Military Review

Do not be born beautiful

164



The "winged phrase" by aircraft designer A.N. Tupolev (although, sometimes it is attributed to AS Yakovlev and even to O. Antonov): “Ugly planes do not fly” (option: “Only beautiful planes fly well”). She is often quoted when they want to praise this or that beautiful, in the opinion of the quoting, aircraft, or, on the contrary, to scold the ugly. Meanwhile, if you think about it, there is no point in this phrase.

Firstly, beauty is a relative concept and entirely dependent on the aesthetic preferences of the appraiser. As they say, one likes pop, the other likes it, and the third likes a watermelon or pork cartilage. And Secondly, aesthetics and aerodynamics are concepts that are not related to each other. And not always what seems beautiful, at the same time has high flight qualities. Or vice versa.

And I remembered it today, because exactly 80 years ago, 21 December 1936, for the first time took to the air the prototype of the Junkers aircraft Ju.88, which few people consider the benchmark of beauty and grace. However, this machine has become one of the best and most successful bombers of World War II. In 1940, a copy of the Ju.88 purchased in Germany was tested in our Air Force Institute. And in the report on these tests there is a rather unusual phrase for such documents: "The plane looks ugly, but it flies well and is easily controlled." As can be seen, Tupolev's delusion prevailed over our engineers and testers (although Tupolev himself was already sitting in the sharashka), and his inconsistency with reality caused them to have cognitive dissonance.

Meanwhile, Ju.88 was adopted into service in 1943 by the "tadpole" Ju.188, which looked even more ridiculous and ugly, but at the same time possessed even higher flight and tactical characteristics. All in all, beauty in aviation - The matter is far from the main thing.



The first prototype Ju.88V-1 in a test flight.



The third prototype of Ju.88V-3.



Serial Ju.88A-1, tested in the Institute of Air Force.



Ju.188.
Author:
Originator:
http://vikond65.livejournal.com/574647.html
164 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Same lech
    Same lech 2 January 2017 06: 23
    +24
    The Germans also had the FW-189 aircraft frame ... also an extremely tenacious aircraft that did not shine with beauty but was fully consistent with its purpose.


    The German engineering and design idea in the 30-40 of the year was filled with a host of interesting inventions.
    An amazing leap of human genius ... considering that GERMANY has recently suffered the most difficult first world war and the years of humiliation after surrender ... there must be some sort of unexplored regularity of nature in this.
    1. bionik
      bionik 2 January 2017 08: 33
      +13
      If anyone is interested:
      1. 13 warrior
        13 warrior 2 January 2017 15: 17
        +10
        Already the third article of the author in recent days, but they are all somehow cropped, unfinished.
        What do you, sir, want to convey to the public?
        Or do you just want to ask a discussion topic?
    2. Monarchist
      Monarchist 2 January 2017 08: 59
      +6
      The same about Lech. You are right, the WF189 was not distinguished by its beauty, but it was perhaps the most hated aircraft for the Red Army. As a boy, I heard the veterans "damn crutch". Someone said it was 1942 on the Southern Front they said: "The foreman has arrived, prepare the graves"
      1. Thunderbolt
        Thunderbolt 2 January 2017 10: 06
        +14
        Quote: The same LYOKHA
        The Germans also had the FW-189 aircraft frame ...

        Eh, it's good that the war ended victoriously in 45, otherwise the Germans "had" a lot ...
        1. Operator
          Operator 2 January 2017 11: 00
          +3
          Nonsense - in the nerd's dream video.

          See real Soviet and American jet aircraft of the 1950's.
          1. Thunderbolt
            Thunderbolt 2 January 2017 12: 00
            +17
            Quote: Operator
            See real Soviet and American jet aircraft of the 1950's.
            This is not for nerds, but concepts and trial sketches of technical solutions. In addition, nice music is superimposed on the beautiful video sequence.
            And why be surprised if in my city, for example, a "plant number 2" was organized where in the 46th year 405 German engineers and technicians, 258 highly qualified workers, 37 employees, as well as a small group of service personnel + 1174 family members of these specialists were moved from the German firms Junkers, BMW and Askania? At first, the secret plant where the Germans worked was managed exclusively by the military. However, in May 1949, an unknown engineer came here to replace the military, almost immediately appointed the responsible manager of the enterprise. For many decades this person was classified in about the same way as Igor Kurchatov, Sergei Korolev, Mikhail Yangel, Dmitry Kozlov. But now his name, which has already become legendary, is known to everyone: that unknown engineer was Nikolai Dmitrievich Kuznetsov. Kuznetsov immediately sent all the creative forces of his subordinate design bureaus to develop a new turboprop engine, which was based on the German model YUMO-022. This engine was designed back in Dessau and developed power up to 4 thousand horsepower. It was modernized, its capacity was increased even more and it was put into series. In subsequent years, not only turboprop, but also turbojet bypass engines for bomber aviation came out of the Kuznetsov Design Bureau. German specialists were directly involved in the creation of almost each of them. Their work at the engine plant in the village of Upravlenchesky continued almost until the mid-50s. Http://xn----7sbbaazuatxpyidedi7gqh.xn--p1a
            i/%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3/%D1%
            81%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8
            F-%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F/%D0%
            BF%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%B
            D%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9-%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B
            E%D0%B4-%D0%B4%D0%BE-%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%
            B0%D0%B4%D0%B0-%D1%81%D1%81%D1%81%D1%80/%D0%BD%D0
            %B5%D0%BC%D1%86%D1%8B,-%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%D
            1%80%D1%8B%D0%B5-%D0%B4%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%BB%D0%B8-%
            D0%B4%D0%BE-%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B3%D0%B8.html
            I hope everyone knows what the Samara Scientific and Technical Complex named after N. D. Kuznetsov is for the defense capabilities of our country. We made full use of German developments and the brains and hands of their engineers and technicians. And I don’t see anything wrong with that. And this is only for certain types of aircraft engines, so as not to deviate from the topic of bombers of the 40-50s.
          2. sandrmur76
            sandrmur76 2 January 2017 16: 59
            +17
            Operator
            Nonsense - in the nerd's dream video.
            Who are the nerds? Germans? This is New Year’s Syndrome. Read the book (Secret Projects of the Luftwaffe Fighters Walter Schick, Ingolf Meyer). The Germans came up with so many wing profiles that the whole world then used them. Me262, Me163, He162 and their engines BMW 003, Jumo004. The reverse sweep of the wing, the boundary layers. One layout of the sea. In short, I crucify, who is interested in the development of jet aircraft that he knows.
            1. Operator
              Operator 2 January 2017 18: 45
              +4
              Hmm, New Year walks around the country laughing

              Damn, what does jet engines have to do with paper projects for German aircraft?

              Hde, in nature, you can see the opposite sweep, except in one - the only TCB of the Russian development, created 70 years after the Germans, but not yet in the series?

              99 percent of German paper planes of the WWII period is a whim (partly from not knowing, partly from the erroneous thesis about the importance of beauty in the aircraft industry). Who does not agree, study the materiel - serial American and Soviet aircraft.

              To see the prospect in paper German planes is nonsense. The Germans were absolutely not guided in the situation and were engaged in purely concrete paperwork - such as today's performance.

              You do not need to have an engineering education to, for example, concoct a tailless piece of paper - in order for this scheme to become popular, you need to have a modern computer that would control a statically unstable aircraft. Anyone who in the 1945 year ignored this prerequisite (due to the lack of any computer) speculated on the Tympanic consciousness of the top of the Third Reich and nothing more.
              1. sandrmur76
                sandrmur76 2 January 2017 20: 18
                +8
                Hde, in nature, you can see the opposite sweep, except in one - the only TCB of the Russian development, created 70 years after the Germans
                You can still search. Yes, in your opinion, are German engineers small children? What should we talk about? And by the way there was no conversation. Even the V-shaped tail unit was taken from the Germans and much more. Many German designers worked after the war in the USSR and U.S.
              2. Parsec
                Parsec 2 January 2017 23: 08
                +8
                Quote: Operator
                You do not need to have an engineering education to, for example, concoct a tailless piece of paper - in order for this scheme to become popular, you need to have a modern computer that would control a statically unstable aircraft.


                Tailless: Mirage III, -5, -2000, -4000, 2 flight specimens; Avro Volcano - cars of the 600s ... 50s; Concord, Tu-60 - 144s; BEACH and DB-LK of the 70s - flew without computers.

                Quote: Operator
                speculated on the tympunk consciousness of the top of the Third Reich and nothing more

                And not tympunk, but steampunk; the Germans built a radar system on a national scale, launched 10 cruise missiles on the enemy (you want, call them shock drones), which could be based both on land and on an airplane; and more than 000 ballistic missiles.
                Anti-aircraft missiles did not have time, but there was a development.
                Relay communication, telephone channel multiplexing, radio navigation - this is not steampunk.
                1. Operator
                  Operator 2 January 2017 23: 59
                  +3
                  All your "tailless" have a tail in the form of a keel - and therefore flew without a computer.

                  Re-read the article - where does it say anything about the radar, missiles, communications and navigation?
                  1. Parsec
                    Parsec 3 January 2017 00: 21
                    +7
                    Quote: Operator
                    Re-read the article - where does it say anything about the radar, missiles, communications and navigation?


                    You have commented on the "tympank" consciousness of the Third Reich elite.
                    Quote: Operator
                    All your "tailless" have a tail in the form of a keel - and therefore flew without a computer.

                    "Tailless is an aerodynamic scheme, according to which the aircraft does not have separate altitude control planes, and only the planes installed on the trailing edge of the wing are used."
                    And without vertical plumage - this is a flying wing. If you want to be understood, call a spade a spade.
                    The U.S. Air Force was armed with bombers according to the B-35 flying wing scheme; the YB-49 was tested, respectively, from 1947 and 1949.
                    With a bomb load of 23 tons - do you feel the range of changes in weights and alignment?
                    Without computers.
                    Somehow you are categorical over the edge.
                    1. Operator
                      Operator 3 January 2017 00: 54
                      +2
                      Accuracy is fine, so it’s doubly surprising that the U.S. Army Air Force adopted (in your opinion) aircraft with the indexes XB-35 (X - experimental) and YB-35 (Y - pre-production) bully
              3. Pretorius
                Pretorius 3 January 2017 02: 39
                +8
                And what's that? Also a paper layout?
                1. Mordvin 3
                  Mordvin 3 3 January 2017 02: 42
                  +5
                  Quote: Pretorius
                  And what's that? Also a paper layout?

                  No, it looks like a cardboard. soldier
            2. Alf
              Alf 2 January 2017 20: 20
              +1
              Quote: sandrmur76
              Operator
              Nonsense - in the nerd's dream video.
              Who are the nerds? Germans? This is New Year’s Syndrome. Read the book (Secret Projects of the Luftwaffe Fighters Walter Schick, Ingolf Meyer). The Germans came up with so many wing profiles that the whole world then used them. Me262, Me163, He162 and their engines BMW 003, Jumo004. The reverse sweep of the wing, the boundary layers. One layout of the sea. In short, I crucify, who is interested in the development of jet aircraft that he knows.

