(c) >>> page 1 of 7 PDF File: b The Development Of Jet And Turbine Aero Engines By Bill Gunston. Get Instant Access to The Development Of Jet And Turbine Aero Engines By Bill Gunston #b EBOOK EPUB KINDLE PDF. Bill Gunston. Over 80 aircraft and remotely guided vehicles described in fact- packed pages in colour. Over photographs, most in colour. 50 detailed line.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Arabic|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Registration needed]|
aircraft since tupolev aircraft since bill gunston pdf naval institute press isbn 0 0 until the break up the hardcover. [Free] Illustrated Encyclopedia Of Combat Aircraft Of World War Ii By Bill Gunston 10 30 [PDF]. [EPUB] The Lockheed P Lightning is a. Bill Gunston OBE, FRAeS (1 March - 1 June ) was a British aviation and military . Print/export. Create a book · Download as PDF · Printable version .
BSh Bronirovanny Shturmovik - armoured attack aircraft. D Dalny - as a suffix, long range. DB Dalny Bombardirovshchik - long range bomber. I Istrebitel - as a prefix, fighter, or literally 'destroyer' - see also I - Izdelie.
I Izdelie - as a prefix, product, or item, used by an 0KB to denominate an airframe prior to acceptance, see also I - Istrebitel. LB-S Legky bombardirovshchik-sparka - light bomber, two-seater.
ON Osobogo Naznacheniya - as a suffix, personal assignment or special use. PB Pikiruyushchii Bombardirovshchik - as a suffix, dive bomber. S Skorostnoy - as a prefix or suffix, high speed. SB Skorostnoy Bombardirovshchik - high speed bomber. T Torpedonosyets, as a suffix, torpedo. T Tyazhelovooruzhenny - suffix, heavily armed. TB Tyazhyoly Bombardirovshchik - heavy bomber. Airframe and Engine Design Bureaux Accepted abbreviations to denote airframe surname only used for the abbreviation or engine design first name and surname origin are as follows: Russian Language and Transliteration Russian is a version of the Slavonic family of languages, more exactly part of the so-called 'Eastern' Slavonic grouping, including Russian, White Russian and Ukrainian.
As such it uses the Cyrillic alphabet, which is in turn largely based upon that of the Greeks. The language is phonetic - pronounced as written, or 'as seen'. Translating into or from English gives rise to many problems and the vast majority of these arise because English is not a straightforward language, offering many pitfalls of pronunciation! Accordingly, Russian words must be translated through into a phonetic form of English and this can lead to different ways of helping the reader pronounce what he or she sees.
Every effort has been made to standardise this, but inevitably variations will creep in. The 20th letter of the Russian Cyrillic alphabet looks very much like a 'Y' but is pronounced as a 'U' as in the word 'rule'. Another example, though not taken up in this work, is the train of thought that Russian words ending in 'y' are perhaps better spelt out as 'yi' to underline the pronunciation, but it is felt that most Western speakers would have problems getting their tongues around this!
This is a good example of the sort of problem that some Western sources have suffered from in the past and occasionally some get regurgitated even today when they make the mental leap about what they see approximating to an English letter. The states that comprised the Soviet Union embraced the decimal system from the earliest days, although it should be noted that power was measured up to the Great Patriotic War, and beyond, using the established Western horsepower measurement.
The following explanations may help: Low aspect ratio, short, stubby wing; high aspect ratio, long, narrow wing. For height measurements involving service ceilings and cruise heights, the figure has been 'rounded'. The specific gravity sg of Soviet fuel varied considerably during the War and conversions from volume to weight and vice versa are impossible without knowing the sg of the fuel at the time.
Multiply by 0. Multiply by 1. Ib pound - weight, multiply by 0. Also used for the force measurement of turbojet engines, with the same conversion factor, as pounds of static thrust. Imperial length, multiply by 1. Design and Illustration considerations In this work we have utilised our well-proven format, aiming as always to provide a high level of readability and design.
A conscious decision was made to include peripheral details where they appear on the original illustrations; photographs have not been printed across the fold and cropping has been kept to an absolute minimum. Unfortunately, in this work, many of the photographs received were copies of those from official sources and proved to be lacking in definition and tonal range. Although no effort has been spared to achieve the highest standard of reproduction, priority for inclusion has, of necessity, been given to historical significance over technical perfection.
Introduction or over 70 years from the world's largest country was tightly controlled by a tiny group of elderly men in The Kremlin, in Moscow. Their power was absolute. They could take giant decisions, and so could make giant mistakes. They also sometimes found they had to choose between diametrically opposed objectives. While on the one hand aviation was a marvellous instrument for propaganda, trumpeting the achievements of the Soviet Union, the underlying theme of Soviet society was of rigid secrecy.
The knowledge was confined largely to the mass-produced Polikarpov biplane fighters and Tupolev monoplane bombers, and to the ANT monoplane designed to break world distance records.
Only very gradually did it become apparent that the austere and sombre Land of the Soviets this was the name of a recordbreaking bomber was home to an incredible diversity of aircraft. Other countries - the USA, France, Britain, Italy and increasingly Germany - had numerous aircraft companies from which flowed many hundreds of different types of aircraft. They also had individuals who sometimes managed to create aircraft and even form tiny companies, but the aircraft were invariably conventional lightplanes aimed at the private owner.
Few people in what became called The West' would have dreamed that in Stalin's realm individuals could even set their sights on high-powered fast aircraft bristling with strange ideas. At the same time, the Soviet Union was far from being the earthly paradise that was originally intended. It is said that power corrupts, and the record shows that anyone who 'stuck his head above the parapet' was likely to get it cut off. It seems incredible that in Stalin should have been able to unleash what was called The Terror, in which anyone who might have posed the slightest threat - for example, any senior officer in any of the armed forces - was simply put through a show trial on invented charges and shot.
