The truth was not needed

14 August 1931 test pilot Mikhail Gromov for the first time took off the ANT-14 Pravda five-engined passenger airliner - the largest aircraft built in Russia by that time and one of the largest in the world. It had a wingspan of more than 40 meters, the length of the fuselage - 26,5 meters and take-off weight - 17,5 tons. In the ANT-14 cabin, 36 passengers could freely accommodate (the number of passenger seats was subsequently increased to 40), and in the transport variant the aircraft lifted 4,5 tons of payload.

Tests showed that the plane turned out successful - quite stable and easy to fly. Its maximum speed was 236 km / h, cruising - 195 km / h, ceiling - 4220 m, and maximum flight range - 1400 km. By the way, on all popular Internet resources, including Wikipedia and aviation Airwar.ru encyclopedia, the last digit is given with a typo - 400 km. It is funny that none of the authors of these sites who stupidly copied data from each other, was not embarrassed by such an absurdly small value in relation to a long-range passenger aircraft.

ANT-14 was intended for the longest airway of the Soviet Union, Moscow - Vladivostok. Need for these machines General Directorate of Civil Air fleet (GU GVF) identified 60 copies, which were planned to be built in 1932-35. During the construction, the imported Gnome-Ron “Jupiter” engines, which were on the first copy of the car, were planned to be replaced with more powerful domestic M-34s, which made it possible to abandon the nasal engine, thus turning the aircraft from a five-engine to a four-engine.

The military use of the vehicle was also considered, which, thanks to its solid payload and volumetric fuselage, was well suited to the role of a transport assault plane, or an auxiliary night bomber.

However, all these plans remained on paper. The Bolshevik leadership decided that the Soviet Union needed not passenger liners, but a huge fleet of heavy bombers TB-3, which more than 1930 units were built in the 800-s. For this, the program ANT-14 put a cross. In 1934, the leadership of the Civil Air Fleet re-addressed the General Aviation Industry Directorate (SUAI) with the request to build at least 15 copies of the aircraft. But the Office, fully loaded with military orders, ignored this request.

As a result, ANT-14 remained in a single copy, which was not used for commercial flights, but was included in the Maksim Gorky propaganda squadron and carried out agitation and propaganda flights, demonstrating the power of the Soviet aircraft industry.

In this capacity, he flew to various celebrations, made overseas tours, participated in aerial parades and ride tourists on Moscow. After serving 10 for years, the aircraft was written off due to wear in the 1941 year and installed in the Gorky recreation park. There, his fuselage was used as a cinema for some time, and then sent to the smelter.

Wooden model ANT-14 for wind tunnel blowing.

Left: ground staff of the Kharkov airfield against the background of ANT-14 during the airliner's visit to this city. Pay attention to the folding ladders for engine maintenance. To turn back from such a ladder was probably not very nice. Right: interior of the passenger compartment.

Soviet propaganda poster on which ANT-14 is used as the main art object.

A page from a propaganda brochure published in the middle of 1930's.

Coloring ANT-14 during his service in the squadron named after Gorky.

Comments

[Amurets]

However, all these plans remained on paper. The Bolshevik leadership decided that the Soviet Union needed not passenger liners, but a huge fleet of heavy bombers TB-3

Aviation and Cosmonautics Magazine 1997 No. 11-12: However, they did not transmit to the ANT-14 series: the passenger traffic in the country by the time the aircraft arrived was relatively small and was quite satisfied with passenger cars of smaller sizes and lower passenger compatibility (a similar picture was observed and in Europe - the German Juncker G-38, which is close in passenger capacity, found only limited use and was built in only two copies). " M.B. Sauke in his encyclopedia ANT Airplanes writes that on the Moscow-Vladivostok line, ANT-14 aircraft will be unprofitable due to the small volume of traffic. It is much more cost-effective to use ANT-9 and K-5 aircraft.