              And where are all these super-layouts and super-profiles? The winners took everything to the hangars. It would seem, what's the matter, take it and release it. But no, something got in the way. And the reverse-swept aircraft you mentioned flew only in the 90s-2000s, and then on computers. I would have seen how these super-projects, "ahead of their time", would have flown from the Germans without computers.
              1. Parsec
                Parsec 2 January 2017 21: 02
                +6
                Quote: Alf
                I would have seen how these super-projects, "ahead of their time", would have flown from the Germans without computers.


                And with some logarithmic rulers, they flew, Junkers-287 in 1944.

                Hamburger Flugzeugbau HFB-320 Hansa Jet - The aircraft development project began in 1960. The first flight of the prototype took place on April 21, 1964, and the production car took off on February 2, 1966. The first commercial operator was the Italian Italcementi that received its aircraft on September 26, 1967. In 1977, the HFB-320M modification was released, which is a military jammer (EW). A total of 47 cars were produced.
                Which computers, the main director of interference is the Luftwaffe.
                This is not counting the famous Blanik glider since 1956.
                Grumman X-29, 1984. The aircraft was made according to the “duck” scheme with an all-turning front horizontal tail unit of trapezoidal shape and a negative sweep wing (–30 °). By the time of termination of flights of the first instance in 1986, he made 242 flights.

                Would you see ...
                1. Alf
                  Alf 2 January 2017 21: 34
                  +2
                  Just one sample? If everything was so breakthrough and magnificent, then why there are none like them?
                  According to Blahnik. Glider and military aircraft are slightly different things.
                  When I talked about computers, I didn’t mean design calculations, but flight control. And, again, the Americans built the X-29, flew on it, and where are the production aircraft with CBS? What prevents them from mass building?
                  1. Parsec
                    Parsec 2 January 2017 22: 27
                    +3
                    Quote: Alf
                    When I talked about computers, I didn’t mean design calculations, but flight control.


                    1600 Blanikov and 47 Hamsa Jet still flew without computers, like the X-29.
                    The development of technology has allowed the use of the traditional scheme further.
                2. Taoist
                  Taoist 2 January 2017 21: 38
                  +11
                  Bungling the layout and using it in a production aircraft ... two big differences. There are enough experimental machines with a forward sweep (because in theory this layout promises many advantages), but in real life ... (as well as a flying wing) There are a lot of problems that have not been solved yet and with a change in aerodynamic focus and rigidity and a lot of them. .. I did my diploma at the school according to this scheme ... There it is "smooth only on paper." So the fact that the Germans, out of despair, threw themselves into adventures, does not make them geniuses. Paired engines burned for nothing ... transmissions flew from torsional vibrations, Pfeil considered the pilot a suicide bomber - because the catapults were then very poor and the rear engine overheated, how can you get rid of it ... The famous "Schwalbe" caught fire with a sharp gas supply ... And the pilots on the Comets had to fly in suits made of asbestos ... in fact, this wunderwaffe did not fly ... De facto, everything on which the Germans fought the war, in fact, they were cars of the mid-30s of creation, just like the allies. And all this flying Cabinet of Curiosities which the Germans riveted with the Cabinet of Curiosities and remained.
                  1. Alf
                    Alf 2 January 2017 21: 48
                    +3
                    Quote: Taoist
                    Bungling the layout and using it in a production aircraft ... two big differences. There are enough experimental machines with a forward sweep (because in theory this layout promises many advantages), but in real life ... (as well as a flying wing) There are a lot of problems that have not been solved yet and with a change in aerodynamic focus and rigidity and a lot of them. .. I did my diploma at the school according to this scheme ... There it is "smooth only on paper." So the fact that the Germans, out of despair, threw themselves into adventures, does not make them geniuses. Paired engines burned for nothing ... transmissions flew from torsional vibrations, Pfeil considered the pilot a suicide bomber - because the catapults were then very poor and the rear engine overheated, how can you get rid of it ... The famous "Schwalbe" caught fire with a sharp gas supply ... And the pilots on the Comets had to fly in suits made of asbestos ... in fact, this wunderwaffe did not fly ... De facto, everything on which the Germans fought the war, in fact, they were cars of the mid-30s of creation, just like the allies. And all this flying Cabinet of Curiosities which the Germans riveted with the Cabinet of Curiosities and remained.

                    Glory to all the gods! There was one of the few sane who wrote that drawing, construction and flight are the most different things.
                    1. Operator
                      Operator 3 January 2017 00: 06
                      +4
                      With reverse sweep, it’s even simpler - there is a torque on the wing, to compensate for which it is necessary to heavily weight the structure from duralumin or switch to carbon fiber, which appeared at the disposal of designers half a century after the funny pictures for the Luftwaffe leadership.
                      1. adept666
                        adept666 4 January 2017 12: 57
                        +1
                        to heavily weight the structure from duralumin or switch to carbon fiber, which appeared at the disposal of designers half a century after the funny pictures for the leadership of the Luftwaffe.
                        Which actually still did not solve the problem)
                3. adept666
                  adept666 4 January 2017 12: 54
                  +1
                  Grumman X-29, 1984. What computers

                  The plane was supposedly statically unstable (Still would laughing ) In flight, the aircraft was controlled using a digital triplex electrical remote control system that provided minimal balancing resistance in all flight modes. The "triplex" system implied 3 analog computers, each of which could pilot the aircraft on its own, and control decisions were made by the voting method of these computers, which made it possible to identify both the errors of the programs themselves and the design problems. The horizontal tail, flaperons and tail flaps were deflected using the above system according to a continuous control law depending on the flight speed and angle of attack (an appropriate analogy for understanding would be a comparison with a balancer walking along a stretched cable andconstantly balancing). The failure of the control electronics meant the loss of control over the aircraft and the absolute impossibility of flying in glider mode. Those. without FBW this is impossible because CBS is always static instability at speeds> 800 km / h and even VGO does not save the situation smile In addition, this design has serious problems with elastic divergence and without serious modeling (including the development of new materials for such a wing), such a machine is greatly limited by the possible range of angles of attack.
                  Would you see ...
                  Therefore, I would have looked like he would have flown without a digital computer both during piloting and during design / construction (especially for transient and supersonic modes) smile As for Junkers, he actually had all the inherent disadvantages above, he does not give the advantages of special WWTF with 23 degrees, but when built, he gives a lot laughing Further, HFB-320 15 degrees along the leading edge is generally from and not CBS, but perversion)))
              2. Mordvin 3
                Mordvin 3 3 January 2017 02: 55
                +2
                Quote: Alf
                I would have seen how these super-projects, "ahead of their time", would have flown from the Germans without computers.

                In the ninety-sixth year, he flew at shows. Clinton sank, and Elkin laughed. I just can’t find the video.
                1. adept666
                  adept666 4 January 2017 13: 07
                  +2
                  In the ninety-sixth year, he flew at shows. Clinton sank, and Elkin laughed. I just can’t find the video.
                  If you are talking about the S-37, then there is a powerful digital computer for flight control without it, with such KOS angles it will simply fall into an uncontrollable spin. And when designing it, too, you know, the modes were not counted on the accounts))) Even the Su-27 cannot fly without a "computer" in principle.
          3. ARES623
            ARES623 2 January 2017 21: 10
            +11
            Quote: Operator
            Nonsense - in the nerd's dream video.

            Of these dreams, the Germans in one calendar year - from April 1944 to April 1945 were able to make only Me-262 1433 pieces. And give them another year !? By this time, unfortunately, we still had no turbojet engines in our dreams. So, this is not rubbish at all, it is a leadership in technology and production. No matter how disgusting it is.
            1. Taoist
              Taoist 2 January 2017 21: 47
              +5
              Made, then what? how many of these prodigies really flew? How many were shot down on their account? Their engine resource was 10 hours if it did not light up in the first flight.
              For reference, we already had a turbojet engine ... only it never occurred to anyone to put this raw material on a combat aircraft. Actually, the Lyulka designed the first turbojet engine with an axial compressor in 1939. But during the war, no one began to divert resources for an unrealistic project, unlike the Germans. But the Germans have become ... and after all, if instead of this crap they produced the same "zhuzh", you will see more and the "Battle of Britain" looked different and our factories would not have been able to produce as many combat vehicles as they had released ...
              1. ARES623
                ARES623 3 January 2017 22: 12
                +3
                Quote: Taoist
                For reference, the turbojet engine we already had ... only we didn’t have the idea to put this raw material on a combat aircraft. In fact, the cradle designed the first turbojet engine with an axial compressor as early as 1939m.

                Give an example of at least one flight model, well, so that at least five hours fly by ... I’m completely for the USSR, but I must admit that the wartime economy could not give birth to an anti-tank gun. And all of our first jet aircraft flew on copies of German and English engines, unfortunately, and not on Lyulkinsky. These are realities. And what would happen if ... it is not considered as a serious hypothesis.
                1. Taoist
                  Taoist 3 January 2017 23: 26
                  +6
                  That's right, because, among other things, technological equipment was taken out of Germany. Therefore, they launched into a series what could be quickly mastered in production. That's just real combat vehicles went on licenses from Rolls-Royce ... and a large series with an axial compressor went from Cradle. Unfortunately, what the Germans actually did was a technological dead end and, as it turned out, in the end did not have a so-called technological reserve for development. I wrote this not to the fact that we were "ahead of the rest of the planet" but the fact that the Germans did not have any "breakthrough technologies" - everything they did to one degree or another was done both here and overseas ... it never occurred to anyone there to bet on it and to experiment during the war. (By the way, in violation of the often direct order of the Fuhrer)
                  1. ARES623
                    ARES623 4 January 2017 00: 12
                    +4
                    Considering that Junkers created his UMO-004 by trial and error, Arkhip Lyulka, disassembling these engines, like any normal designer, gained good experience in a short time. There is nothing wrong with learning something from those who are ahead. But how do you read memoir pearls, then if the T-34, then revolutionary, if the NK, then there is no German trace there, and the P-1 is unlike the FAU. So Lyulka proved that the Me-262 is slightly better than a broom and the same dead end. But they put the combat pilots on a jet stream, and we just, from the height of time, reluctantly - what kind of "breakthrough" wunderwaffle is there? Zadornov, also shouts to everyone that "there" everyone is stupid, and we have to get more air into our chest for ours ... But in fact, IBM, I-phone from tel, and we do not sweep our yota-background with counters. I don't want to give a damn about our production heroes, because I sincerely consider them Heroes. But you should not take out the brain of the people with an embellished story. Then there will be no petty lies that work into the hands of the enemies.
                    1. Taoist
                      Taoist 4 January 2017 14: 46
                      +4
                      Any extreme is bad, any sound idea is easy to bring to absurdity. And in order not to fall for such wiring, you just need to know and not believe everything that is written on the internet ... Unfortunately, we now have a generation of Google and Wikipedia ... What creates the visibility of knowledge and the visibility of understanding among the weak of the mind.
                      1. ARES623
                        ARES623 4 January 2017 21: 40
                        +3
                        Quote: Taoist
                        Any extreme is bad, any sound idea is easy to bring to absurdity.