In the aircraft industry, time after time people who made mistakes, or in some way fell foul of someone more senior, were simply dismissed or even imprisoned and in a few cases, executed. It is beyond question that this omnipresent air of repression did much to counter the natural enthusiasm of countless workers who longed for their country to be the greatest on Earth, and a leader in advanced technology.
When one reads what happened it seems remarkable that so many diverse aircraft actually got built. This book is the most comprehensive attempt yet to collect the stories of the more important of these X-Planes experimental aircraft into one volume.
Of course, some of the strange flying machines featured were built after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but we did not want a ponderous title. Translation of the Communist state into an intensely capitalist one has tended to concentrate the mind wonderfully. Whereas 60 years ago Soviet designers could obtain funds for often bizarre ideas which a hard-nosed financial director would have considered an almost.
Ironically, instead of being a closely guarded secret, the experimental aircraft and projects of the Soviet Union are today better documented than those of many Western companies. The process of rationalization has seen almost all the famous names of the aircraft industries of the UK, USA and France disappear. In many cases, and especially in the UK, their irreplaceable archives have been wantonly destroyed, as being of no interest to current business.
We may never know what strange things their designers drew on paper but never saw built. In contrast, the Soviet Union never destroyed anything, unless there was a political reason for doing so. Accordingly, though this book concentrates on hardware, it also includes many projects which were built but never flew, and even a few which never got off the proverbial drawing board. As in several previous books, Yefim Gordon provided much information and most of the illustrations while Bill Gunston wrote the text and put the package together.
The in-flight photograph of the MiG 1. A special vote of thanks is due to Nigel Eastaway and the Russian Aviation Research Trust who provided the remainder of the visual images.
AlekseyevI Purpose: To provide a high-performance Shturmovik, armoured ground-attack aircraft. Design Bureau: Responsible for major features of the LaGG-3 and La-5 family of fighters, he was head of detail design on the derived La-7 and La In he was able to open his own design bureau. He at once concentrated on twin-jet fighters with nosewheel landing gear, getting the Alekseyev I I into flight test on 13th October Whilst working on derived aircraft with more powerful engines and swept wings, he worked in parallel on a family of multirole groundattack aircraft.
The first of these was the I, or I For various reasons, the most important being the need for long endurance at low altitude, Alekseyev adopted a powerful piston engine. He adopted a pusher layout, with the tail carried on twin booms. A single prototype was completed in summer , but in August of that year OKB was closed. A contributory factor was Yakovlev's scathing comment that Alekseyev's jet.
At closure three derived aircraft were on the drawing board. The IIb I had a revised crew compartment, tailwheel landing gears and swept vertical tails. The I I was an enlarged aircraft with a conventional fuselage and tail, powered by a Lyul'ka TR-3 turbojet, which was being developed to give 4,kg 10, Ib thrust. The IIII I was a variation on the with a very powerful piston engine he hoped to get a Dobrynin VD-4 of 4,hp, as used in the Tu but without the turbo.
Junkers engineers to produce the Type , described later under OKB No detailed documents have been discovered, but the I was a modern all-metal stressed-skin aircraft designed to a high fighter type load factor.
The wing comprised a centre section and outer panels joined immediately outboard of the tail booms. It was tapered on the leading edge only, and on the trailing edge were fitted outboard ailerons and six sections of area-increasing flap. The tail booms projected far in front of the wing, and carried a conventional twin-finned tail with a fixed tailplane joining the fins just above the centreline of the propeller.
The forward fuselage contained a compartment for the pilot and for the aft-facing gunner.
Like some highly-stressed parts of the airframe this was made of the new 30KhGSNA chrome-nickel steel, and it was thick enough to form a 'bathtub' to protect against armour-piercing shells of 20mm calibre.
The engine, mounted on. It drove an AV contra-rotating propeller arranged for pusher propulsion, comprising two three-blade units each of 3. The I was intended to have heavy forward-firing armament, such as four NR guns each with rounds or two N 30 rounds each and two N 40 rounds each. In addition provision was to be made for up to 1,kg 3, Ib of bombs or other stores, carried mainly under the fuselage, or six mm 5. For defence, the backseater could operate a remotely-sighted system controlling an NR cannon on the outer side of each tail boom.
Each of these powerful guns was fed from a round magazine, and was mounted in a powered barbette with angular limits of 25 vertically and 50 outwards. Though the I was built there is no positive evidence that it flew, apart from the fact that the specification does not include the word 'estimated' for the flight performance. The fact is, in such aircraft were regarded as obsolescent.
A rival, also abandoned, was the IL, described later. Weights unknown except Normal loaded weight 9,kg Maximum 10,kg Performance Max speed, at sea level at 2,m 6, ft Take-off run Landing run Time to reach 5, m Service ceiling Range.
Antonov LEM-2 Purpose: To investigate the maximum load that could be carried by an aeroplane powered by a single M-l 1 engine. Oleg K Antonov, Kiev. AviAvnito and Osoaviakhim the Society of Friends of Aviation and the Chemical Industry provided funds in , enabling the Kiev Ukraine constructor to create his first powered aircraft.
The flight-test programme was opened by test pilot N I Ferosyev on 20th April Results were satisfactory. The M-l 1 five-cylinder radial, rated at l00hp, was mounted on the front in a long-chord cowling, driving a two-blade carved-wood propeller of the type mass-produced for the U-2 later called Po Construction was almost entirely wood, with ply skins of varying thickness. The wing comprised a centre section and two outer panels with long-span but narrow ailerons.