[ShKAS_mashingun]

Quote: Amurets

(A similar picture was observed in Europe - the German Juncker G-38, which was close in passenger capacity, found only limited use and was built in only two copies)

I think it’s not worth comparing the scale of Europe with the USSR, especially since then there was an intensive development of the Far East and the Far North

[Amurets]

Quote: ShKAS_mashingun

I think it’s not worth comparing the scale of Europe with the USSR, especially since then there was an intensive development of the Far East and the Far North

You know, such machines were difficult to operate in Siberia and the Far East at that time. The most suitable planes of the time were small planes such as Sha-2. P-5. M. Vodopyanov writes well about these flights for the development of Far East; he was the pioneer of some airlines in the Far East. V. Akkuratov and M. Kaminsky.

[ShKAS_mashingun]

Quote: Amurets

You know, such machines were hard to operate in Siberia and the Far East

I agree, but I did not mean regional transportation between small taiga airfields, but long-haul transportation, such as Moscow - Khabarovsk, Moscow - Vladivostok (Ulan-Ude, Kemerovo), etc.

[Amurets]

Quote: ShKAS_mashingun

I agree, but I didn’t mean regional transportation between small taiga airfields, but long-distance transportation,

Yes. I understood you. With that technique and the speeds and equipment of the tracks on the Far East, railway transport was preferable. But Western Siberia, Altai, Kazakhstan, then from Moscow, Leningrad, apparently this could be organized. But somehow we all forget about the problems with fuel and lubricants. It was not from good that they tried to transfer vehicles and tractors to gas generators. In fact, in the USSR there were four more or less large oil fields: Baku, Grozny, Maykop and Ukhta. Deposits of the Urals and Bashkiria were just beginning to be developed. ** The period 1940-1941 was the most difficult in the history of oil production in Russia. This was due to poor material and technical support, lack of equipment and the imperfection of oil production technology, and the lack of highly qualified personnel. The difference in the views of scientists on the assessment of the oil potential of the Ural-Volga region negatively affected. **
Theses for the humanities - http://cheloveknauka.com/nachalnye-etapy-promyshl
ENNOY-RAZRABOTKI-NEFTYANYH-MESTOROZHDENIY-URALO-P
ovolzhya-i-podgotovka-inzhenernyh-i-nauchnyh-kad #
ixzz4qcmupayk.
In the Far East, Sakhalin oil was known as far back as the 1935th century, but the Komsomolsky oil processing plant for Far East and oil pipelines began to be built only during the Second World War. Khabarovsky was built in XNUMX, but they were able to organize a constant supply of oil from Sakhalin only with the construction of the Sakhalin-mainland oil pipeline.
It seemed trifles, but they greatly influenced the development of passenger and civil transport aviation.

[Cannonball]

In the 30s, only routes to the Crimea and to the resorts of the North Caucasus were economically justified. For other directions, including local significance, there were enough aircraft with a capacity of 4-12 passengers. Moreover, civil aviation before the war was more often involved not for passenger, but for postal traffic.

[Cannonball]

Only not Sha-2, but Sh-2. And not the R-5, but its passenger variants P-5 and PR-5.

[Curious]

The author continues to deceive the reader and suck sensations out of the finger. Yesterday about helicopters, today about planes that they did not want to do. I wonder what will "expose" in the next article?

[Cat]

The main catchy title of the article!
On the subject of sensations, alas, to the joy or unfortunately in our history of technology there are more than enough of them. It all depends on the audience.

[Akuzenka]

The Bolshevik leadership decided that the Soviet Union needed not passenger liners, but a huge fleet of heavy TB-3 bombers, of which more than 1930 were built in the 800s. For this, they put an end to the ANT-14 program.

the author simply decided to earn cheap credibility on barking at the USSR. I will explain in author's, bourgeois: Who paid the money for the creation of technology, the state. So the state, and making plans, judged how EMU should have been, and not the afftor. And in this, it (the Bolsheviks) is to blame.