                        And I would also add that everything can be justified, especially having received the happiness of being born much later. Well this is yours - "Almost everything that the Germans did was so raw that in reality this wunderwaffe did not fly ... De facto, everything on which the Germans fought the war, in fact, they were cars of the mid-30s, just like the allies. And all this flying cabinet of curiosities which the Germans riveted with the Cabinet of Curiosities and stayed. "? Right? Then tell me, how do you assess the equipment of the Red Army Air Force of those years? What were we fighting on? And if you consider that in World War II, aviation technology developed at a revolutionary pace precisely among the active participants in this war, then, excuse me, but you are either not in the subject at all, or you deliberately provoke your interlocutors to harsh statements about you. There is one thing in common, neither the first nor the second testifies to your maturity as a person who has decided to speak publicly. I think so...
          4. Bayonet
            Bayonet 3 January 2017 07: 39
            +4
            Quote: Operator
            See real Soviet and American jet aircraft of the 1950's.

            Here in many real ones, the ideas and achievements of German engineers and designers were used!
            1. Operator
              Operator 3 January 2017 13: 30
              +1
              These ideas are not German, they were highlighted in other countries before WWII. Implemented after the appearance of the necessary structural materials, control systems and design tools.

              In the absence of this, German designers stupidly bred the leadership of the Third Reich on their grandmothers.
        2. Alf
          Alf 2 January 2017 20: 15
          +1
          Quote: Thunderbolt
          Eh, it's good that the war ended victoriously in 45, otherwise the Germans "had" a lot ...

          To draw and teach flying are completely different things.
          1. sandrmur76
            sandrmur76 2 January 2017 21: 09
            +6
            So the German developments with might and main allies used -Douglas XB-42 Mixmaster and the Germans Do335- Attention to the tail. The Germans also had a similar Focke Wulf. And there are many such examples of the use of German technologies. Missile technologies do not count.
            1. Alf
              Alf 2 January 2017 21: 29
              +1
              Quote: sandrmur76
              So the German developments with might and main allies used -Douglas XB-42 Mixmaster and the Germans Do335- Attention to the tail. The Germans also had a similar Focke Wulf. And there are many such examples of the use of German technologies. Missile technologies do not count.

              And how many of these Douglas were built? And why then the DO-335 scheme was not especially used anywhere?
              1. sandrmur76
                sandrmur76 2 January 2017 21: 41
                +5
                So at once they would have clarified that airplanes are considered to be a series of at least IL2. I do not underestimate other aircraft designers, I am simply surprised at their imagination with the calculations attached. Many projects really outstripped time. And this is not a drawing circle but a flight of engineering.
                1. Alf
                  Alf 2 January 2017 21: 55
                  +1
                  Quote: sandrmur76
                  Many projects really overtook time.

                  After the war, 75 years have passed. There are none. Question-How far ahead? For 100, 500 or 1000 years?
                  Quote: sandrmur76
                  And this is not a drawing circle but a flight of engineering.

                  A very strange flight, along some strange route.
                  By the way, this book contains a document bearing the inscription-The first flight is planned in 1948. The document dates from April 1, 1945, and this is not a joke. In April of the 45th, the Germans were well aware that everything was already, so you can set any dates, at least 1948, at least 2000.
              2. Bayonet
                Bayonet 3 January 2017 07: 47
                +5
                Quote: Alf
                And why then the DO-335 scheme was not especially used anywhere?

                The era of jet aviation has come, and the DO-335 is one of the latest developments of piston fighter jets with sufficiently high characteristics for its time.

                Modification of Do.335a-1
                Wingspan, m 13.80
                Length, m 13.83
                Height, m ​​5.00
                Wing area, m2 37.30
                Weight, kg
                empty 7266 aircraft
                take-off 9600
                Engine type 2 PD Daimler-Benz DB 603Е-1
                Power, hp 2 x 1800 (1900)
                Maximum speed, km / h 785
                Cruising speed, km / h 682
                Best speed, km/h 450
                Practical range, km
                cruising speed 1390
                at the best speed 2050
                Maximum rate of climb, m / min 1090
                Practical ceiling, m 11400
                Crew 1
                Armament: one 30 mm MK-103 cannon with 70 rounds and two 15 mm MG-151 cannons with 200 rounds per barrel;
                on the A-1, another 1x 500-kg RS-500 or SD-500 bomb or 2x 250-kg SC-250 in the bomb bay and 2x 250-kg SC-250 on external sling.
      2. justas-xnumx
        justas-xnumx 2 January 2017 10: 47
        +4
        As far as I remember, Henshel-126 was called "Crutch" https://topwar.ru/99500-henshel-hs-126-nadoedlivy
        y-kostyl-na-sluzhbe-v-lyuftvaffe.html
        1. Cat
          Cat 2 January 2017 13: 33
          0
          Neither one nor the other beauty did not shine.
          But it is not for nothing that the phrase "as if the Germans knew the cock's word" sounded more than once in the memoirs of our testers of captured aircraft.
          The stronger the enemy, the more glorious our victory!
          Although at the level of science of those Lech, beauty-aesthetics were close to aerodynamics. Inadvertently, our pilots complained that, unlike German cars, our designers neglected sealing the nodes of the aircraft, namely the flow of air currents hid kilometers of speed.
          In addition, one must remember the tasks for which the aircraft were created. For example, an analogue of the "frame" spotter aircraft appeared after the war, the Su-12. Proceeding from the tasks, he also did not shine with karasot, despite the fact that it was developed by the "Sukhoi" Design Bureau, which attached special importance to aesthetics.
        2. activator
          activator 2 January 2017 15: 57
          0
          Quote: justas-914
          called Henschel

          Why Henschel, Not Heinkel? in all the military books I read as a child it was heinkel. or is it the Anglicisms of Mitsubishi, and not Mitsubishi, Lamborghini, and not Lamborghini, sometimes this is annoying.
          1. bistrov.
            bistrov. 2 January 2017 16: 47
            +4
            Quote: activator
            Why Henschel, Not Heinkel?

            These are completely different companies.
            1. activator
              activator 2 January 2017 17: 23
              0
              Quote: bistrov.
              These are completely different companies.

              Danke Shen hi
          2. AUL
            AUL 2 January 2017 20: 30
            +1
            Actually, it is not "Heinkel" that is correct, but "Heinkel" (ei is read in the Germans as "ah"). And "henschel" is spelled Henschel. Various firms.
          3. justas-xnumx
            justas-xnumx 4 January 2017 10: 52
            +1
            Henschel and Heinkel - two completely different companies, for example, Heinkel-111 and Henschel -126, google - you’ll figure it out yourself.
      3. Taoist
        Taoist 2 January 2017 13: 02
        +6
        They called the "crutch" "henschel" - and the 189th is "frame" ... but they hated them because who would love the car after which either a raid or an artillery strike ...
    3. Pre-cat
      Pre-cat 2 January 2017 10: 06
      +3
      As far as I understood from the memoirs of German designers and military men (from generals to privates), the Germans were acutely worried about the humiliation of the country by defeat in the war and the Peace of Versailles. And they made every effort to prove their importance to the whole world. The defeat served as a powerful stimulant for the entire nation. Therefore, they took a bang on Hitler who promised revenge. ”A similar surge in the activity of the nation, inventors and scientists was observed in France, which lost the Franco-Prussian war at the end of the 19th century.
      1. AUL
        AUL 2 January 2017 10: 48
        +2
        exactly 80 years ago, on December 21, 1936, the prototype of the Junkers Ju.88 aircraft took off for the first time

        and a few photos, and everything else is water. It was possible to tell more about this undoubtedly successful car.
    4. Taoist
      Taoist 2 January 2017 13: 00
      +3
      Yes, there was no jump ... This is a kind of delusion associated with the fact that in pursuit of the ghost of the Woundrewafi, the Germans went to many adventurous technical solutions. Most of which remained on paper or, in extreme cases, in a small number of prototypes. Another question is that all this legacy went to the Allies after the war and was thoroughly covered ... So it turned out that it seemed like the Germans had some kind of "breakthrough" ... there was none. Everything that was actually done was at the level of capabilities and technologies of that time.
    5. Rus2012
      Rus2012 2 January 2017 13: 44
      +2
      Quote: The same LYOKHA
      The German engineering and design idea in the 30-40 of the year was filled with a host of interesting inventions.

      Quote: Vyacheslav Kondratiev
      Firstly, beauty is a relative concept and entirely dependent on the esthetic preferences of the evaluator.

      ... the author is wrong with the concept of evaluation.
      As you know, BEAUTY, according to current estimates of multidimensional systems, is what is described by SIMPLE laws, or by a system of simple mathematical equations, for example, AESTHETICS, by a combination of simple lines and curves. Any distortion of something would not happen (for example, a scar on the face) - introduces a bunch of new equations to describe ....

      From this point of view, "angular irons" (stealth aircraft), "ugly" Ju.88 / Ju.87, etc. are beautiful in their own way, because they are "optimized" for solving "narrow / limited" problems in certain areas. ..
      1. Prapor-527
        Prapor-527 2 January 2017 16: 41
        +6
        For my taste, all the aircraft of the Luftwaffe and the Red Army Air Force are beautiful, but this ...
        1. Linkor200
          Linkor200 3 January 2017 00: 15
          +6
          Prapor - The bestial anti-Americanism is splashing out of you. Thunderbolt, the famous plane. Unmatched in power of a volley neither in the Luftwaffe, nor, especially, in the Air Force of the Red Army. One of the significant innovations is the teardrop shape of the cockpit lantern. Until the end of the war, neither the Germans nor the Russians had this.
          1. Alf
            Alf 3 January 2017 11: 37
            +3
            Quote: Linkor200
            One of the significant innovations is the teardrop shape of the cockpit lantern. Until the end of the war, neither the Germans nor the Russians had this.

            If you have a 360-degree view, then YAK-1M, YAK-3, YAK-9, LA-5FN, LA-7, Spitfire Mk-16, Typhoon Mk-1B, Tempest, Mustang P-51D, Lightning P -38. There was no one arguing ...
            1. Prapor-527
              Prapor-527 3 January 2017 17: 40
              +2
              Quote: Alf
              Mustang P-51D

              Mustang P-51D
          2. Prapor-527
            Prapor-527 3 January 2017 17: 28
            +3
            No, well, a hippopotamus with a teardrop-shaped lantern ... Where is aviation aesthetics?
          3. Prapor-527
            Prapor-527 3 January 2017 17: 43
            +2
            Quote: Linkor200
            Bestial Anti-Americanism

            Here I consider this AMERICAN plane very beautiful ... Post above.
          4. Taoist
            Taoist 3 January 2017 23: 40
            +3
            What kind of nonsense? The airplane bolt is not bad but very specific ... The teardrop-shaped lantern was on a pile of airplanes and it did not appear on Bolt at all. 8 Browning is of course dofiga but also far from reaching the record. And to make a fighter the size and weight of a bomber is also a very controversial decision.
    6. Andrey NM
      Andrey NM 3 January 2017 09: 56
      +1
      In the photo of the first prototype in flight, the cockpit with the "muzzle" is very similar to the Tu-2 ...
    7. 97110
      97110 3 January 2017 18: 58
      0
      Quote: The same LYOKHA
      An amazing leap of human genius ... considering that
      that a person generally "spit in the face - he climbs to fight." The results of the great war for the Germans were somewhat unexpected.
    8. Akuzenka
      Akuzenka 13 October 2017 12: 14
      0
      Maybe a genius, and maybe English and American licenses for the production of engines and aircraft. And a lot of Anglo-Saxon money invested in German industry.
  2. svp67
    svp67 2 January 2017 06: 38
    +5
    "Ugly planes don't fly" (option: "Only beautiful planes fly well"). She is often quoted when they want to praise one or another beautiful, in the opinion of the citing, aircraft, or, on the contrary, scold the ugly one. Meanwhile, if you think about it, there is no sense in this phrase.
    That's right - there is no comrade in taste and color. How can beauty be judged? Each nation has its own preferences. But the laws of ergonomics and aerodynamics are common to everyone. So, you should not approach the assessment of aviation technology from the point of "beautifully-not beautiful". There are other criteria
    1. Amurets
      Amurets 2 January 2017 07: 59
      +3
      Quote: svp67
      But the laws of ergonomics and aerodynamics are common to everyone. So, you should not approach the assessment of aviation technology from the point of "beautifully, not beautifully". There are other criteria