The inboard part of the wing had a chord of 6. The payload compartment between the spars measured 2. In the LEM-2 built the pilot was the only occupant, though it was the intention that a production aircraft should have provision for 11 passenger seats.
Access to the main payload space was to be via large doors in the leading edge ahead of the front spar, but these were absent from the LEM-2 built. There was also a door in the upper surface behind the cockpit. The twinfinned tail was carried on two upswept booms attached at the extremities of the wing centre section.
Landing gears comprised two main wheels the intended spats were never fitted attached to the centre-section end ribs, and a skid under the trailing edge. Development of aircraft in this class was soon discontinued, it being decided they were of limited practical use. In fact, especially with slightly more power, they could have been used in the USSR in large numbers in huge regions devoid of roads and railways.
Antonov A, KT Purpose: KT, Kryl'ya Tanka, flying tank, a means for delivering armoured vehicles to difficult locations by fitting them with wings. Oleg Konstantinovich Antonov, at Kiev. From the Soviet high command studied all aspects of the new subject of airborne warfare, including parachute troops and every kind of aerial close support of armies. One novel concept was fitting wings with or without propulsion to an armoured vehicle.
Simple tests were carried out with small cars and trucks, converted into gliders and towed by such aircraft as the R-5 and it is believed a TB The KT was the only purpose-designed winged tank actually to be tested. The chosen tank was the T, specially designed for airborne forces. Antonov designed a large biplane glider and flight controls to fit over the tank. The work was delayed by the German invasion of 22nd June , but the prototype was ready for test in early The selected pilot, S N Anokhin, did a quick course in tank driving and was then towed off by a TB He managed to land without injuring himself or overturning the tank, which was drivable afterwards.
It comprised rectangular biplane wings joined by vertical and diagonal struts with wire bracing. Both wings were fitted with ailerons, joined by vertical struts. The upper wing also had two spoiler airbrakes, while the lower wing had full-span flaps which the pilot who was the tank driver could pull down manually prior to the landing. At the rear was the twin-finned semi-biplane tail, attached by two braced booms. Construction was of wood, mainly spruce. The covering was fabric, with plywood over the booms and some other areas.
The airframe was lifted by crane over the tank and secured by latches. The towrope from the tug was attached to the tank, and cast off by the tank driver when close to the target.
The intention was that he should glide down steeply, lower the flaps and then, when about to touch the ground, pull a lever to jettison the glider portion. The tank would then be left ready for action. The tank's tracks were driven through an overdrive top gear to assist take-off and smooth the landing. Though the single test flight was successful, Anokhin, an outstandingly skilled pilot, found his task extremely tricky. He doubted the ability of ordinary 'tankers' to fly the loaded tank and bring it down to a successful landing.
In any case, the real need was to fly in Ts, and there seemed to be no practical way of doing this. Antonov M Purpose: To create a superior jet fighter.
No , Oleg K Antonov, Novosibirsk. In Antonov was impressed by the German He , and considered it a good way to produce a simple fighter for rough-field use powered by a single turbojet.
In spring his staff had completed the design of the SKh later designated An-2 , and he quickly schemed a fighter to be powered by a single RD Soviet-made Junkers Jumo B above the fuselage.
He tested a tunnel model, but on 6th April received an instruction from NKAP the state commissariat for aviation industry to design a fighter with two RD-lOs. By this time he had recognized that jet engines not only made possible unconventional new configurations for fighters but might even demand them.
He quickly roughed out the Masha, abbreviated as the 'M'. Apart from the forward fuselage, the redesign was total. Following tunnel testing of models, and free-flight testing of the E which was used as both a detailed full-scale wooden mock-up and a towed glider , construction of the M prototype went ahead rapidly. In July , when the prototype was almost ready, and Mark L Gallai was about to begin flight testing, the project was cancelled.
The La, MiG and Yak jet fighters were thought sufficient. In Antonov again schemed a jet fighter, this time a tailed delta powered by an AL-7F, but it remained on paper. The original form of the Masha featured side inlets to the RD10 engines buried in the thick central part of the wing. Outboard were. Beyond these were small forward-swept ailerons. The main wing had leading-edge flaps and aft spoilers.
Having studied side doors to the cockpit, Antonov settled for a sliding canopy. Armament comprised two VYa and two B This armament remained unchanged in the M actually built, which had a single RD, rated at 2,kg 5, Ib fed by cheek inlets. The wing was redesigned as a round-tipped delta, with the swept vertical tails positioned between two pairs of tabbed elevons. Antonov considered that the final M ought to have been allowed to fly. He considered it would have dramatically outmanoeuvred any contemporary competition, and could later have had radar and a more powerful engine.
Antonov Purpose: To explore the Custer channelwing concept. Oleg K Antonov, Kiev, Ukraine. Little is known about this research aircraft, other than what could be gleaned by walking round it on 18th August and reading the accompanying placard. Its one public outing was on Soviet Day of Aviation, and the venue the airfield at the village of Gastomel, near Kiev.
The configuration was instantly recognisable as being that of the 'channel-wing' aircraft proposed by American W R Custer in the mids. The key factor of this concept was powered lift gained by confining the propeller slipstream in a half-barrel of aerofoil profile.
Custer claimed the ability to take off and climb almost vertically, or to hover, whilst retaining full forward speed capability. Resurrecting the Custer concept was astonishing, as the claims for the channel-wing aircraft were soon shown to be nonsense, and instead of being the start of mass-production of the CCW-5 series version the whole thing faded from view.