[andrewkor]

One of the USSR’s favorite planes of the pre-war era, he was ahead of his time, as was the post-war piston IL-18. The first flight took place on August 14, 1931, and was unified with the TB-3 along the wing, which made it possible to simplify sorin production. It would be in demand as a military transport for the nascent Soviet airborne forces, but the military, at that time, still did not represent, I think, all the prospects for the mass use of airborne assault forces. As a result, after 10 years with 4 airborne corps (!), The Red Army did not have how much by appropriate means of their delivery to the landing sites. One cannot seriously take into account the Tb-3, P-5, and even a small number of very modern Li-2s. A massive, modernized by engine (M-34 FRN) ANT-14bis, lifting 5 tons of cargo would come in handy. Here's the plot for an Alternative History!

[avt]

Quote: andrewkor

. He was ahead of his time, like the post-war piston IL-18.

WHAT ??? Yes, they were BOTH airplanes of their time, with a 4-engine piston IL-18, too. Since despite the digital in the numbering ,,, Moscow "was already a brand new airplane.

[Curious]

"... have not yet imagined, I think, all the prospects for the massive use of airborne assault forces."
Of course they didn’t. Losses during Operation Mercury were those that the Germans could not imagine. This is against the demoralized and disorganized garrison of Crete.

[3x3zsave]

Moreover, I believe that the Airborne Forces, as a branch of the armed forces, are an "expensive toy", dancing with tambourines and swimming in fountains. I cannot recall a single major successful airborne operation in world practice since the invention of the parachute. Sure, quick response parts are necessary, but, "Shura, don't make a cult of food."

[dudinets]

silt 18 - turboprop.

[Amurets]

Quote: Dudinets

silt 18 - turboprop.

The first IL-18 of 1946 was a piston.

http://airliner.narod.ru/1unsucces/il-18p.htm

[Aviator_]

The first version of the IL-18 was a piston with motors ASH-73, released in the year 1946

[DimerVladimer]

Quote: andrewkor

even a small number of very modern Li-2s.

One plant N 84 having mastered the production of the new Li-2 aircraft, created on the basis of the American DC 3 aircraft, in 1942-1945. produced 2258 aircraft of this model.
It was the most successful civilian aircraft of that time - my father flew it to the north until the appearance of the IL-14, which was also created with an eye on the design of the DC-3.

[San Sanych]

A plane ahead of its time. In general, it should be noted at that time that the USSR was overly carried away by gigantomania in the field of aircraft construction.

[Cannonball]

Gigantomania in aircraft construction was inherent not only in the USSR. Here are some of the giants of the time:

Germany. Dornier Do X (1929) - 160 passengers. Built 3 copies.


Germany. Junkers G. 38 (1929) - 26 passengers. Built 2 copies.


USA. Boeing 307 Stratoliner (1938) - 33 passengers. Built 10 copies.

[San Sanych]

I agree, but why was it necessary to launch, for example, the TB-3 in a large series, and even as a bomber? It would be better if these resources would be directed to improving the Security Council. and on ANT-9, ANT-9 would make a good passenger and transport aircraft - an analogue of Junkers-52 or DS-3.

[Cannonball]

The country needed exactly heavy bombers. SB flew in 1934, TB-3 - in 1930. How do you say to improve the security system due to TB-3, if it was not there for 4 years?

[San Sanych]

heavy bombers were of course needed, but they should not have run away, as they say, ahead of the engine

[Cannonball]

What are you talking about, "Forward steam locomotive"? Air passenger traffic in the 30s was not relevant, unlike the presence of military aircraft. From the word AT ALL. "Citizen" was made on the residual principle, without prejudice to the creation of military vehicles. And if it was not possible to combine production, then they refused to produce exactly civilian cars.

[San Sanych]

In the USA and Germany at that time they didn’t think so, but in the USSR of that time they tried to take it in quantity and gigantic size, to the detriment of quality, at least this did not impress the Wehrmacht, although the Germans also had a miscalculation when they decided that the airships they will give them absolute superiority, but they managed to understand in time that this is not entirely correct, though then they still slipped to insanity when they tried to take the mouse on board

[Cannonball]

What are you writing about? ANT-14 flew in 1931. What other Wehrmacht in the early 30s? The Wehrmacht appeared only in the 35th.
A little later, German heavy bombers appeared, such as Dornier DO 19 (1936), Dornier Do 217 (1938), Focke-Wulf Fw 200 Condor (1937).
In the USA, the Great Depression continued from the 29th to the 33rd year. And who were the Americans going to fight with then? With Mexicans and Canadians?
Although the famous Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress flew in the 35th.

