Bf-109F2 in air.
Some of early soviet aces , piloted on I-16 claims the dozen of victories over Messers.
The I-16 wasn’t obsolet at all for it’s time- end of 1930yy.
But it was when entered in action against the germans in june 1941.
The I-16 was to be replaced by the I-180, but as you know the I-180 was a failure.