It was not just parked on the grass but tied down on a trailer. Visitors were able to climb on to this and study the aircraft intimately, but there was nobody to answer questions. The '' was dominated by its two Custerinspired channel wings, with aerofoil lifting surfaces curved round under the propellers so that they were washed by the slipstream.
Whereas the Custer CCW-5 had pusher propellers above the trailing edge, the Antonov aircraft had tractor propellers above the leading edge. They were driven via shafts and gears by a hp Czech MA six-cylinder aircooled piston engine. Apart from this the aircraft appeared conventional, though the tail was of 'butterfly' configuration to keep it out of the slipstream, and of exceptional size in order to remain effective at very low airspeeds.
Beyond the channel wings were small outer wings with ailerons. The nose was fighter-like, with a large canopy over the side-by-side cockpit, and the tricycle landing gear was fixed.
The nose carried a long instrumentation boom, and there was a dorsal antenna, presumably for telemetry. The whole aircraft was beautifully finished, and painted in house colours with the Antonov logo. Construction of this research aircraft must have been preceded by testing of models. These must have given encouraging results, which were not reproduced in the ''.
Coauthor Gunston asked Antonov leaders about the '' and was told that it had been a serious project, but perhaps ought not to have been put on view.
Three photographs of the An Dimensions Span 7. To destroy enemy armour. The idea was that of Mozharovskiy-Venevidov, who called their project the Kombain combine because of its versatility. They were long-time specialists in aircraft armament, among other things being responsible for all the early gun turrets in the Soviet Union. Arkhangelskiy increased their political power and got them a separate design office and factory for what became called the BSh armoured assaulter, the same designation as the Ilyushin Stormovik and also KABV combined artillery-bomber weapon.
The eskiznyi proekt sketch project was submitted on 29th December , long-lead materials were sanctioned on 25th January and the project was confirmed at the NIl-WS by AIFilin on 12th March Despite being on paper superior, it was terminated in the evacuation of the designers from Moscow to Kirov later in , all effort being put into the Ilyushin aircraft which was built in greater numbers than any other aircraft in history.
The whole emphasis in the M-V project was giving the pilot the only occupant the best possible view ahead over the nose. Whereas the engine of the IL-2 Sturmovik blocked off the view at a downwards angle of 8, the M-V aircraft gave the pilot a downwards view of This is because the engine the l,hp AM, the same as the IL-2 was behind the cockpit.
The tail was carried on twin booms and the landing gear was of the then-novel nosewheel type. Up to kg of bombs could also be carried, mainly to comprise AO or AO fragmentation bomblets.
On the basis of written evidence this aircraft would have been a better tank killer than the Ilyushin machine. High-speed research aircraft with fighter-like possibilities. One of the few aircraft designers to emigrate to not from the infant Soviet Union was Roberto Lodovico Bartini.
A fervent Communist, he chose to leave his native Italy in when the party was proscribed by Mussolini. By he was an experienced aircraft designer, and qualified pilot, working at the Central Construction Bureau.
In April of that year he proposed the creation of the fastest aircraft possible. Work began here in , the aircraft being designated Stal' steel 6, as one of a series of ex After successful design and construction the Stal'-6 was scheduled for pre-flight testing taxi runs at increasing speed in the hands of test pilot Andrei Borisovich Yumashev.
On the very first run he 'sensed the lightness of the controls. He pulled slightly back on the stick and the aircraft took off, long before its scheduled date. The awesomely advanced aircraft proved to be straightforward to fly, but the engine cooling system suffered a mechanical fault and the first landing was in a cloud of steam. Yumashev was reprimanded by Bartini for not adhering to the programme, but testing continued.
In November , soon after the Stal'-6 by this time called the El, experimental fighter had. This, the Stal'-8, was quickly created in a separate workshop at Factory , and was thus allocated the Service designation of I Many engineers, including AAMikulin, designer of the most powerful Soviet engines, demonstrated or proved that such a speed was not possible.
When confronted by the Stal'-6 test results, and Comrade Bartini himself, the experts were amazed. They called for State Acceptance tests not previously required on experimental aircraft. These began. On 13th July the landing-gear indicator lights became faulty and, misled, Stefanovskii landed with the main wheel retracted. The aircraft was repaired, and the rolling tendency cured.
Various modifications were made to make the speedy machine more practical as a fighter. For example the windscreen was fastened in the up position and the pilot's seat in the raised position.
The result was that fighter designers - Grigorovich, Polikarpov, Sukhoi and even Bartini himself - were instructed to build fighters much faster than any seen hitherto.
Bartini continued working on the StaP-8, a larger and more practical machine than the Stal'-6, with an enclosed cockpit with a forward-sliding hood, two ShKAS machine guns and an advanced stressed-skin airframe. Funds were allocated, the Service designation of the Stal'-8 being I This futuristic fighter might have been a valuable addition to the WS, but Bartini's origins were still remembered even in the mids, and someone managed to get funding for the Stal'-8 withdrawn.
One reason put forward was vulnerability of the steam cooling system. In May the I was abandoned, with the prototype about 60 per cent complete.
Everything possible was done to reduce drag. The cantilever wing had straight taper and slight dihedral existing drawings incorrectly show a horizontal upper surface. The two spars were made from KhMA chromemolybdenum steel tubes, each spar comprising seven tubes of The ribs were assembled from Enerzh-6 stainless rolled strip. Ailerons, flaps and tail surfaces were assembled from steel pressings, with Percale fabric skin. The flaps were driven manually, and when they were lowered the ailerons drooped 5.