[San Sanych]

with your maxims you fight like Don Quixote, but not against the windmills, but against yourself - "although the famous B-17 Flying Fortress flew in the 35th"

[Cannonball]

Without understanding the history, processes and moods of that time, you are trying to awkwardly troll your opponent. Well, the drain is counted. And learn the story.

[Akuzenka]

To paraphrase the classic: It's good to be smart, like my wife, then. So are you.

[andrewkor]

Quote: avt

Quote: andrewkor

. He was ahead of his time, like the post-war piston IL-18.

WHAT ??? Yes, they were BOTH airplanes of their time, with a 4-engine piston IL-18, too. Since despite the digital in the numbering ,,, Moscow "was already a brand new airplane.

Not technically, of course, but according to the needs of passenger traffic, in my opinion. And the reasons for both of them are not production are the same, right?

[avt]

Quote: andrewkor

Not technically, of course, but according to the needs of the passenger flow, in my opinion.

What kind of

Quote: andrewkor

passenger flow

In those times ?

Quote: Amurets

close in terms of passenger capacity, the German Junkere G-38 found only limited use and was built in only two copies). "MB Saucke

In a country where not only airfield network, but also technical maintenance was much better. Well, as for IL-18, I could be mistaken, but they just didn’t wait for engines with a turbocharger. But the gistorics dumped everything ... to Stalin - they didn’t mean, “tyrant” that people move freely around the country. And as a result, he went on the line

Quote: avt

despite the numbers in the numbering ,,, Moscow "was already a brand new airplane.

ABSOLUTELY another airplane! And quite cool! Still still a childhood memory of a night flight and landing in Moscow is not released at his mention. Now, if in An-10A there is a feeling .... you’re sitting in a barn, then IL-18 ... which is cozy, homely. Even the ears of the engine, kindly, gently lays.

[Amurets]

Quote: avt

Well, according to IL-18, I could be mistaken, but there simply did not wait for engines with a turbocompressor.

You are not mistaken. With turbochargers and not only on the ASh-73TK, there was a lot of strain. And if we take it purely technically, then there was an acute shortage of heat-resistant materials. GTD resources of that time rarely exceeded 100-125 hours.

[geologist]

Regarding the comparison of the An-10 with the IL-18 I do not agree because it is a subjective perception. The IL-18 caused severe painful attacks of nausea during the flight from Vladik to Moscow, but the An-10 seemed quite tolerable, despite the huge saloon, like a whale's belly, possibly due to a short flight on an Antonov liner. The most intolerable was the Tu-104. Ears were very sore especially when landing.

[parusnik]

The Bolshevik leadership decided that the Soviet Union needed non-passenger liners

... Gref decided that in general, the domestic aircraft industry is not needed, it is better to buy Boeing ... and will not give money for the development of domestic aviation ... was it? It was ... Of course, the ANT-14 could be successfully used on such airlines as Moscow-Leningrad, but it is unlikely that it would compete with rail transport. Given the low volume of freight and mail transportation of those years, it was enough to write off military service TB-1 and TB-3. But for the airborne troops this machine would be the most suitable. It could have played the ANT-14 as an auxiliary role as a bomber, but in that capacity it would have been worse than the TB-3.

[andrewkor]

Quote: Curious

"... have not yet imagined, I think, all the prospects for the massive use of airborne assault forces."
Of course they didn’t. Losses during Operation Mercury were those that the Germans could not imagine. This is against the demoralized and disorganized garrison of Crete.

Well, in1931 it was probably difficult to foresee the 1941 “Mercury”, but they were obliged to reinforce the theory of deep air-to-ground operation developed by the USSR and adopted in Germany!

[andrewkor]

Quote: Curious

"... have not yet imagined, I think, all the prospects for the massive use of airborne assault forces."
Of course they didn’t. Losses during Operation Mercury were those that the Germans could not imagine. This is against the demoralized and disorganized garrison of Crete.