      How do you feel about these words of Tupolev? Unfortunately, I could not copy, but I am quoting as in the text. Shirokorad "The Fleet That Destroyed Khrushchev" Page 239. About Tupolev's visit to the OKB-155 branch and inspect the KSShch missiles. << Anrey Nikolayevich walked around the rocket for a long time, and then said: "This work has little resemblance to a rocket. It is aerodynamic." The heads of the interested persons dropped. Everyone was waiting for the master to say something else. And he said: “Yes! But it will fly!” >> Unfortunately, one word in the characteristics of the rocket does not work.
      1. Aviator_
        Aviator_ 2 January 2017 09: 31
        +3
        KSSh was a failed missile imposed on the Chelomey fleet, a couple of years later they had to be removed from service.
        1. Amurets
          Amurets 2 January 2017 14: 38
          +3
          Quote: Aviator_
          KSSh was a failed missile imposed on the Chelomey fleet, a couple of years later they had to be removed from service.

          Then honestly, then not Chelomey, but Khrushchev.
    2. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 2 January 2017 09: 45
      +5
      Quote: svp67
      Each nation has its own preferences.

      yes

      wassat
      1. Rus2012
        Rus2012 2 January 2017 20: 17
        +2
        Quote: Rurikovich

        wassat

        ... this is not a generally accepted classic understanding of beauty.
        This is precisely a deviation in "... isms" or a painful attempt at self-expression through self-harm.
        In our society, some unconscious undeveloped members of society - expressed in the same self-harm by embedding foreign objects in the genitals, for example ... and in the tattoo :)))
        Tatu - comes from ancient times, when it was used to brand slaves and criminals. And in the indigenous society - served as a BE - "patchport", telling about the merits of the carrier ...

        Beauty is correctness (from the foundations - Truth, Truth) and simple lines and curves.
        1. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 2 January 2017 21: 11
          +1
          Quote: Rus2012
          This is not a generally accepted classical understanding of beauty.

          So each nation has its own preferences wink Maybe for this tribe and our beauties look ugly ... request So everything is relative yes
          Quote: Rus2012
          Tatu - comes from ancient times, when it was used to brand slaves and criminals. And in the indigenous society - served as a BE - "patchport", telling about the merits of the carrier ...

          yes
          Fu, to be honest, the tattoo itself No.
          For that I will tell a joke:
          A son of a bastard comes home from a party and his father sees that he has an earring in his ear. Dad approaches him and says:
          - As far as I know, pirates or homosexuals wear earrings in their ears .... Now I will look out the window and pray that I will see a pirate ship there .... laughing
    3. dauria
      dauria 2 January 2017 11: 26
      +3
      That's right - there is no companion for the taste and color. How can you evaluate beauty?


      They said about the F-4 - "They stepped on the plane and kicked it in the tail." But you can't take away a lot of world records. The MiG-25 was initially perceived as a "freak". Even as a kid I saw him after 21, I immediately thought "huge and clumsy." Stage planes themselves set both the standard and the model of "beauty". Technical beauty is a special thing, mass workhorses are always recognizable and therefore beautiful.
  3. novobranets
    novobranets 2 January 2017 07: 36
    +8
    At the beginning of the war, the Yu-88 was one of the best bombers of its class. And equipped with brake flaps, he also showed himself well as a dive. Well, in my opinion, he’s not so ugly. By the way, when designing Soviet bombers, some technical solutions were taken from the Yu-88.
  4. Bayonet
    Bayonet 2 January 2017 07: 49
    +14
    I don't see anything ugly in 88th. Good plane for its time. That English just does not shine with beauty smile .
    1. rasteer
      rasteer 2 January 2017 09: 41
      +5
      Briton's nostalgia for the Victorian era is still evident.
      They all have some kind of steampunk.
      For example, the modern British version of the carriage wassat
      1. Berkut24
        Berkut24 2 January 2017 11: 15
        +1
        Here is a car manufactured by a Tata Motors affiliate from a former British colony - India. Unreasonably expensive and not reliable. And Land Rover itself, once still British, flew into the tube with this carriage with its views on the Victorian era.
      2. Winnie76
        Winnie76 3 January 2017 11: 55
        0

        This is steampunk. Taken from here -https: //www.adme.ru/svoboda-sdelaj-sam/zhivet-v-
        minske-odin-chuvak-genij-stimpanka-926060 /
        1. rasteer
          rasteer 3 January 2017 14: 19
          0
          This is how you advertised the phone laughing
          Steampunk in the case of Britons is an advanced content in the shell of the Victorian era.
    2. Pancer_Hrek
      Pancer_Hrek 2 January 2017 14: 56
      +4
      At the expense of "heavy" I agree, but "Mosquito" in my opinion is the most beautiful piston bomber, and one of the most beautiful combat aircraft in history.


      Article about beautiful combat aircraft - http://alternathistory.com/samye-krasivye-boevye-
      monoplany-moya-version
      1. novobranets
        novobranets 2 January 2017 17: 48
        +2
        Mosquito is the fastest bomber of the time, 668 km / h. Almost completely wooden, very light, balsa was widely used in its design, if anyone was engaged in aircraft modeling, he knows how light wood is. Many of its modifications were used as a night fighter, reconnaissance aircraft, guidance and target designation aircraft. Thanks to the plywood sheathing, it was not seen by the radars of those times. The plane deserves a separate article.
      2. hohol95
        hohol95 2 January 2017 23: 13
        0
        It was just created as an ALTITUDE SCIENCE (had no weapons)! R-12 was also at first a high-speed reconnaissance and then it was redesigned into Yak-2 / Yak-4 near bombers who did not earn fame!
    3. Alf
      Alf 2 January 2017 20: 25
      +3
      Quote: Bayonet
      That English just does not shine with beauty

      Look at the pre-war French ... There are "masterpieces" there.
      In one magazine there was a phrase-French aircraft designers committed more crimes against aesthetics than all the world's designers combined.
    4. hohol95
      hohol95 2 January 2017 20: 57
      0
      Not that you put Junkes all the same 2-motor! And you have basic strategies about 4 engines! Compare to Wellington or Blenim !!!
      1. Alf
        Alf 2 January 2017 21: 42
        +2
        Quote: hohol95
        Not that you put Junkes all the same 2-motor! And you have basic strategies about 4 engines! Compare to Wellington or Blenim !!!

        Will such a barn go?

        By the way, you are probably the only person who correctly wrote the name Blenim, everyone else says Blenheim in German pronunciation.
        1. hohol95
          hohol95 2 January 2017 23: 07
          +2
          Well suited! And Blenim in the German manner, almost everyone is called -Germanism sits deeply! And I read an article about Blenim back in MK and there it was written about writing and pronunciation!
          1. Alf
            Alf 2 January 2017 23: 40
            +1
            Quote: hohol95
            Well suited! And Blenim in the German manner, almost everyone is called -Germanism sits deeply! And I read an article about Blenim back in MK and there it was written about writing and pronunciation!

            In the 98th year I bought a monograph on Blenim. A gorgeous book, I tell you. It is written about their participation in all the theater, and it is written so that it is very easy and interesting to read. And then you read some publications, like numbers are given and dates, and you read how you get through the jungle. I will give some titles of chapters — Somewhere there, on the edge of the earth (about the Far East) or In yellow, hot Africa.
            1. hohol95
              hohol95 2 January 2017 23: 44
              +2
              Here's a monograph to create an article! What are you worse than this graphomaniac?
              1. Alf
                Alf 3 January 2017 00: 16
                +3
                Quote: hohol95
                Here's a monograph to create an article! What are you worse than this graphomaniac?

                Firstly, there are 80 pages.
                Secondly, I had the misfortune to speak out against the policy pursued by the administration, and therefore I am sitting under a warning.
                But your idea is worth considering.
                1. hohol95
                  hohol95 3 January 2017 00: 24
                  +1
                  So I am under the "gun" for impartial expressions! But not strong in literacy and information gathering! And you try - CHAMPAGNE is not as EXPENSIVE today as it used to be! laughing Maybe you can convince that Blenim is a Blenheim, not a Blenheim!
        2. hohol95
          hohol95 2 January 2017 23: 20
          +2