Bartini invented an aileron linkage which adjusted stick force according to indicated airspeed this was resurrected ten years later by the Central Aero-Hydrodynamic Institute as their The fuselage was likewise based on a framework of welded KhMA steel tubes. Ahead of the cockpit the covering comprised unstressed panels of magnesium alloy, the aft section being moulded plywood.
In flight the cockpit was part-covered by a glazed hood flush with the top of the fuselage, giving the pilot a view to each side only. For take-off and landing the hood could be hinged upwards, while the seat was raised by a winch and cable mechanism. Likewise the landing gear was based on a single wheel on the centreline, with an x mm tyre, mounted on two struts with rubber springing.
The pilot could unlock this and raise it into an AMTs light alloy box between the rudder pedals. For some reason the fuselage skin on each side of this bay was corrugated. The wheel bay was normally enclosed by a door which during the retraction cycle was first opened to admit the wheel and then closed.
Extension was by free-fall, finally assisted by the cable until the unit locked. Under the outer wings were hinged support struts, likewise retracted to the rear by cable. When extended, each strut could rotate back on its pivot against a spring. Under the tail was a skid with a rubber shock absorber. The engine was an imported Curtiss Conqueror V 70 rated at hp, driving a two-blade metal propeller with a large spinner photographs show that at least two different propellers were fitted.
This massive vee engine was normally water-cooled, but Bartini boldly adopted a surface-evaporation steam cooling system.
The water in the engine was allowed to boil, and the steam flowed into the leading edges of the wings which were covered by a double skin from the root to the aileron.
Each leading edge was electrically spot- and seam-welded, with a soldering agent, to form a sealed box with a combined internal area of Each leading edge was attached to the upper and lower front tubes of the front spar. Inside, the steam, under slight pressure, condensed back into water which was then pumped back to the engine. The system was not designed for prolonged running, and certainly not with the aircraft parked.
Bartini succeded brilliantly in constructing the fastest aircraft built at that time in the Soviet Union. At the same time he knew perfectly well that the Stal'-6 was in no way a practical machine for the WS. The unconventional landing gear appeared to work well, and even the evaporative cooling system was to be perpetuated in the I fighter but that was before the Stal'-6 had flown.
Whether the I would have succeded in front-line service is doubtful, but it was the height of folly to cancel it. The following data refers to the Stal' Bartini Stal'-7 Purpose: Originally, fast passenger transport; later, long-range experimental aircraft.
In the winter the GUGVF chief administration of the civil air fleet issued a requirement for a fast transport aircraft to carry 10 to 12 passengers.
Curiously, the two prototypes built to meet this demand were both the work of immigrant designers, the Frenchman Laville with ZIG-1 and the Italian Bartini. Always captivated by speed, Stalin decreed that a bomber version should be designed in parallel. Strongly influenced by the Stalin decree, Bartini created a transport notable for its cramped and inconvenient fuselage, highly unsuitable for passengers but excellent for bombs, and for long-range flight.
The original structure was to be typical Bartini welded steel-tube trusses with fabric covering, but the stress calculations were impossibly difficult, with primary rigid welded intersections between tubes of different diameters. In late the fuselage was redesigned as a light-alloy stressed-skin structure, with simpler connections to the unchanged wing.
The first flight was made on an unrecorded date in autumn , the pilot being N P Shebanov. Performance was outstanding, and Shebanov proposed attempting a round-the-world flight. In the StaP-7 was fitted with 27 fuel tanks with a total capacity of 7, litres 1, Imperial gallons, 1, US gallons. A maximum-range flight was then attempted, but - possibly because of structural failure of a landing gear - the aircraft crashed on take-off.
Bartini was arrested, and was in detention but still designing, initially at OKB-4, Omsk for 17 years. The aircraft was repaired, and on 28th August , at a slightly reduced weight, successfully made a closed-circuit flight of 5,km 3, miles in 12hrs Slmin average speed In Bartini's absence, the project was seized by his opportunist co-worker V G Yermolayev, who redesigned it into the outstanding DB and Yer-2 long-range bomber.
The wing was typical Bartini, with pronounced straight taper and construction from complex spars built up from multiple steel tubes, almost wholly with fabric covering. Each wing comprised a very large centre section, with depth almost as great as that of the fuselage, terminating just beyond the engine nacelles 2. The trailing edges carried split flaps and Frise ailerons, the left aileron having.
One account says that the invertedgull shape 'improved stability and provided a cushion effect which reduced take-off and landing distance', but its only real effect was to raise the wing on the centreline from the low to the mid position. This was just what the fuselage did not need, because the massive deep spars formed almost impassable obstructions and eliminated any possibility of using the aircraft as a passenger airliner. The fuselage was a light-alloy structure, with an extremely.
Entry was via a very small door on the left of the rear fuselage. The cockpit in the nose seated pilots side by side, and had a glazed canopy with sliding side windows and the then-fashionable forward-raked windscreen. They were installed in neat cowlings at the outer ends of the centre section, angled slightly outwards and driving propellers with three metal blades which could have pitch adjusted on the ground.
One account states that wing-surface radiators were used, but it is obvious from photographs that ordinary frontal radiators were fitted, as in the Tupolev SB bomber. Plain exhaust stubs were fitted, though this may have scorched the wing fabric and one drawing shows exhaust pipes discharging above the wing.
In the course of the original engines were replaced by the derived M, rated at hp, which improved performance with heavy fuel loads. A hydraulic system was provided to operate the flaps and the fully retractable main landing gears, each unit of which had a strong pair of main legs which hinged at mid-length, the unit then swinging back on twin forward radius arms like a DC3 back-to-front. The castoring tailwheel was fixed. In the nose were twin landing lights. The Stal'-7 was simply a sound aeroplane able to fly at what was in its day a very long way at high speed.
