Military Review

Barrel with motor

33



Exactly 85 years ago, 13 August 1932 of the year, the Granville “JB” R-1 racing aircraft took off for the first time. Despite the funny appearance, this machine has justified its purpose. Already September 3, the pilot James Doolittle, set a world speed record for land planes on her, speeding up to 477 km / h. It was almost one and a half times more than the best fighters of the time.

This result was achieved, despite the use of a star-shaped motor with a large “forehead”, a non-retractable landing gear and a wing with braces that created additional aerodynamic drag. The developers of “GBB” - the Granville brothers relied on the maximum reduction in the size of the car, which in fact was a well-cherished motor with a tiny cockpit and small wings. Thus, a reduction in frictional resistance was achieved. This also contributed to the careful alignment and polishing of all exterior surfaces. In addition, the smaller the design, the easier it is at equal strength.

The aircraft with an extremely short fuselage and a high load on the wing turned out to be insufficiently stable and rather dangerous. Both built copies - R-1 and R-2 - crashed in 1933 year, burying their pilots under the rubble. However, their concept undoubtedly influenced other developers of high-speed machines, including Nikolai Polikarpov, who, just in 1933, designed his famous fighter I-16.

Some authors even wrote that the 16 was almost a copy of “GB Bi” adapted for military use. Of course, this is not the case, although the similarity can be traced. It is especially noticeable on TsKB-12 - the first prototype of the "donkey", the 30 soared for the first time on December 1933 of the year. The same maximally shortened fuselage with a small closed cabin and a wide cylindrical hood, caused by a large motor diameter (by the way, few people probably know that the 16 was the shortest fighter of World War II).

True, Polikarpov provided the car with a significantly increased, compared to the "GB Bi", wing and tail to provide maneuverability and stability more or less acceptable for a fighter. However, due to the short shoulder of the removal of the steering surfaces, the 16 turned out to be too "fidgety" and difficult to manage, which caused many accidents. The pilots joked (or not quite joked) that those who mastered the 16 will be able to fly without fear on anything.

In general, it is impossible to say unequivocally whether the adoption of the concept of a racing “flying keg” was justified in a combat vehicle. I think the debate on this topic will go on for a long time.



The predecessor of the "Gee Bee" R-1 - aircraft "Gee Bee" model Z, built in 1929 year and reached a speed of 435 km / h.



R-1 in a cut. It can be seen that the aircraft had a mixed construction with a wooden wing and plumage.



James Doolittle, who set the world speed record for JB.



Doolittle gets out of the cockpit of the "JB" through the hinged door in the starboard. In an emergency, the door was dumped, but the pilot Russell Boardman, who crashed on this machine, did not manage to use the parachute.



TsKB-12 and the American fighter P-45, made on the basis of "Bi Bi". However, the bottom picture is just an artist’s fantasy, since military modifications of “GB Bi” never existed even in the project.
Author:
Originator:
http://vikond65.livejournal.com/655978.html
33 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. andrewkor
    andrewkor 19 August 2017 08: 39
    +1
    So our I-16 and American P-39,63 had such a concept beyond maneuverability and a similar design.
    1. Mik13
      Mik13 19 August 2017 11: 19
      +2
      Quote: andrewkor
      So our I-16 and American P-39,63 had such a concept beyond maneuverability and a similar design.

      This is not a concept, it is a little different ...
      Nevertheless, due to the short shoulder of the steering surfaces, the I-16 turned out to be unnecessarily “swivel” and difficult to operate, which caused many accidents.

      It's not about the shoulder, but at the centering. At I-16 it was extremely rear - up to 35% SAX on some machines. For comparison, the Yak-3 (which is considered to some extent the standard of controllability) had centering from 22,9% SAX to 25% SAX.
      For example, Bf-109e3 had centering normal 26,55% SAX, limits - 19,9-28,8% SAX for different boot options.
      The aerocobra had a very specific handling due to the unusual layout. They did not think of any super-maneuverability during its creation.
      1. Akuzenka
        Akuzenka 19 August 2017 21: 46
        +2
        the author does not know how much time has passed from the i-16 project, to the real prototype, and that’s fantasizing.
      2. Spitfire
        Spitfire 23 August 2017 07: 47
        0
        Aerocobra also had a problem with the rear alignment, which became even more “rear” when flying without an ammunition or as it was spent. And about the I-16 - it is not clear, the problem was known to everyone, especially on the latest overloaded modifications, was it really impossible to redo the engine mount and move the engine a bit forward.
        1. Alf
          Alf 23 August 2017 20: 43
          +3
          Quote: Spitfire
          Really it was impossible to redo the engine mount and take out the engine a bit forward.