          Nose Il-4 (TB-3F) recalls!
        3. hohol95
          hohol95 2 January 2017 23: 26
          +3
          French, Poles and British can be EXPOSED with a whole pack !!! The Czechs did not just do SB-2 under license (the Germans then flew a LOT of them across the border of the USSR) !!! The Romanians used Polish "Elks" in the storming of Odessa! The author just needs to KICK the aircraft industry of the USSR !!!
  5. Bayonet
    Bayonet 2 January 2017 07: 58
    +3
    During the first months of 1944, the main emphasis was placed on the release of a reconnaissance version of the aircraft. On the basis of Ju.188a, two versions of a scout were produced - Ju.188d-1 and D-2. At the same time, the front gun was removed, and the crew was reduced to three people. With a maximum take-off weight of 15200 kg, with full fueling and with hanging tanks, the Ju.188d could fly at a speed of 475 km / h and an altitude of 6000 m - 3375 km. The maximum speed at an altitude of 6200m reached 535km / h. Several options for reconnaissance equipment were envisaged. For flight during the day, two Rb-50/30 or Rb-75/30 cameras were installed, and for reconnaissance at night - two NRb-40/25 or NRb-50/25. The Ju.188d-2 was a naval reconnaissance aircraft with the Hohentwil radar.
  6. thinker
    thinker 2 January 2017 08: 38
    +8
    There is also such an expression - "with a good motor and the stool will fly!"
    Blohm & Voss BV 141
  7. bionik
    bionik 2 January 2017 08: 39
    +2
    German aircraft mechanics serve the Junkers Yu-88 heavy night fighter.
  8. andrewkor
    andrewkor 2 January 2017 09: 24
    +2
    IL-114 is a very beautiful airplane. View from the ground, flies over our factory regularly !!
    1. Aviator_
      Aviator_ 2 January 2017 09: 34
      +2
      And what about the center-panel panels for An-225 (Mriya), do they all stand along the wall? 10 years ago still stood at the factory.
  9. Comrade Stalin
    Comrade Stalin 2 January 2017 09: 28
    +2
    In my opinion, a beautiful plane. All planes are beautiful in their own way. I would not call any aircraft ugly, except perhaps the aforementioned misunderstanding Blohm & Voss BV 141 with an asymmetric fuselage.
    1. sivuch
      sivuch 2 January 2017 15: 44
      +2
      Then you should get acquainted with the work of the English firms Fairey, and especially Blackburn. If they are beautiful for you, then I don’t know
  10. Razvedka_Boem
    Razvedka_Boem 2 January 2017 09: 44
    +1
    The perfection of aerodynamic forms will be aesthetically beautiful.
  11. Thunderbolt
    Thunderbolt 2 January 2017 09: 45
    +8
    I do not agree with the author. The appearance, in my opinion, is magnificent. And if I did not know how much horror this line of machines brought to our army and Soviet civilians (16 groups and one squadron only at the beginning of Operation Barbarossa), then I I would call him a very useful fit, elegant handsome man, but it's so simple: a beautiful airplane ...
  12. Fitter65
    Fitter65 2 January 2017 09: 46
    +12
    Something like an article about nothing, It could have been shorter to write: December 21 was the 80th anniversary of the first flight of the Yu-88, and Tupolev would not have to be pulled in. You could also recall that the Douglas DST prototype of the famous DC-17.12.1935 took off on December 3, 16.12.1957. A12 took off the An-24.12, and 1982/124,21.12.1988/225 An-17.09.1935-An 87. By the way, the prototype Ju-144 took off on September 31, 1968. By the way, I almost forgot about the first flight of the Tu-XNUMX, on December XNUMX, XNUMX So for fans of aviation history there is always a reason to write an article by any date hi
    1. Dekabrist
      Dekabrist 2 January 2017 10: 49
      +8
      And on January 2, V.A. Degtyarev was born. They remembered about "Junkers", but not about the famous designer.
      1. Dekabrist
        Dekabrist 2 January 2017 11: 24
        +3
        Are there really no residents of Tula or Kovrov among site visitors?
        1. Fitter65
          Fitter65 2 January 2017 13: 06
          +4
          Well, maybe due to the fact that it’s kind of written about aviation here, they decided that it makes no sense. Although DA-Degtyareva Aviation, stood on many planes of the 20-30s. Therefore, it is as if Degtyarev was connected with aviation, especially since enemy aircraft were shot down from DShK. Some fell beautifully, others were not so aesthetically beautiful, but they fell ...
          1. Dekabrist
            Dekabrist 2 January 2017 13: 19
            +9
            If you remember the old Soviet calendars, there were marked on each sheet of noteworthy events falling on that date. Why not revive the tradition at VO in relation to the site's theme. After all, the history is now bad. Of course, for hamsters commenting on the "News" section, it may not be interesting, but there are still thinking people on the site.
            1. moskowit
              moskowit 2 January 2017 14: 51
              +4
              An extremely correct proposal. Entirely and completely, For! There will be a reminder of the glorious dates of the Russian State and its Sons and Daughters, who left their mark on its history, and there will be a "push" for the site visitors. Maybe someone, something "torknet", and then share their knowledge or fragments of family history.
              1. Dekabrist
                Dekabrist 2 January 2017 15: 14
                +2
                And how to implement it?
                1. moskowit
                  moskowit 2 January 2017 15: 37
                  +2
                  In one of the headings, neglecting the topic, you can publish a list of glorious deeds that have happened on this day or week, or a specified period ... True, for this, you will have to devote a lot of time to various research on the Internet and encyclopedic "spaces". Maybe there will be devotees. For example, I can devote time for this from 19 hours to 20, but every day.
                  1. Dekabrist
                    Dekabrist 2 January 2017 20: 01
                    +4
                    In the form of a commentary on some publication, this is uninteresting, and in the form of an article, it is not known whether the moderator will skip or not. And all the work down the drain. Maybe the site will attend. Will make a section. After all, the site has full-time authors who write constantly.
        2. Bayonet
          Bayonet 2 January 2017 14: 30
          +2
          Quote: Dekabrist
          Are there really no residents of Tula or Kovrov among site visitors?

          There are from Rostov, smile Sergey Zhigunov (02.01.1963/XNUMX/XNUMX [Rostov-on-Don]) Russian actor, film director, producer.
          But he is also not related to Junkers-88. hi
  13. Fei_Wong
    Fei_Wong 2 January 2017 10: 07
    +9
    Firstly, the article is about nothing and just nothing.
    Secondly...
    The "winged phrase" by aircraft designer A.N. Tupolev (although, sometimes it is attributed to AS Yakovlev and even to O. Antonov): “Ugly planes do not fly” (option: “Only beautiful planes fly well”). She is often quoted when they want to praise this or that beautiful, in the opinion of the quoting, aircraft, or, on the contrary, to scold the ugly. Meanwhile, if you think about it, there is no point in this phrase.

    the point is precisely in this. Considerable. But the author again chose not to think about the usual quote (no matter in which version). A beautiful airplane - it is primarily beautiful precisely in terms of aircraft designer... Or, in the worst case, at least an engineer. And the designer sees the plane differently from how we, ordinary "pedestrians" see it. Beauty in his vision is in many ways tantamount to functionality and rationality. That is why "beautiful" planes fly well. And as for Ju-88 - it really was not some kind of breakthrough. And he was lucky with the engines.
    By the way, I remind you that LaGG-3, considered to be one of the worst aircraft in the world, was actually almost La-5 (there were not so many changes in design, and it inherited many details of the La-5 from its predecessor). But La-5 almost all the same repeated the fate of LaGG - however, it was saved that the new engine, which was literally miraculously managed to get and put into the prototype on time. If LaGG had this engine at one time - you look, and you would not have to design La-5. ^ _ ^
    1. alexmach
      alexmach 2 January 2017 12: 53
      +2
      Here I subscribe to every word. Tupolev said a very clever thing. This approach allows the engineer and designer to abandon the details and any conventions (for example, the plan is on fire) and look at the "product" as a whole, while also turning to his intuition. I suspect that the designers of these "tadpoles" loved them almost like their own children. Not a single solution will seem beautiful if its technical feasibility raises doubts.

      A man shared his work methodology. The fact that you do not understand this is because you are not the Tupolevs (and this is neither good nor bad, but simply a fact), that’s all.

      I myself use such approaches in work.
      1. Crimean partisan 1974
        Crimean partisan 1974 2 January 2017 15: 26
        +2
        No solution will seem beautiful, the technical feasibility of which makes you doubt

        That's for sure, Kurt Tank also had a lot of creative solutions, and even I was inspired by shifts to the Rotor-jet engine
        1. Taoist
          Taoist 2 January 2017 21: 50
          +2
          "Tribbleflugel" - looks amazing in computer toys ... it's a pity that it can't fly ... ;-)
  14. Captain Pushkin
    Captain Pushkin 2 January 2017 12: 07
    +4
    Quote: Fei_Wong
    But La-5 almost all the same repeated the fate of LaGG - however, it was saved that the new engine, which was literally miraculously managed to get and put into the prototype on time.

    After the development of the M-82, there were capacities for production, and there were no aircraft under it. There was a government order to install the M-82 on airplanes for almost all design bureaus: Yakovlev, Polikarpov, Mikoyan, Lavochkin, Tupolev, Petlyakov.
    The first fighter to put the M-82 Polikarpov on the I-185.
    But Yakovlev (part-time deputy commissar for new technology) considered Polikarpov a personal enemy. His phrase is known that with him not a single new Polikarpov plane will be put to production. The People’s Commissariat instructed Polikarpov to transfer the documentation for the M-82 propeller group to the Lavochkin, Mikoyan and Yakovlev Design Bureau.
    By that time, the plant at which the experimental La-5 was assembled was taken away from Lavochkin for assembly by Yakov. Yakovlevites tried to disrupt the assembly of La-5, but could not. According to the results of very brief tests, the military decided to take La-5 into service.
    And Polikarpov and Mikoyan and Yakovlev eventually developed fighters with the M-82, which surpassed La-5 and La-7 in flight data. But Polikarpov was clamped for personal reasons, plus he was without a factory. Mikoyan was also without a plant (the MiG-3 was removed from production by that time), plus he dragged on the finishing time and was obviously late. Yakovlev picked his sleeve (due to the lack of the required number of designers) and brought the model to the end of the war.
    In general, we could not bring much to mind because of the weakness of pilot production, the testing base and the small number of aviation structural engineers and technologists. For example, in all of our design bureaus there were fewer designers than in Messerschmitt's design bureau.
    1. ARES623
      ARES623 4 January 2017 11: 53
      0
      Quote: Captain Pushkin
      His phrase is known that with him not a single new Polikarpov plane will be put to production.

      I'd love a link to the source. So far, all memoirists and researchers about the misunderstanding between Polikarpov and Yakovlev speak in the form of inferences. Nobody cited direct statements. Maybe you have something that no one has seen? Share with the world ... please ...
  15. The comment was deleted.
    1. Bayonet
      Bayonet 2 January 2017 14: 40
      +2
      Quote: motorized infantryman
      Slava does not like Soviet power, but is there a Russophobe in every anti-Soviet or not?

      : It was necessary to look for anti-advisers earlier, and now it is gone - they profiled! smile
      1. moskowit
        moskowit 2 January 2017 16: 07
        +6
        Wait a little more. We will assume that eyewitnesses remembering the old days, the youngest, were born in the early 70s ... So they are now 45-47 years old. And then already part of this age is at the churchyard ... Well, we, the older ones, have 10-15 years left on the strength ... Then the legends will grow, which has recently passed. Now idle scribblers, carrying out the instructions, throw mud at everything and everyone from the glorious Soviet past. There are a lot of renegades and their activity is equivalent to the "silver coins" embedded in them. And our generation will "leave", and then what? "Raspberry-raspberry" ... Although we are quite passive resistance to lies and falsification of historical facts. But still it goes. Although the aggressive speeches and total lies of Svanidze and Pivovarov, brilliant representatives of the revirators of history, give rise to doubts in the wavering part of the young, and not only the young, generation, there is a fear that they will prevail in the interpretation of events in the recent history of our Motherland. And this should not be allowed!
  16. oxymoron
    oxymoron 2 January 2017 14: 37
    +2
    from the book: Fedosov E.A. Half a century in aviation. Notes of the academician.
    "... And when an airplane is beautiful, it is good in aerodynamics and in other ways it is magnificent. There is a mysterious relationship between aesthetics and technical characteristics of the machine."
    "... I noticed long ago that if an airplane is beautiful in design, then its flight properties are manifested in the best possible way, and life is going well."
    1. Aviator_
      Aviator_ 2 January 2017 15: 20
      +1
      E. A. Fedosov (head of NIIAS) is good for his memoirs (in some places very crafty) because he carried out a comparative analysis of all the leaders of the aviation industry from the 50s to the noughties. And the quality of leadership was steadily declining. And here is what he wrote about the director of TsAGI at the beginning of the 391s: “The director of TsAGI (then - VG Dmitriev - my addition) turned out to be especially clearly weak, who was completely unaware of the complex issues of the conceptual stage of laying a new aircraft. the authority of TsAGI "(p. 5) This is about the concept of the XNUMXth generation aircraft. It is interesting what he would write about the General Director of TsAGI Alyoshin (reformer of AvtoVAZ), who later headed TsAGI and recently became an academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
  17. ingenera
    ingenera 2 January 2017 19: 01
    0
    And why is he ugly? Pure forms ... There are no "fairings" at the wings - it's not always good. Slightly "big-headed" canopy near the cockpit - so good visibility. If we talk about the lack of beauty, we can cite a couple of American fighters of the same period as an example. But they had motors of brutal power. And with such a thrust, the fence flies (stool, table) (C) a joke of some aircraft designer of the same age.
  18. Alex
    Alex 2 January 2017 19: 37
    +2
    Quote: Captain Pushkin
    But Yakovlev (part-time deputy commissar for new technology) considered Polikarpov a personal enemy. His phrase is known that with him not a single new Polikarpov plane will be put to production.