Before Mercury, for your information, there were staggering effective operations in 1940 in Norway. Belgium, the Netherlands, but very limited forces, and in Crete there was already a full-fledged air-sea maritime component. By the way, technically and organizationally the German airborne forces had a lot of shortcomings, one of these there was the principle of separate paratroopers landing and their weapons, which were dropped separately, then look for him later under fire.

[Curious]

Before inserting the phrase “for your information” into the comment, it would be nice to get the necessary information yourself. The question was about the "Massive use of airborne assault forces," for which the ANT-14 aircraft would be very useful.
For your information, in Belgium, a mass landing of 78 men on gliders landed at Fort Eben Enamel in Belgium.
“During the German occupation of Norway in April 1940, German paratroopers were first dropped into enemy territory. Oslo Airport was captured by a company of German paratroopers, another reinforced company was thrown out in the Dombos area in central Norway with the task of saddling the road connecting the South and North Norway, which is of great operational importance, leading the battle against a numerically superior enemy, this company, despite adverse weather, lasted there until the approach of the main forces. paratroopers and mountain shooters were dropped in the Narvik area to strengthen the forces operating there.A month after the end of the Norwegian operation, on May 10, 1940, all parachute units were sent to Northern Belgium and the Netherlands to participate in two independent landing operations, to a certain extent The first landing operation was aimed at capturing the so-called “Holland fortress.” During the fighting, one group of paratroopers landed in the area of ​​the capital of Holland, in the center of the “Holland Fortress.” I am. " However, as a result of the stubborn defense of the enemy, and perhaps tactical errors on the part of the German command, this group did not have decisive success. Other combat groups seized the Valgaven airfield near Rotterdam from the air and broke into the city along with units of the 16th (airborne) army division landed from Ju-52 aircraft at this airfield and on the Hague - Rotterdam motorway. Another group of paratroopers seized the bridges across Holandschdip and, thus, opened the gates to the "Dutch fortress" from the south to German tanks. During the second landing operation, German paratroopers in the area northwest of Liège crossed the Alberta Canal, while a select platoon of well-trained sappers, commanded by Captain Koch, landed at dawn on gliders in front of the most armored caps of the Eben-Emael outpost, to the north Lie, and awoke the unsuspecting garrison of the fort, blowing up these caps with special reinforced hollow charges. With this double blow, paratroopers shot through the gates for their ground forces in Northern Belgium at the most crucial points. "
This is from the book "Bilanz des Zweiten Weltkrieges. Erkentnise und Verpflichtungen fur die Zukunft. - Hamburg, 1953."
These are such stunning successes. True, there are no "mass landings." And if at least once in your life you parachuted in the appropriate equipment, you would have understood why the Germans so landed.

[andrewkor]

Dear Curious, I believe that you don’t mind the landing party but the transport An-14 bis, and this is the main thing in my comment. On the use of the airborne forces of different countries during WWII, I am aware of the details down to various parachutes in the German airborne forces and the Luftwaffe. to release a 20 meter halyard with fantasy equipment was not enough!

[3x3zsave]

As far as I understand, dumping equipment as a separate container at that time was a global practice?

[andrewkor]

Dear Curious, I understand that you do not mind using the ANT-14 bis as a military transport, and this was the main thing in my comment on the author's article. On the use of the airborne forces of different countries in the WWII, believe me, I know enough to express my opinion, in particular about the unsuccessful parachutes of the German airborne forces, the Italian model, in contrast to the Luftwaffe parachutes, the Irving model, about the inability to guess the load of the paratrooper on the halyard, etc. If I mention the capture of Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands with the participation of the German airborne forces, I know what I'm talking about and not over I do razzhevyvat.Svoi comments, if possible, try to do short, counting on prepared opponents.

[Curious]

Well, then I was unprepared.

[andrewkor]

Dear Curious! The great Lao Tzu said: "After reading one book you have the opinion of the author of the book, after reading one hundred books you have your own opinion."