          If you know at least a little production, you should know what it means to change a part in a series.
          1. Spitfire
            Spitfire 24 August 2017 09: 02
            0
            Know a little. LaGG-3 in La-5 somehow turned the same ... But in the USSR then the production technology included a lot of manual labor with fitting in place and finalizing with a file, so that it was possible. Another thing is that the release plan would have been disrupted for sure, the feed of the documentation would also have to be tested. And on the approach, the new generation was in the form of the Yak-1 and others.
            1. Alf
              Alf 24 August 2017 21: 32
              +1
              Quote: Spitfire
              Another thing is that the release plan would have been disrupted for sure, the feed of the documentation would also have to be tested. And on the approach, the new generation was in the form of the Yak-1 and others.

              They answered their own question.
              1. Spitfire
                Spitfire 25 August 2017 07: 37
                0
                You can also recall the I-17.
          2. Vladimir 5
            Vladimir 5 30 July 2018 17: 13
            -1
            The Spanish check (1936-37) showed the failed I-16 and further production should have stopped after 1940, but the war forced the I-16 modifications to be banned for some more time. The plane did not succeed, clearly did not justify the concept of a small and nimble, with difficult to control, fighter.
    2. Alf
      Alf 19 August 2017 14: 25
      +3
      Quote: andrewkor
      So our I-16 and American P-39,63 had such a concept beyond maneuverability and a similar design.

      And what is common in the design between the I-16 and P-39? Only one monoplane, low wing, single, single-engine is common. Everything else is completely different.
      1. Mik13
        Mik13 19 August 2017 16: 48
        0
        Quote: Alf
        And what is common in the design between the I-16 and P-39? Only one monoplane, low wing, single, single-engine is common. Everything else is completely different.

        What they have in common is extremely back centering. I-16 - as a characteristic feature of Polikarpov fighters - so that the machine was more maneuverable. At P-39 - as a feature of the layout. Especially - with spent ammunition.
        1. Alf
          Alf 19 August 2017 21: 34
          +1
          Quote: Mik13
          Quote: Alf
          And what is common in the design between the I-16 and P-39? Only one monoplane, low wing, single, single-engine is common. Everything else is completely different.

          What they have in common is extremely back centering. I-16 - as a characteristic feature of Polikarpov fighters - so that the machine was more maneuverable. At P-39 - as a feature of the layout. Especially - with spent ammunition.

          Only Ishak with such centering was made initially and consciously, and the Cobra was due to the fact that Larry Bell decided to install the most powerful gun on the plane.
      2. andrewkor
        andrewkor 20 August 2017 06: 14
        0
        I'm not talking about the Design, but about the Concept, instability, as a means of obtaining super mannered.
        1. Alf
          Alf 20 August 2017 15: 45
          0
          Quote: andrewkor
          I'm not talking about the construction,

          Pay attention to YOUR word from YOUR quote.
          So our I-16 and American P-39,63 had such a concept beyond maneuverability and a similar design.
  2. tasha
    tasha 19 August 2017 09: 40
    +1
    The article is interesting. Just in case, let me remind you that James Doolittle is the one that "Doolittle Raid". Here is a person’s life ...
  3. evil partisan
    evil partisan 19 August 2017 09: 40
    +1
    I’m wondering: are there braces on the horseradish ?? Indeed, at that time there were already mass-produced monoplanes. Flutter, chtoli?
  4. askold
    askold 19 August 2017 09: 50
    +6
    A bit about people ...
    Prior to the “flying barrel”, the world speed record belonged to the French SIMB Ferboa aircraft, set in 1924 by the French pilot Lieutenant Bonnet, about 450 km / h This record was not broken for the whole long 8 years. Bonnet retained the title of record holder until his death, died in 1929, during the testing of a new aircraft.
    James Doolittle was able to break the previous record only on the fourth attempt, returning the United States to the palm. A day later, Doolittle on his “barrel” wins the race for the Thompson prize by setting a record for the 406 km / h route, which was not beaten until 1936. At the same time, the pilot had to extinguish the fire that occurred under the engine hood during take-off with an onboard fire extinguisher. The plane was not damaged, and re-launching Doolittle safely reached the finish line. After that, Dolittle becomes a national hero, however, refused further flights on the GB, - "I have not heard that anyone who has dedicated himself to this work has lived to old age." Many accused him of cowardice, but this is not about him. Indeed, after a few years, it was Doolittle personally, at the helm, who would lead the impudent military operation, having made the first raid on Tokyo and a number of other Japanese cities, on the B-25 land bomber, starting from an aircraft carrier!
    Well, the prophetic words of Doolittle will come true a year later, in 1933, when the pilot Russell Boardman dies on takeoff on takeoff. The second copy of the plane crashed. The Greenville brothers collected one from two aircraft, but this “hybrid” crashed and was not allowed to race. Next, the car was bought by Cecil Allen, who wanted to participate in races. But he crashed on take-off ...
    1. Spitfire
      Spitfire 12 September 2017 10: 54
      0
      By the way, if we talk about absolute in speed, then in the 34th Italian seaplane M.72 was dispersed to 709 km / h (in a closed 100 km circle - 629 km / h). And this is still an absolute speed record for seaplane engines with piston engines.
  5. andrewkor
    andrewkor 19 August 2017 10: 34
    +1
    Quote: tasha
    The article is interesting. Just in case, let me remind you that James Doolittle is the one that "Doolittle Raid". Here is a person’s life ...