    The post was called the Deputy People's Commissar for Experimental Aircraft.
    Please tell me what your statement about a personal enemy is based on. And where did you get "his phrase is known"?
    Now about the fighters with the M-82. The MiG-9 with the M-82 was clearly not a success, in particular, the maximum speed was only 565 km / h. The I-211 with the ASH-82FN was good, but in the summer of 1943 the La-5FN was already in the series.
    The Yak-7 with the M-82 in 1942 did not cause interest, since La-5 was already ready.
    I-185M-82 was successful, but Polikarpov made a bet on the M-71.
  19. iouris
    iouris 2 January 2017 20: 39
    0
    Here the difference is in the criteria: the designer Tupolev (or his Beria curator) considered it his task to make the plane fly (higher, farther, faster), while the Germans made an effective complex system, which still flew better due to the technological lag of the USSR.
    1. hohol95
      hohol95 2 January 2017 23: 16
      0
      And why were aglitsky or treasury French letaks were less effective than Yushki and Heinkel? Technical backlog? Or creative insanity?
      1. iouris
        iouris 2 January 2017 23: 47
        +1
        Who said British and French aircraft were "less efficient"? On the contrary. However, it is important who sits in the cockpit. The moral and political factor of the war has not been canceled. In 1940, the Germans won the war, primarily on the ground.
        1. hohol95
          hohol95 2 January 2017 23: 55
          0
          You wrote about the TECHNOLOGICAL GAME !!! Not about CREW MOTIVATION! Do not translate the answer to another "jungle"! The answer to the essence of the question! The French and British for 1940-1941-19421943 were worse than the German ones in terms of technology, how did you describe the Soviet ones?
          1. iouris
            iouris 3 January 2017 00: 21
            0
            Better or not, especially the British ones. What do you mean by "manufacturability"? I hope the same as me. Otherwise we will debate endlessly.
            1. hohol95
              hohol95 3 January 2017 00: 29
              +1
              Manufacturability -
              conformity of the product to the requirements of production and operation. T. is provided during the development of product design. Technological vases. such a design of the product or its constituent elements (parts, assembly units), edge provides the specified operation. product quality and allows for a given serial production to produce it with the lowest cost of labor, materials. Technological design is characterized by ease of layout, perfection of forms. Location Elements provides convenience and minim. labor input during assembly and repair. An important means of achieving T. is the widespread use in new designs of parts and assembly units that are part of the earlier manufact. products, as well as normalization. and standardization. parts and assembly units. Design development at T. is also engaged in technolog. equipment manufacturing and product manufacturing.
              1. iouris
                iouris 4 January 2017 13: 27
                +2
                I hope you understand that the level of requirements (standards) in the aviation industry of Great Britain and the USSR was like heaven and earth? Well, like, is it pointless to compare the manufacturability of an all-metal aircraft with a connected radio station (or even with a radar) and remote electric devices with the manufacturability of a wooden percale airplane without a connected radio station and without gyroscopic devices?
                1. hohol95
                  hohol95 4 January 2017 14: 26
                  +1
                  "Khariton" was a percale!
            2. hohol95
              hohol95 3 January 2017 00: 34
              +1
              Whoever argues about what he does not know perfectly is like a fool chewing water.
            3. ARES623
              ARES623 4 January 2017 12: 03
              +1
              Quote: iouris
              Better or not worse, especially the British

              Not a great example for comparison. Spitfire alone with the Me-109 year of production did not tolerate negative accelerations, because the engine was carbureted. Daimler on Me has already used direct injection. There you have the difference. According to English military historians ...
              1. iouris
                iouris 4 January 2017 13: 30
                0
                This is a design flaw due to the use of more advanced German injection systems, i.e. "a steamer can be big and white at the same time."
                1. ARES623
                  ARES623 4 January 2017 14: 24
                  +1
                  Quote: iouris
                  This is a design flaw due to the use of more advanced German injection systems, i.e. "a steamer can be big and white at the same time."

                  More likely not, there is a large white ship on wheels, and there is a large white ship with propellers. The technical level is completely different. If you can imagine what ICE is, then this should be clear to you. A design flaw is when the chassis on the Yu-87 is not removable.
                  1. iouris
                    iouris 4 January 2017 19: 50
                    +1
                    I can not agree with you. The fixed landing gear on the Yu-87 is a design feature of this aircraft, and not a drawback. So you can agree to the fact that the Su-25 is an archaic aircraft, because it has a direct, not swept wing.
                    Injection, for that time, was a technical innovation (know-how) of the engine. British designers might not have known about this, or they underestimated the importance of this innovation, or the Germans simply outstripped them. Otherwise, the Spitfire was a more advanced aircraft than the same year Bf-109. But if we compare with the "Americans", then all US aircraft are the most high-tech, although, perhaps, not the most efficient.
      2. Alf
        Alf 3 January 2017 00: 24
        +2
        Quote: hohol95
        And why were aglitsky or treasury French letaks were less effective than Yushki and Heinkel?

        Well, let’s say, the British Air Force limped on both legs in the form of the absence of a normal front-line bomber, and therefore flew the whole war on the American A-2, B-20 and B-25.
        The fighters were at least equal, and the last Spitfires, the 14th and 18th, were generally one of the best 2MV fighters.
        1. hohol95
          hohol95 3 January 2017 00: 28
          0
          And why Tupolev "...." "iouris" then dragged?
          1. iouris
            iouris 4 January 2017 13: 36
            0
            And Tupolev (and, by the way, his curators too) was "dragged" by "iouris" to the fact that Tupolev and his design bureau were in the "sharashka" of the NKVD, where he was required to do the same as the Germans had, but only "a meter longer."
        2. hohol95
          hohol95 3 January 2017 00: 44
          +1
          The British, nevertheless, have done much more than our PE-8s (TB-7) to their strategists! A lot more! Better, worse - to understand specialists and technologists! Our assembly and quality were WORSE! But they did not give us strategists and did it ourselves! The main issues (quality, quantity) to the industry! As for the fighters! Attack aircraft! Frontline bombers! To sea scouts! And by the way and by the way ............ But WE DID THEM! FLYED AND WAR BATTLE THE ENEMIES !!!
    2. hohol95
      hohol95 2 January 2017 23: 19
      0
      Here is a flea for you
    3. hohol95
      hohol95 2 January 2017 23: 22
      +1

      Another Frenchman!
  20. hohol95
    hohol95 2 January 2017 23: 27
    +1
    French, Poles and British can be EXPOSED with a whole pack !!! The Czechs did not just do SB-2 under license (the Germans then flew a LOT of them across the border of the USSR) !!! The Romanians used Polish "Elks" in the storming of Odessa! The author just needs to KICK the aircraft industry of the USSR !!!
    1. iouris
      iouris 2 January 2017 23: 50
      0
      They would try to bomb Moscow with this technique. Czechs could do SB until 1938, and in 1941 the plane was hopelessly outdated.
      1. hohol95
        hohol95 3 January 2017 00: 02
        +1
        SB-2 (AVIA-B-71) was used for reconnaissance flights and at the beginning of the war (according to memoirs) for bombing retreating columns! And there were not so many Czech cars! The main long-range bomber was the HE-111!
      2. hohol95
        hohol95 3 January 2017 00: 06
        0
        Despite the difficulties of mastering the new aircraft in production, its production was gradually getting better. The following production was planned at different plants: Letov - 40 aircraft B 71.62-101; Aero 50 aircraft B 71.102-151; Avia 70 aircraft B 71.152-222 (including 60 in the reconnaissance version). However, in the future, the Letov aircraft plant did not participate in the production of B 71, 45 aircraft were produced at the Aero and the remaining 66 aircraft were built at the Avia plant. A total of 111 SB bombers were built at the Avia and Aero aircraft factories. Most of the aircraft produced were transferred to the German Luftwaffe, where they were used for training personnel and towing air targets. They were part of the German Fliegerzielgeschwader air force and 9 separate Fliegerzielstaffeln squadrons.
      3. hohol95
        hohol95 3 January 2017 00: 11
        +1
        Bulgarians flew -
        After the occupation of Czechoslovakia, the German aviation ministry gave instructions for the sale of the B 71 to Bulgaria. For the delivery of this aircraft to the Bulgarian Air Force, a contract was concluded for the construction of 32 aircraft in 1939-1940, in fact, 24 Avia B 71 were transferred. They were intended for two squadrons (eskadri) of the 5th bomber regiment (orliak), stationed in Plovdiv (Plovdiv). One squadron of the regiment was armed with Dornier Do 17 bombers purchased from Germany. In the Bulgarian Air Force the aircraft received the official designation "Avia" B-71 Zherav (crane) or "Katyushka". Bulgarian pilots noted the hellish cold in winter, especially in the navigator's cockpit, in the machine-gun mount blown through vertical slots, strong vibration to the motors, poor visibility of all crew members, the lack of normal communication between the crew members (the available pneumatic mail was an anachronism from the times of the "king of the peas"), load (only half a ton of bombs), frequent failures of the hydraulic system of the landing gear. There were no complaints only about Czech-made Hispano-Suiza engines and Czech devices (radio station, bombsight, etc.).

        During the German occupation, pilots of the 5th Bomber Regiment, performing tasks of the German command, flew from the Badem chiflik airfield to scout the camps and positions of the Greek partisans and bomb them in the areas of Belomorskaya Thrace and Macedonia during the uprising in Drama in 1943.

        If in the USSR the SB was removed from service at the beginning of 1943, then the Bulgarian Air Force used it in battles until the end of 1944. Then, in the battles for the liberation of Bulgaria, Bulgarian pilots participated in the bombing of German troops. By the fall of 1944, 2 Avia B-5 combat-ready aircraft remained in the 5nd squadron of the 71th bomber regiment. Although by that time the self-years were hopelessly outdated, the Bulgarian pilots managed to carry out combat missions on it without fighter cover. So, on November 18, 1944, a link of three SB under the command of Lieutenant Boydev made a successful raid on the station near Vucitren, where there were up to 60 cars and locomotives. Having barely lifted overloaded planes into the air from the concrete Vrozhdenny airfield near Sofia, the pilots barely climbed to an altitude of 3000 m. The worn-out engines, working at their limit, did not allow them anymore. The pair of old Dewoitins promised for cover never showed up. The pilots were lucky that day - neither the Messerschmitts nor the Focke-Wulfs prevented them from completing their combat mission and successfully dropping 50 and 100 kg bombs. Antiaircraft guns thrashed the air around and the shells exploded nearby, but the antiaircraft maneuver after dropping the bombs saved them from defeat. In total, in November 1944, Bulgarian pilots performed 71 sorties on Avia B-14 aircraft, taking part in 4 raids. Their targets were railway stations, mechanized columns, enemy clusters. At the same time, not a single aircraft was shot down and not a single member of their crews was killed. The main challenge for engineers and technicians was to keep the flying museum pieces on alert.
  21. L10n77
    L10n77 3 January 2017 01: 41
    +1
    Quote: Taoist
    Bungling the layout and using it in a production aircraft ... two big differences. There are enough experimental machines with a forward sweep (because in theory this layout promises many advantages), but in real life ... (as well as a flying wing) There are a lot of problems that have not been solved yet and with a change in aerodynamic focus and rigidity and a lot of them. .. I did my diploma at the school according to this scheme ... There it is "smooth only on paper." So the fact that the Germans, out of despair, threw themselves into adventures, does not make them geniuses. Paired engines burned for nothing ... transmissions flew from torsional vibrations, Pfeil considered the pilot a suicide bomber - because the catapults were then very poor and the rear engine overheated, how can you get rid of it ... The famous "Schwalbe" caught fire with a sharp gas supply ... And the pilots on the Comets had to fly in suits made of asbestos ... in fact, this wunderwaffe did not fly ... De facto, everything on which the Germans fought the war, in fact, they were cars of the mid-30s of creation, just like the allies. And all this flying Cabinet of Curiosities which the Germans riveted with the Cabinet of Curiosities and remained.