[Curious]

Dear Andrewkor! Does each hundred books form an opinion? How to be the one who read a few hundred? Well this is how many opinions! But there is also practical experience. Horror. I begin to incline to the idea that many knowledge, indeed many sorrows. You will get confused in your own opinions.

[andrewkor]

Dear Curious, a hundred books in the above quote are an allegory, there is no need to arithmetically approach philosophy. I agree that especially with age and maturity, opinions on any subject can change. I wish you to have your own creed (not necessarily Always).

[Curious]

Thanks for the wish. At my age, perhaps it’s not so important to have a new creed, how to keep what you think. But nothing is impossible.

[3x3zsave]

And I about the same, the airborne assault is successful in solving tactical problems. In strategic application, it turns out a meat grinder as in Crete in the 41st or in France in the 44th.

[andrewkor]

Quote: avt

Quote: andrewkor

. He was ahead of his time, like the post-war piston IL-18.

WHAT ??? Yes, they were BOTH airplanes of their time, with a 4-engine piston IL-18, too. Since despite the digital in the numbering ,,, Moscow "was already a brand new airplane.

Neither one nor the other in their time had a suitable passenger flow.

[San Sanych]

IL-18 "Moscow" probably appeared just in time. And it should be noted that it turned out to be a very successful, reliable and beautiful aircraft.

[andrewkor]

Quote: San Sanych

IL-18 "Moscow" probably appeared just in time. And it should be noted that it turned out to be a very successful, reliable and beautiful aircraft.

He flew on it on a demobilization from Moscow to Barnaul, six hours opposite the engines with a height of 192 cm, mortal flour!

[Alf]

Quote: andrewkor

He flew on it on a demobilization from Moscow to Barnaul, six hours opposite the engines with a height of 192 cm, mortal flour!

Well, we would go by train.

[moskowit]

mortal flour!

And from the Far East 7 days by train, in winter, home, here to Moscow, and then on the train, standing 2 hours, okay? and you are flour ....

[andrewkor]

I was lucky in the middle of the Union turned out to be!

[andrewkor]

Quote: Alf

Quote: andrewkor

He flew on it on a demobilization from Moscow to Barnaul, six hours opposite the engines with a height of 192 cm, mortal flour!

Well, we would go by train.

And so I was hosted by an uncle in Kostroma, I wanted to go home, however! Three days on a shelf .. burn!

[San Sanych]

You do not please) a prickly blanket, a stuffy pillow)))

[Alf]

Quote: andrewkor

And so I was hosted by an uncle in Kostroma, I wanted to go home, however! Three days on a shelf .. burn!

But there is something to remember. Once I was "lucky" in the reserved seat to get a toilet. The trip to St. Petersburg was forgotten quickly enough, but I remembered the road forever.

[andrewkor]

[quote = andrewkor] Dear Curious, I believe that you don’t mind the landing party but the transport An-14 bis, and this is the main thing in my comment. On the use of the airborne forces of different countries during WWII I am aware of the details down to the different parachutes in the German airborne and the Luftwaffe. And I didn’t have enough imagination to release a 20-meter halyard with fantasy gear! And if I mention Norway, Holland, Belgium, believe me, I know well about their conquest by Germany. And I try to make my comments short based on trained opponents.

[andrewkor]

Quote: Alf

Quote: andrewkor

He flew on it on a demobilization from Moscow to Barnaul, six hours opposite the engines with a height of 192 cm, mortal flour!

Well, we would go by train.

Yes, I stayed with a visiting uncle in Kostroma he very much asked, he wanted to go home, however!

[andrewkor]

Quote: Alf

Quote: andrewkor

He flew on it on a demobilization from Moscow to Barnaul, six hours opposite the engines with a height of 192 cm, mortal flour!

Well, we would go by train.

Yes, I stayed with my uncle in Kostroma, he very much asked, but I wanted to go home. And three days on a shelf, I’m already uzhzhaass!

[Mavrikiy]

On August 14, 1931, test pilot Mikhail Gromov first flew the five-engine passenger airliner ANT-14 Pravda, the largest of the aircraft built by then in Russia and one of the largest in the world.
Author!
Go to school. In 1931 there was no Russia, but the USSR.