As a transport it was inconvenient to the point of being useless, though it was supposed to be able to seat 12 passengers, and it was flawed by its basic layout and structure. On the other hand, Yermolayev transformed the Stal'-7 into an outstanding long-range bomber. BartiniWA Purpose: To explore the characteristics of a vehicle able to fly as an aeroplane or skim the ocean surface as an Ekranoplan literally 'screen plan', a device covering an area with a screen.
Ever one to consider radical solutions, Bartini spent part of scheming a giant marine vehicle called M. Seaborne at rest, this was to be able to rise from the water and fly at high speed over long distances.
It was to make true flights at high altitude, but also have the capability of 'flying' just above the sea surface. Such a vehicle was initially seen as urgently needed to destroy US Navy Polarismissile submarines, but it could have many other applications. The idea was refined into one called , from its weight in tonnes, and ultimately designated M or MVA This looked vaguely like a jet fighter, with a front cockpit, large centroplan central wing with a turbojet on top, twin floats, outer wings and twin fins and rudders.
Under each float was a surfacepiercing V-type hydrofoil, which was not to be a feature of the full-scale vehicle. Production craft were to be kept at readiness on coastal airfields. The vehicle was classed as an amphibious aircraft. It was to be developed in three phases. The WAM1 was to be an aerodynamics and technology test-bed, initially with rigid pontoons on the ends of the centroplan, and later with these replaced by PVPU inflatable pontoons which took years to develop.
The WAM2 was to be more advanced, with two extra main engines to blast under the centroplan to give lift and later with a battery of lift engines to give VTOL capability, and with fly-by-wire flight controls. Following very extensive research, and tests with simulators, the first vehicle, Nol, was completed as an aeroplane. It was tested at the Taganrog WS flying school, which had a concrete runway. The only problem was serious vibration of hydraulic pipes, which resulted in total loss of fluid from one of the two systems.
In the PVPU inflatable pontoons were at last installed, though their expansion and retraction caused many problems. Flotation and water taxi tests followed, culminating in the start of flight testing of the amphibious aircraft on 11 th June The forward fuselage was lengthened and the starting cushion-blowing engines added. On the debit side, Bartini was also right in predicting that the Lotarev bureau would never deliver the intended battery of 12 RDPR lift engines, and this made the second and third prototypes redundant.
Bartini died in , and the now truncated programme continued with trickle funding. The blowing engines caused resonance which resulted in breakage of landing-gear doors and buffeting of the rear control flaps. The vehicle never flew again, but did carry out manoeuvre tests on water with reversers added to the blowing engines. The entire structure was marinised light alloy, much of the external skin being of honeycomb sandwich.
The airframe was based on the fuselage, centroplan of short span but Model of MVA Above the rear on the centreline were the two main engines. The starting engines were mounted on the sides of the nose, and the unused lift-engine bay was disposed around the centre of gravity amidships.
The propulsion and starting cushion-blowing engines were all Solov'yov DM turbofans, each rated at 6,kg 14, Ib. The starting engines were equipped with cascade-type thrust deflectors, and later with clamshell-type reversers. Bleed air served the cabin conditioning system and hot-air deicing of all leading edges. A total of 15,kg 34, Ib of fuel was housed in two metal tanks and 12 soft cells.
The cockpit contained three KL ejection-seats, for the pilot, navigator and weapon-systems operator. Flight controls were linked through the SAU-M autopilot and complex military navigation and weapon-delivery systems. Had the aircraft undertaken VTOL flights the reaction-control system would have come into use, with six pairs of high-power bleed-air nozzles disposed at the wingtips and longitudinal extremities.
For operation from land No was fitted with the nose and a single main landing gear of a Tu, both on the centreline, and the complete outrigger-gear pods of a Myasishchev 3M heavy bomber. One of the incomplete WAs was damaged by fire, the third being abandoned at an early stage. The one with which all the flying was done, Nol, was retired to the Monino museum in a dismantled state, where it carries the number '' and 'Aeroflot'.
TANTK had various projects for intended production amphibious derivatives. These were grouped under letter T, and two such are illustrated here for the first time. The WA was an outstandingly bold concept which very nearly came off. There is little doubt it could have led to a practical verhicle for many oceanic purposes. In the long term all it achieved was to give TANTK-Beriev considerable experience in many new disciplines, especially in challenging avionics and flight-control areas.
Such a programme would have almost no chance of being funded today. Dimensions Span wing Three-view of WAM2 with retractable landing gear. A more detailed side elevation of WAM2. Two of the 'T' projects. Belyayev Babochka Purpose: To test an experimental wing. Design bureau: Partly because it would have been difficult to match centre of lift with centre of gravity by retrofitting the wing to an existing aircraft, it was decided to design an aircraft specially for this purpose.
It was called Babochka butterfly. The project was launched in , and drawings were completed late the following year. Throughout, Belyayev was devoting most of his time to the EOI see page The single Babochka was being readied for flight when the Soviet Union was invaded.
Even though Kazan was far to the East of Moscow, this project was not considered important and those working on it were drafted elsewhere. This aircraft was essentially a straightforward low-wing monoplane, of fighter-like appearance, with a single relatively large piston engine.
It is believed that the structure was almost all-metal stressed skin. The key item, the wing, had a high aspect ratio, sweptforward inboard sections and swept-back outer panels. The objective was to make a wing that was flexible yet which in severe positive manoeuvres would deflect upwards without causing a longitudinal pitch problem. Under load, the inner wings deflected upwards, tending to twist with positive angle of incidence, automatically countered by the negative twist of the outer panels.