    Well, planes with reverse sweep are not few, from serial ones:
    Soviet passenger aircraft IL-14. Sweep angle -3 degrees along the 1/4 chord line.
    Czechoslovak LET L-13 Blanik. It has a small angle of reverse sweep of the wing. First flew in 1956, since then more than 2500 copies have been produced.
    Civilian aircraft HFB-320 Hansa Jet, first flew April 21, 1964
    Saab MFI-15 Safari training aircraft, which first flew in 1969
    1. Alex
      Alex 3 January 2017 09: 14
      +2
      A slight reverse sweep is needed mainly for alignment. Moderate and large reverse sweep was used to increase critical angles of attack as the flow of air along the wing span occurs from the ends to the root, while during normal sweep from the root to the ends. Reverse sweep is infrequently used due to difficulties with ensuring the stiffness of the wing.
  22. Hog
    Hog 3 January 2017 12: 14
    0
    Well, I don’t know, I liked 88 Junkers all the time.
  23. Spitfire
    Spitfire 3 January 2017 12: 39
    0
    Quote: Monarchist
    The same about Lech. You are right, the WF189 was not distinguished by its beauty, but it was perhaps the most hated aircraft for the Red Army. As a boy, I heard the veterans "damn crutch". Someone said it was 1942 on the Southern Front they said: "The foreman has arrived, prepare the graves"


    Didn't they call "Henschel" Hs.126 a "crutch"? "Frame" is the "frame".
  24. rubin6286
    rubin6286 3 January 2017 17: 22
    +1
    Quote: Taoist
    Almost everything the Germans did was so raw that really this wunderwaffe didn’t fly ... De facto everything that the Germans fought the war really were, they were machines of the mid 30s, just like the Allies. And all this flying kunstkamera which the Germans riveted a kunstkamera and remained.


    I will not dwell on the comments of “young men from aviation”. They retell each other what they read in the same book, and I will allow you to disagree with some issues related to aviation:
    1. Projects of German jets are not a “Kunstkamera" at all. Many opportunities always give rise to many ideas, not only in aviation, but in general in any area of ​​human activity. An idea can only be realized as a result of the interaction of science and production. The presence of German projects in various technical conditions - from sketches and working drawings to prototypes and serial models, shows that such an interaction was to one degree or another. For comparison, I will say that in Shavrov's “History of Aircraft Structures in the USSR” during the Second World War you will find only one project of a fighter with a turbojet engine (BI), which was finally rejected after a series of accidents. Sketches, working drawings of similar machines of that period are not even given. Science in the USSR at that time was occupied by another, and production, too.
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 3 January 2017 23: 53
      +3
      You are right, I have to do with aviation and I almost taught a book of the same Shavrov in my time. Therefore, it is very sad that in your case you make a bunch of inaccuracies.
      1) BI - has never been an aircraft with a turbojet engine, it was an interceptor fighter with an LPRE. And they abandoned it not because of disasters, but because of lack of need. it became clear that the range of such a machine is negligible and it is almost impossible to use it for its main purpose. (The sad fate of the German analogue of "Komet" confirms this).
      2) Several dozen variants of fighters with rocket boosters. Including the Moskalionovskaya "Arrow", if my memory serves me 1937 with an estimated speed of 1000 km / h. (Shavrov has it). A bunch of experimental machines with variable geometry of the wing, flying wing, tailless and other exotic type DB-LK.
      3) Small-scale fighters with combined engines

      But you just correctly noted that during the war, science and industry were engaged in what was needed for the Victory and not by projection in search of a nonexistent wunderwafer ....
  25. rubin6286
    rubin6286 3 January 2017 17: 29
    0
    Quote: Taoist
    in pursuit of the ghost of the Woundrewafi, the Germans went to many adventurous technical solutions. Most of which remained on paper or, in extreme cases, in a small number of prototypes. Another question is that all this legacy went to the allies after the war and was thoroughly covered ... So it turned out that it seemed like the Germans had some kind of "breakthrough" ... there was none. Everything that was actually done was at the level of capabilities and technologies of that time.

    You are right that the countries participating in World War II basically fought with the weapons that were created before or on the eve of the war, preferring to modify it in order to maintain production levels and to quickly make up for losses. Germany is one of the few countries that was forced to go for a radical renewal of its fleet during the fighting. It is hardly possible to demand high perfection of new machines under these conditions. The Germans did a lot:
    • brought the turbojet engine to mass production;
    • were able to build a plane with a turbojet engine, superior in speed to the best fighters of the world with piston engines, performing a turn twice as fast as them, capable of attacking targets at an altitude of 10-12 thousand meters;
    • installing a locator on a fighter with a turbojet engine and adding a radar operator to the crew, turned the car into a night interceptor fighter;
    • created a series of promising and effective models of aviation weapons designed to destroy ground and sea targets;
    • developed new air sights, with which it was possible to attack and hit two targets at the same time;
    Not to mention the organization of the country's air defense system. After the war we completely “ripped off” it. At our Plesetsk cosmodrome we had an airspace control system (Vega radar) taken out of Germany. I myself saw on the equipment of German imperial eagles.
    The ME-262 engine worked for 10 hours. This is certainly not enough, considering that 37 minutes were allotted for hitting the target. Let's compare: The engine on the Yak-9 was designed for 50 hours of flight, and about 45 minutes were allotted for the battle. The difference is small, by the way, the same picture of the MiG-15 with the RD-45. How long did the pilot live in the war? If he shot down at least two planes in 10 hours, this is a good result. So the “breakthrough” of the Germans in the field of jet aviation was even at the level of technology that existed then.
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 3 January 2017 23: 57
      0
      All the same was done by the Allies (and much earlier than the Germans - with the radar so exactly). And the fact that after the war we used trophies ... well, it would be so stupid not to use it. Of course, Germany was purely technologically superior to the USSR as well as the 2nd Reich was superior to RI. But they were not at all "ahead of time" eubermens ...
  26. The comment was deleted.
  27. Captain Pushkin
    Captain Pushkin 3 January 2017 18: 09
    +1
    Quote: Alex

    1
    Alex Yesterday, 19:37 New
    Quote: Captain Pushkin
    But Yakovlev (part-time deputy commissar for new technology) considered Polikarpov a personal enemy. His phrase is known that with him not a single new Polikarpov plane will be put to production.

    The post was called the Deputy People's Commissar for Experimental Aircraft.
    Please tell me what your statement about a personal enemy is based on. And where did you get "his phrase is known"?
    Now about the fighters with the M-82. The MiG-9 with the M-82 was clearly not a success, in particular, the maximum speed was only 565 km / h. The I-211 with the ASH-82FN was good, but in the summer of 1943 the La-5FN was already in the series.
    The Yak-7 with the M-82 in 1942 did not cause interest, since La-5 was already ready.
    I-185M-82 was successful, but Polikarpov made a bet on the M-71.

    1. I-185 M-82A goes on flight tests in August 1941. LaGG-3 M-82 March 21, 1942. Between these two events is 7,5 (seven and a half) months. In which the Shvetsov's M-82 engine refinement fits and the situation in which normal engines are dead weight in a warehouse is useless to anyone. What place did the NKAP and the Air Force pear around all this time? But as soon as the "bench" took off "the current situation with the introduction of the M-82 engine made the leadership of the aviation industry and the military closely monitor the tests in Gorky and act promptly." And what prevented this from being done seven months earlier? Indeed, in terms of its parameters, the I-185, if not superior, was at least not inferior to its later competitor.

    Let's compare the I-185 M-82 (no longer “A”, but the normal fourth engine instance) and La-5. I-185 / La-5

    Speed ​​at ground on 10 minute afterburner: 549/535

    At the height: 615/580

    Rate of climb: 926/833

    Turn time: 22 / 22-23s

    Practical ceiling: 11000/9600

    Range: 1050-1380 / 1190

    Armament: 3x20mm / 2x20mm.
    That is, with the normal business approach of the leadership of the Air Force and the NKAP in early 1942, we could, even without the forced ASh-82FN, have a car that was not inferior to one of the strongest Soviet fighters of 1943. And the weight of a second volley superior to him and a half times ....
    ... The only fighter created in pursuance of the NKAP order for the M-82 engine flies and even shoots, but flight performance is not fundamentally removed from it.

    I wonder what prevented this from happening then. After all, then it still had to be done: “His joint factory and state tests took place in Novosibirsk at the Civil Air Fleet in the period from April 13 to July 5, 1942. A total of 42 flights were flown with a flight time of 31 hours 58 minutes. Loginov flew from factory No. 51, and Nikashin from the Air Force Research Institute .....
    Thus, having by 1941, in fact, a machine superior to both our and German fighters, neither the NKAP leadership nor the Air Force leadership did anything to launch it in the series. Why?

    The main and only justification is the complexity of the restructuring of production in wartime conditions. For the end of 1942, such an explanation is suitable. It makes no sense to produce I-185 with M-82, when LaGG mastered in the production with the same engine gives comparable results. But for February 1942, such an explanation is not even naive. Especially when the serious question was raised about the resumption of mass production of I-16. And at the beginning of 1942, plant number 458 in Rostov-on-Don continued to produce these fighters. And to re-profile it all the same it was necessary ....
    From all this, I can only draw one conclusion. The leadership of the NKAP in late 1941 and early 1942 made a mistake by betting on a heavy LaGG fighter with an M-107 engine. The output of this engine would generally preclude any restructuring of production. And as a result, the drop in gross output of fighter jets. And in general, any fuss about the already established process for releasing fighters. But the engine did not come out and the NKAP error, which was obliged to proceed from the already existing capabilities (the M-82 engine), had to pay combatant pilots. Shakhurin finally sat down for ten years for similar games with a gross output of aircraft. True after the war. But together with the leadership of the Air Force .....