[andrewkor]

That's how attentive, but I looked, catch +!

[Curious]

I am inclined to think that this is not a mistake, but a trend. . It is more common, including on the site. All authors cannot be victims of the USE.

[andrewkor]

Rather, it’s a provocation of the State Department or the SBU!

[Curious]

Most likely someone's another stupid thing.

[Shadowcat]

It's funny that everyone talks about the landing, even about the mass landing, but they forget that with the more modern and better aircraft, the largest landing operation of the market garden failed. The air defense simply interrupted part, and part dispersed.
Immediately slower speed, lower altitude, smaller radius (with an airborne assault fly in two ends about 750 km) ... shooting range for anti-aircraft gunners. Although what will be 45 showers with equipment?
TB-3 loses just in range. All the same, 3k km versus 1.5k at the same speed and altitude .... so don’t pull the owl, in such cases the Ant14 could be good, but not at all steep ahead of time

[Cannonball]

The question immediately arises: "Where would ANT-14 be built in mass production?" Plant No. 22 was loaded with the production of TB-3, R-6, SB, PS-9, PS-40, experimental machines ... Even the production of passenger PS-35 was not enough time or capacity. And equivalent aircraft plants capable of building large-sized all-metal aircraft in the USSR, one might say, have not yet been.

[andrewkor]

Dear opponents, I’m talking about the 31-year-old ANT-14bis airplane (didn’t you have an alarm?), Which I personally virtually upgraded: 4 M-34FRN engines with increased flight performance, a modified landing gear, fuselage. I can see in real life how on both sides, in two streams, fall out for a minute of half a hundred paratroopers, and from the open ramp of T-27. Remember the shots of the landing chronicle from TB-3? It's some kind of horror! But under Vyazma it was necessary to do this in a combat situation. Agree that in 41 there was a significant the difference with what to land, and in the landing version won w even more, and the outcome of the operation could be more compelling. By and large, all operations with large landing forces fulfilled their strategic objectives, despite the losses. I will simply list you, but you try to object. Norway, Crete (ours), Sicily, Normandy Go
Llandia, even Vyazma.

[3x3zsave]

What are we dear? I asked a question, you didn’t answer, they don’t do that with respected ones.

[Cord127]

I wonder why no one is comparing with Li-2? BTA and Auxiliary in the DBA. Ant 5t. against 2 t. Lee, 40 passengers against 14 and this is with the M-34 against the M-62 IR. And build in Tbilisi. Someone can explain this.

[andrewkor]

Here I am talking about the same thing, about the specifications for 1931. And the production of the ANT-14 bis should be organized in Ulyanovsk, the ANT-9 in Tashkent!

[geologist]

I wonder how many days this plane would get from Vladik to the capital. If it was 3 days with 2 nights in terrible hotels with amenities in the courtyard and a terrible clatter in the air, then this would be a difficult test. You can refer to the Panamerican example with flights of four-engine amphibians to China over the ocean, but there was no alternative since the sea is also not honey and much longer. There was an alternative here - by train without a dummy and with cheap food from grandmothers on the stop.

[Arikkhab]

If you count it really - then at that time such a plane did not have obvious advantages over railway transport - flights only in the daytime (i.e. cruising speed of about 200 km / h X 8 hours of flight = 1600 km per day), which is comparable with a courier train that ran 24 hours a day with occasional stops with an incomparable level of comfort and price

[DimerVladimer]

ANT-14 is outdated as quickly as TB-1, TB-3. Its design was not borrowed in the future.
For the beginning of the 30s, it was a demonstrator of opportunities - the prestige of the USSR.

DC-3 brought a completely new design experience to the country - it really was a quality leap.
Absolutely excellent design experience from a domestic school, borrowed new technologies, new motors. More Soviet aircraft, gave only B-29.
Li-2 (DC-3) operated until the end of the 70s.
My father started on the Li-2 as a flight engineer flying north, then on the Il-14 - designed under the enormous influence of DC-3 and then on the Il-18.