This was hoped to lead to an extension of Belyayev's concept of a wing that was inherently stable longitudinally. The inner wings were fitted with inboard and outboard split flaps, while the smaller outer panels carried two-section ailerons.
The engine was mounted on the nose on a steel-tube truss. According to historian V B Shavrov the engine was a 'Renault hp' which would have had 12 cylinders and a central air-cooling inlet.
In fact it must have been an MV-6, a licence-built Renault with six aircooled cylinders, rated at hp. Tandem enclosed cockpits were provided for the pilot and test observer.
The tail, remarkably small reflecting the designer's belief in the stability of the wing positioned the horizontal tail wholly in front of the rudder. The landing gears were fully retractable, the main wheels folding inwards into the extended-chord wing roots. Though there is no reason to doubt that the Babochka would have flown successfully, there is equally no reason to believe that it would have shown any significant advantage over an aircraft with a conventional straighttapered wing.
The initials stood for 'long-range bomber, flying wing'. Designer's own brigade at the Central Aerodynamics and Hydrodynamics Institute. He liked tailless aircraft, and had a fixation on a 'bat wing', with slight forward sweep and curved-back tips, which he considered not only gave such aircraft good longitudinal stability but also minimised induced drag. In he entered an AviAvnito competition for a transport with a design having twin fuselages, each with a hp Wright Cyclone engine and ten passenger seats, but this was not built.
From this he derived the DB-LK bomber. Designed in , the single prototype was completed in November , but according to unofficial reports pilots declined to do more than make fast taxi runs, the aircraft being dubbed Kuritsa chicken in consequence.
In early this unacceptable situ-. Test flying began in early , at which time Mark Gallai also joined the test team. Nyukhtikov complained that the flight-control system was inadequate and that the landing-gear shock absorbers were weak.
In the investigation that followed, the Commission agreed with the first point, but the Head of Nil WS, AI Filin, thought the landing gear satisfactory. He then changed his mind when a leg collapsed with himself at the controls see photo. Later the main legs were not only redesigned but were also inclined forward, to improve directional stability on the ground and avoid dangerous swing. Later in the Nil WS ordered the DB-LK to be abandoned, despite its outstanding performance, and the planned imminent installation of l,hp M engines.
Belyayev had by this time designed a refined version with 1,hp M engines, but was told that the DB-3F later redesignated IL-4 would remain the standard long-range bomber.
Overall aspect ratio was no less than 8. The airframe was almost entirely a modern light-alloy stressed-skin structure, the wing having five spars. There is evidence the structural design was modern, with most components pressed or even machined from sheet. The outer wings had flaps of the unusual Zapp type, extended to 45, with Frise ailerons outboard, which even had miniature sections on the back-raked tips. Ahead of the ailerons were slats.
At each end of the centroplan was a fuselage, of basically circular section. The engines were housed in modern longchord cowlings, with pilot-operated cooling gills. Tanks in the wings and fuselages housed 3, litres On the centreline at the rear was a large 7.
High on the fin, Each fuselage was provided with a main landing gear, with a single oleo strut on the outer side of the axle for a single wheel with a x mm tyre, with a hydraulic brake. Each unit retracted rearwards hydraulically. On the centreline at the rear was the fixed castoring tailwheel, with a x tyre. The intention was that the series production DB-LK should have a pilot in the front of the left fuselage, a navigator in front on the right, and gunners in each tailcone.
The gunners, entering like the others via roof hatches, should manage the radio as well as pairs of ShKAS 7. Two more ShKAS fired ahead on the centreline, aimed by the pilot, and for the six guns a total of 4, rounds were provided.
Behind each maingear bay was a bomb bay, with powered doors see underside view. Predictably, the full military equipment was never fitted, though radio was installed throughout the flight trials. Despite its strikingly unconventional appearance, the DB-LK appeared to be a practical bomber with outstanding flight performance. Compared with the established WS bomber it had the same number of similar engines, and even half the number of landing-gear oleos, despite having twice the number of fuselages and weapon bays.
From today's distance, it might have been worth pursuing this formula a little further. Dimensions Span Belyayev PBI Purpose: Experimental dive-bomber fighter. V N Belyayev. No descriptive material has come to light regarding the proposed FBI Russian for divebomber fighter. When these photographs were unearthed and identified nothing was known of such an aircraft, and it was concluded that this was Specification.
No figures known.
Studying the photographs makes it obvious that the FBI was what its designation states, and not primarily a fighter. Almost the only fact deducible under the heading 'History' is that the date is one month after the evacuation of the factories in the Moscow area. The forward fuselage has two cannon in the same undernose position, the single-seat cockpit has similar features, the wing is in the same mid-position, immediately behind it is the engine driving a threeblade pusher propeller and the twin booms and tail are similar.
The differences are that the cockpit area is almost completely glazed, and the landing gears are taller to facilitate loading bombs on five racks apparently an FAB on the centreline and for an FAB and FAB under each wing. The inference has to be that the FBI did not progress far beyond the mock-up. This may have been photographed after the workers had left, immediately before it was destroyed, or alternatively it may have been safely located but abandoned somewhere East of Moscow.
Belyayev , EOI Purpose: Experimental fighter. This EOI Eksperimental'nyi Odnomestnyi Istrebitel', experimental single-seat fighter was proposed in early , and personally approved by Stalin in August of that year. Design and manufacture proceeded through , and at the German invasion of 22nd June the first flight was only a few months away.
In October the Moscow factories were evacuated. It was decided to abandon the project, and the part-complete EOI, drawings and calculations were destroyed. When photographs of the FBI see above were discovered it was at first thought that this must be the same aircraft. In fact, there was little similarity between the two designs apart from the basic configuration. The EOI had the cockpit in the nose, almost perfectly streamlined, with armament in the same location.