    I don’t remember where I read Yakovlev’s statement that not a single Polikarpov plane would be mass-produced. But the "black cat" between Yakovlev and Polikarpov is clearly visible in many memoirs. Including in the Yakovlevskys, saying that at a meeting with Stalin it was decided that the "old design bureaus" (read Polikarpov) had failed the work, and the "new design bureau" should be entrusted to correct the situation.
    Read at least "History of the creation of the I-200" (MiG-1 / MiG-3). http://wunderwafe.ru/WeaponBook/Avia/Mig3/03.htm
    The essence of the conflict is to eliminate the main competitor.
    The commission appointed to choose the type of fighter for the Air Force was strongly recommended "from above" to "take a closer look" at the I-26 (Yak-1) and put it into production at plant No. 1, which was planned for the production of the I-200 developed by Polikarpov.
    Not only plant No. 1 was taken away from Polikarpov, but also I-200, creating a new design bureau for its development and putting into production under the leadership of Mikoyan, who was "taken from the corridor", staffing it mainly with employees of Polikarpov's design bureau.
    1. Alf
      Alf 3 January 2017 19: 19
      0
      [quote = Captain Pushkin] That is, with the normal business approach of the leadership of the Air Force and NKAP at the beginning of 1942, we could, even without the forced ASh-82FN, have a machine that is not much inferior to one of the strongest Soviet fighters of 1943. And by the weight of a second salvo, exceeding it by one and a half times ...
      I wonder what prevented this from happening then. [/ quote]
      The presence of duralumin in the country. And LAGG-3 would have flown very well if Lavochkin had been told-Here you have enough duralumin, do it. [Quote = Captain Pushkin]
      [quote = Alex] The leadership of the NKAP in late 1941 and early 1942 made a mistake by betting on a heavy LaGG fighter with an M-107 engine. The output of this engine would rule out any restructuring of production. [/ Quote]
      At the end of the 41st-beginning of the 42nd year, it became clear that the M-107 engine will not be. He was counted on in the 1940th year.
      The I-185M-82 in terms of performance characteristics was not much better than the LA-5, and nobody completely decided to completely rebuild production on a completely different type of aircraft, and even in the most difficult moment. And they did it right.
  28. Captain Pushkin
    Captain Pushkin 3 January 2017 18: 24
    +1
    Quote: Alex

    1
    Alex Yesterday, 19:37 New
    Quote: Captain Pushkin
    But Yakovlev (part-time deputy commissar for new technology) considered Polikarpov a personal enemy. His phrase is known that with him not a single new Polikarpov plane will be put to production.

    The post was called the Deputy People's Commissar for Experimental Aircraft.
    Please tell me what your statement about a personal enemy is based on. And where did you get "his phrase is known"?

    And here is another intersection of the interests of Yakovlev and Polikarpov.
    The autumn of 1939 on the sidelines of the Soviet aviation industry was notable for some nervousness created by the general impression of the emerging lagging behind potential opponents and the lack of modern types of combat aircraft in production. In particular, aircraft plant No. 1 continued the production of the maneuverable biplane I-153, which was considered obsolete and unpromising. In November, in the absence of Polikarpov, a special commission began to work at the plant to load production with new, more modern machines. At a meeting of this commission, designer A.S. Yakovlev reported on his project for an I-26 fighter with an M-105 engine. The materials presented to him aroused interest, and the aircraft was recommended for serial construction.

    It should be noted that in the summer, in accordance with the decree of the KO No. 171ss dated 20.06.39/1/22, at the factory No. 17 it was decided to build a serial Yakovlev twin-engine close-range bomber BB-1939. On July 70, 70, an appropriate order was issued by the People’s Commissariat of the aviation industry to organize at the plant a design bureau of KB-22 in the amount of 70 people to prepare the BB-XNUMX series. The newly appointed chief of KB-XNUMX, engineer Strongin and his deputy Kurbala, were ordered to immediately begin the development of design drawings, plant director P.A. Voronin and his deputy P.V. Dementyev in three days to find premises for a new team.

    This was followed by an order to immediately bring together all the best specialists in wooden structures to work on BB-22, and set prices for workers higher by 20-30% than on the production of I-153 Chaika. By August 1939, the new "twin-engine" was required to bring weapons, chassis and power plant. All these and other measures were taken in order to release 1940 BB-1000 aircraft in 22 in accordance with the plans adopted.

    Thus, the attack of Alexander Sergeyevich Yakovlev on the production facilities of the oldest Moscow aircraft factory looked quite tangible, and the introduction of another of its machines here was perceived by the competitors very jealously. Against the backdrop of such moods, according to one version of the development of events, the engineer A.T. Karev told the commission members that at plant No. 1 there is an I-200 fighter project, the speed of which is noticeably higher than the speed of the Yakovlevsky I-26. As a result, we got acquainted with the project, became interested, and ... the matter began to spin.

    The commission recognized the I-200 project as noteworthy, and after a report and approval by the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks and the Air Force, they decided to immediately build the aircraft. On December 8, 1940, P.A. Voronin, director of aircraft plant No. 1, issued an order to create an experimental design bureau of the main employees of Polikarpov Design Bureau. A.I. Mikoyan was appointed the head of the new organization, M.I. Gurevich. So the project began an independent life separately from its ancestor and subsequently materialized in the form of the famous MiG-3 fighter.

    N.N. Polikarpov, returning from a business trip at the end of December 1939, was naturally very shocked. He painfully experienced what had happened, however, what had happened had happened. It is necessary to lay out and work further, so Nikolai Nikolaevich continued his creative research, which was expressed a short time later in the I-185 project.
  29. Captain Pushkin
    Captain Pushkin 3 January 2017 18: 50
    +1
    Quote: Alex
    Alex Yesterday, 19:37 New
    Quote: Captain Pushkin
    But Yakovlev (part-time deputy commissar for new technology) considered Polikarpov a personal enemy. His phrase is known that with him not a single new Polikarpov plane will be put to production.

    The post was called the Deputy People's Commissar for Experimental Aircraft.
    Please tell me what your statement about a personal enemy is based on. And where did you get "his phrase is known"?
    Now about the fighters with the M-82. The MiG-9 with the M-82 was clearly not a success, in particular, the maximum speed was only 565 km / h. The I-211 with the ASH-82FN was good, but in the summer of 1943 the La-5FN was already in the series.

    Well, it is clear that I-211 (E) was meant. You repeat the statement already made that Mikoyan was late. Plus, not least, Mikoyan had no factory at that time.
    Modification I-211 (E)
    Wingspan, m 10.20
    Length, m 7.95
    Height, m ​​3.10
    Wing area, m2 17.44
    Weight, kg
    empty 2590 aircraft
    take-off 3070
    fuel 300
    Engine type 1 PD ASh-82F
    Power, hp 1 x 1700
    Maximum speed, km / h 670
    Practical range, km 940
    Maximum rate of climb, m / min 1250
    Practical ceiling, m 11300
    Crew 1
    Armament: two 20-mm ShVAK guns
  30. Captain Pushkin
    Captain Pushkin 3 January 2017 19: 01
    +1
    Quote: Alex
    The Yak-7 with the M-82 in 1942 did not cause interest, since La-5 was already ready.

    Quote: Alex

    1
    Alex Yesterday, 19:37 New
    Quote: Captain Pushkin
    But Yakovlev (part-time deputy commissar for new technology) considered Polikarpov a personal enemy. His phrase is known that with him not a single new Polikarpov plane will be put to production.

    The post was called the Deputy People's Commissar for Experimental Aircraft.

    The Yak-7 with the M-82 in 1942 did not cause interest, since La-5 was already ready.

    Meant Yak-3U with ASH-82FN.
    The installation of the ASh-3FN engine on the Yak-82, while simultaneously reducing the flight weight and improving aerodynamics, should have significantly improved its flight characteristics. According to the calculation, the speed in comparison with the serial Yak-3 VK-105PF2 at the design altitude increased by 65 km / h to 705 km / h (at an altitude of 6100 m), and the time to climb 5000 m decreased by 0,55 min to 4,0 min. However, the forward displacement of the wing, which had a positive effect on stability and controllability in flight, led to an unacceptable decrease in the anti-aero angle: up to 21º 20 '- with rear centering and up to 18 - with front centering, which made the aircraft dangerous when taxiing and landing.

    The Yak-3U was built by A.S.Yakovlev Design Bureau in accordance with the decree of the GKO in a single copy from January 20 to April 23, 1945 (construction began in Novosibirsk and completed in Moscow), underwent factory tests from April 29 to June 9, 1945 at the Central Moscow airfield. The first flight took place on May 12, 1945. 19 flights were made with a total duration of 8 hours 40 minutes. Leading test pilot P.Ya. Fedrovi, leading designer V.V. Barsukov, leading test engineer A.M. Druzhinin and mechanic A.M. Gusev.

    A speed of 682 km / h was obtained at an altitude of 6000 m and a climb time of 5000 m was 3,9 minutes. After completion of factory tests, the aircraft was returned to OKB on June 15, 1945 for revision, during which a metal wing was installed instead of a wooden one; increased elevator trimmer efficiency; the anti-cabling angle is increased to 25 due to an increase in the extension of the chassis by 80 mm and an increase in the angle of installation of the pivots; the engine hood was sealed and some other work was done. Due to the metal wing, the flight weight was supposed to decrease from 2792 to 2740 kg.

    The revision was completed on September 25, 1945. The plane turned out to be generally successful. However, by the end of the war he was no longer needed, so the tests did not pass and all work on it was stopped.

    More details: http://www.zelezki.ru/aviainterest/aviahistory/ca
    talogww / ussr / 2914-istrebitel_yak-3u_ash-82fn.html
    # ixzz4UiMuA08A
  31. cayman gene
    cayman gene 3 January 2017 21: 27
    +3
    I don’t really share the author’s enthusiasm. The plane was no worse and no better than analogues. On the eastern front there was a bit merciless, it was very, very average, and I consider the galvanization of this mediocre flying unit quite inappropriate.
  32. Mikhail3
    Mikhail3 4 January 2017 19: 23
    +1
    The article is frankly stupid. Mr. Kondratiev of that ... is frankly weak for the topic he raised. Instead of all this empty chatter, on a topic higher than himself in level, he would think a little. Over that which seems beautiful to him, a certain Kondratyev, and that which Tupolev, Antonov, Sukhoi, Mil and other people who said similar things and for whom they spoke were considered beautiful.
    When we see the proud Ko 187 in the sky, cutting the air in a record flight, then Mr. Kondratyev's opinion on this issue will become valuable. Reservations like "few people think" are frankly ridiculous. He covered himself, yeah ...
  33. Taoist
    Taoist 4 January 2017 22: 23
    +1
    ARES623,
    And here you are, to put it mildly, mistaken. And trying to get personal is at best a sign of your immaturity. In the same way, we fought the whole war on development machines of the late 30s ... And I think we did it quite competently without squandering resources on projects and putting into operation new but raw machines. Yes, we could only guess what would happen if the experimental machines of the same Polikarpov and Myasishchev went into series ... But most likely the same as that of the Germans. The battlefield is not a suitable place for "bringing to mind" ... By the way, I just do not "smear" anyone - I just treat the history of technology objectively, as a military engineer and specialist in the operation of aircraft.
  34. gunya
    gunya 5 January 2017 15: 27
    0
    Quote: iouris
    And Tupolev (and, by the way, his curators too) was "dragged" by "iouris" to the fact that Tupolev and his design bureau were in the "sharashka" of the NKVD, where he was required to do the same as the Germans had, but only "a meter longer."

    Kerbera read a lot? Did you forget to read the decree on the creation of "sharashek"?
  35. Fagelov
    Fagelov 7 January 2017 13: 56
    0
    The plane is "beautiful" because it flies well.