    I didn’t know, thanks for the information, and Alec Baldwin really looks like a prototype!
  6. Kenxnumx
    Kenxnumx 19 August 2017 11: 19
    +1
    So that's where Polikarpov got his ideas
    1. tasha
      tasha 19 August 2017 12: 01
      +1
      Is not a fact. After the advent of more or less powerful engines, the idea of ​​building a racing aircraft with small sizes arose among many designers. N.N. Polikarpov was able to create within the framework of this concept a real serial fighter, not a piece.
      1. evil partisan
        evil partisan 19 August 2017 12: 43
        +3
        Quote: tasha
        Not a fact.

        Also I think. Yes, there were not many ideas in aviation at that time. If you think about it, then in the 30s of aviation, the 30-nickname was still just fulfilled! As one designer wrote: everything came from the motor.
      2. geniy
        geniy 31 May 2018 09: 09
        0
        You do not take into account that this GB, in addition to the powerful motor, also had ugly aerodynamics. Its designers - six brothers lumberjacks aerodynamics simply did not know. And therefore, this shitty plane had fixed gear and cable braces. if they took care to make retractable landing gears and abandoned braces, then this aircraft, with its minimum dimensions, could easily accelerate to 700-800 kilometers per hour.
    2. 3x3zsave
      3x3zsave 19 August 2017 17: 11
      +1
      Ideas are in the air at every particular stage of the scientific and technological revolution.
    3. flyer
      flyer 21 August 2017 20: 03
      +1
      The laws of aerodynamics and the level of technological progress at that time determined the similarity of structures. The same can be said about the dispute between the Tu-144 and Concord. Nobody "licked" the concept
      1. yehat
        yehat 22 August 2017 11: 51
        0
        about Concord you don’t understand what you’re saying
        For more than 2 years the British and French had close contact with USSR engineers who were developing the Tu-144 when they were making their Concorde.
  7. artwin
    artwin 19 August 2017 15: 05
    +1
    with such a motor and the fence will fly
  8. evil partisan
    evil partisan 19 August 2017 20: 01
    +1
    Quote: artwin
    with such a motor and the fence will fly

    I remember back in the 70s the news showed how in the United States modelers forced to fly a stool with a motor. .How we envied! Not every model flew with our Falcon ...
  9. Curious
    Curious 19 August 2017 23: 02
    +2

    A photo that allows you to understand the extent of interest in air races of those years. Small dots that fill the entire right side of the image are parked cars. A long row of stands stretched up and down in the center. To the left of the stands you can see the finish line.
    https://fakel-history.ru/dzhimmi-dullitl-ukrotite
    l-ji-bi / - Translation of the article “Doolittle Tames The Gee Bee” from the Aviation History magazine (Jimmy Dolittle is a GB tamer).
    1. dumkopff
      dumkopff 20 August 2017 13: 16
      0
      I was more impressed with the photos from the Dnepr exercises. A regiment or more in one photograph. And the tanks. To the horizon.
      1. Curious
        Curious 20 August 2017 13: 36
        0
        Don't you find that these are slightly different things?
  10. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 20 August 2017 14: 43
    +2
    Add the figure I-16 for comparison
  11. Dedmazay
    Dedmazay 10 September 2017 13: 56
    0
    Do not confuse the record and serial combat aircraft! And yet - I-16 awesomely elegant machine, in experienced hands, worthy of fighting for many years!