Possibly for the first time in history, Belyayev designed the entire front section of the aircraft to be separated in emergency, so that the pilot would not have to bail out ahead of the propeller.
The latter was to be driven by a Klimov M engine, rated at l,hp and fitted with a TK-2 turbocharger. In the original scheme, like fighters of by Gallaudet in the USA and Dufaux in France, the propeller was to have a large-diameter hub through which passed a tube carrying the rear fuselage. Some of the '' drawings are reproduced overleaf. One shows the proposed cockpit, armament of two underfloor VYa cannon and location of the cartridge-severed attachments.
Another drawing shows the unique arrangement in which the wing was to be provided with a slat. This auxiliary surface was normally housed in a recess immediately ahead of the flap or aileron. For take-off and landing it was to be swung down and forward to adopt a leading-edge-down attitude ahead of the leading edge of the wing. Thus, it was a bolder precursor of today's Krueger flap.
Whether or not this aerodynamically powerful idea was abandoned is unknown, but Belyayev certainly abandoned the original rear fuselage.
By late he had decided to use conventional twin tail booms. The specification overleaf applies to this revised scheme. According to one document it was intended that a production version should have had the M engine. This would have been rated at 1,hp, instead of 1,1 00hp. Whether the unconventional configuration, and especially the potentially dangerous slat system, would have shown to advantage will never be known.
Dimensions Span Wing area Design speed No other data. Bereznyak-Isayev BI Purpose: Experimental rocket-engined interceptor-fighter. In Bereznyak was an observer at the static tests of the first reliable rocket engine developed by Leonid Stepanovich Dushkin. In early he watched flight tests of the primitive RP see later under Korolyev.
He discussed rocket aircraft with Isayev, who had been a Dushkin engineer involved with the RP In late May they decided to propose a high-speed rocket-engined fighter.
They put the suggestion to Prof Bolkhovitinov see later entry. After discussion with all interested parties Bolkhovitinov sent a letter to GUAP chief administration of aviation industry on 9th July putting forward a detailed proposal. Soon a reply came from the Kremlin. The order was for five prototypes, with the time to first flight cut from the suggested three months to a mere 35 days.
A complete Bolkhovitinov team were confined to the OKB for 40 days, working three shifts round the clock. The first unpowered flight article was built without many drawings, dimensions being drawn directly on the materials and on templates. B M Kudrin made the first flight on 10th September , the tug being a Pe All necessary data were obtained in 15 flights. The first experimental D-1A engine was installed in late January , but exploded during testing on 20th February, injuring Kudrin sent to hospital in Moscow and a technician.
The replacement pilot was Capt G Ya Bakhshivandzhi. He was in the cockpit on the first tied-down firing on 27th April On 15th May he made the world's first flight of a fully engineered rocket interceptor, still fitted with skis. By March seven BI prototypes had been constructed, but the flying was entirely in towed or gliding flight because of serious problems caused by explosions and acid spillages.
Powered flying did not resume until February By this time Kudrin had returned to flight status, and was assigned one of the Bis. On powered flight No 6 on 21st March a height of 3km 9,ft was reached in 30 seconds.
On powered flight No7, with aircraft No 3, on 27th March, Bakhshivandzhi made a run at sustained full power; the aircraft suddenly pitched over and. This terminated the delayed plan to build a production series of 50 slightly improved aircraft, but testing of the prototypes continued. Until the end of the War these tested various later Dushkin engines, some with large thrust chambers for take-off and combat and small chambers to prolong the very short cruise endurance which was the factor resulting in progressive waning of interest.
Other testing attempted to perfect a sealed pressurized cockpit. By the urgency had departed from the programme, and the remaining BI Nol some were scrapped following acid corrosion were used as basic research aircraft.
BI No7 was modified with revised wing-root fairings and stronger engine cowl panels, but at high speed tailplane flutter was experienced. In Bereznyak proposed a mixedpower interceptor with a three-chamber rocket engine of 10,kg 22, Ib sealevel thrust, for 'dash' performance, and a Mikulin AM-5 turbojet of 1,kg 4,b sea-level thrust. Estimated maximum speed was Mach 1. This was not proceeded with. The BI Nol had a small and outstandingly simple all-wood airframe. The straight-tapered wing, 6 per cent thick, had two box spars and multiple stringers supporting skin mainly of 2mm ply.
Outboard were fabriccovered ailerons. Inboard were split flaps with light-alloy structure the only major metal parts , with a landing angle of The fuselage was a plywood monocoque with fabric bonded over the outer surface. It was constructed integral with the upper and lower fins. The rudder and elevators were fabric-covered.
On the tailplane were added small circular endplate fins, and the powered aircraft had the tailplane braced to both the upper and lower fins. The engine bay was lined with refractory materials and stainless steel. The standard engine was the Dushkin D-1A, the designation reflecting the sea-level thrust 2, Ib , rising to about 1,kg 2, Ib at high altitude. The propellants, fed by compressed air, were RFNA red fuming nitric acid and kerosene.
These were contained in cylindrical stainless-steel tanks in the centre fuselage. The pneumatic system not only fed the propellants but also charged the guns and operated the flaps and main landing gears. The latter retracted inwards into the wings and normally had wheels with x tyres.
Find sources: The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 24 July Jane's Defence Weekly. Archived from the original on 7 April Retrieved 11 June Gale, Biography In Context. Jane's All the World's Aircraft: IHS Global. The London Gazette Supplement. Authority control BNE: XX BNF: Retrieved from " https: