Against Polikarpov. Fighter-185, or the history of meanness and betrayal

447
Perhaps some admirers of the entire Soviet who do not know the principle “do not make yourself an idol” will condemn me. I absolutely do not want to spit in the Soviet past, for this there is a drud and all that, but I have long wanted to give a picture of what was happening.

Understanding is a very complicated thing. Especially when you begin to really understand that everything could be different. And - especially - in our aviation 40s of the last century.



The speech, as everyone already understood, will be about the actual murder of the most talented designer Nikolai Polikarpov. It is clear that no one mixed it with poison and did not put it on the wall. But that was how it happened, without poison and bullets.

Question: can Polikarpov be considered holy, around which there was one ... one known substance? Yes, Nikolai Nikolayevich was a man alien to convulsions alien to the society in which he had to live and work. Alas, it is. But there were many worthy, honest and principled people in his life. I will try to mention them to the maximum.

Serpentarium, which was called “the Soviet school of aircraft designers,” was exactly what I called it in one of the past articles. But here without sentiment: the built aircraft are awards, orders, immunity. And for this you could go on any meanness and stabs in the back.

So it happened on the whole with this remarkable man and the ingenious designer - Nikolai Polikarpov.

Against Polikarpov. Fighter-185, or the history of meanness and betrayal


Let's start with the facts about which I already wrote in the materials on the MiG-3 and I-180. That is from 1939 of the year.

Before the Rubicon


So, 1939 year. We can say that the OKB Polikarpov ended it with good results. In fact, the project “Ivanov” was worked out, which then became Su-2, the SPB bomber was created on the basis of HIT-2, and, of course, all forces were sent to the introduction of the I-180 series.

And there was a project work for the future. First, we worked on a high-altitude fighter project “K” / project 61 under the motor AM-37.

And the designer himself worked on another fighter project under the air cooling engine of S. K. Tumansky or A. D. Shvetsov. The design bureaus of these engineers created the same two-row “stars” with the power of 1600-2000 hp.

Polikarpov kept these works secret, and for good reason.

At the end of 1939, after the conclusion of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Polikarpov was sent to Germany as part of the Soviet delegation. Yes, the trip was more than useful, our engineers were able to get acquainted with weapons former enemy in the war in Spain personally.

But on his return, Polikarpov was forced to do things so far from design that I would not want to be in his place.

Soviet-style robbery


While Polikarpov in Germany was studying the “Messerschmitts” and “Heinkels”, his EDB was crushed. At the plant # XXUMX, director Artem Mikoyan created his own development department headed by himself and Mikhail Gurevich. The new structure of the rake from the Polykarpov design bureau is everything that could be reached. From ordinary employees to leading engineers.

True, not everyone voluntarily ran over to Mikoyan, like Gurevich. There were people who had to be persuaded, there were those who were even intimidated. But in the end, Mikoyan and Gurevich took about 80 human engineers and promising projects from the Polikarpov Design Bureau.

When, after the death of Mikhail Iosifovich Gurevich, his name was instantly excluded from the name of the company, I think it is true even from some side.

Polikarpov, for the sake of justice, threw candy. Awarded the Stalin Prize for the creation of the MiG-1. And he was appointed director and chief designer of the plant number XXUMX, which at that time did not even exist. In this position, Polikarpov remained until his death. Not for long, in general.

In general, the plane was stolen (in general, two, "Ivanov", as it were, too, "flew away"), they were put out of the factory, the designers were taken away. What time is it? That's right, based on the experience and data obtained in Germany, to start building a new aircraft!

Against "Focke-Wulf"


Nikolai Nikolayevich with the remaining loyal employees begins work on the project "62". He - and-185.



In general, the implementation of the I-180 was still going, but the I-185 promised to be better. And-180 met the requirements of that time and even exceeded them. But, having been in Germany, Nikolai Nikolayevich understood that other modifications would follow the Bf-109D, and Kurt Tank, who loved to boast under schnapps, also hinted that they had something to do with it.

Foresight of a genius or tishkom information received? We will never know the truth, but the fact is: Yakovlev, Lavochkin, Gorbunov, Pashinin rushed to create airplanes similar to 109. Polikarpov began work on a completely different machine.

The main working qualities of the future aircraft were vertical and horizontal maneuver, high speed and rate of climb, weapons. Polikarpov best represented what should be the fighter of the future war. And the fact that he succeeded (I-185) was not the beginning of the plane, but the end of that war.

An analysis of the state of German aviation showed that more advanced modifications of Bf-109E would soon appear, and what was created in the Focke-Wolfe was not clear at all.

It is difficult to give an answer, not seeing the subject of confrontation, but it was not for nothing that Polikarpov bore the title “King of Fighters”.

"Give the motor!"


It is clear what will be discussed now. The fact that for an ingenious machine need not even ingenious, but the engine. Which will move this car.

And the engine should be more powerful than M-88, from which they began to dance with I-180. The engines were theoretically, but Polikarpov ordered the laying of 4 machines at once for the installation of different engines. Not intentionally.

Further, as always, the Soviet detective story about engines began.

The first version of the I-185 was designed under the M-90 motor of the Zaporizhzhya Design Bureau, the HP 1750 with power. A good indicator, by the year 1942 was brought to 2080 hp

25 May 1940 completed the construction of the 185 and under the M-90. By this time, and received the first M-90. The motor was completely non-working. Note that the first flight of an 185 could have been made in June 1940.

History With the M-90, she began to drag out, and the Commissar of the aviation industry Shahurin, realizing the importance of the case, gives instructions to install an M-185 motor with an 71 power in one of the ready-made copies of the I-2000. The M-71 was considerably heavier than the M-90 and had a larger diameter. It was a 18-cylinder two-row engine. The estimated speed with it went somewhere in the region of 650-660 km / h, that is, a head taller than LaGG-1 and Yak-1. And comparable to the MiG-1.

Receipts M-71 waited until it stops, but the engine was not ready. And in November 1940 of the year Shakhurin with his power ordered to put on the I-185 one more motor of the Shvetsov Design Bureau, M-81. 14-cylinder and with power 1600 hp

Minus 400 "horses" - not good, but so far tolerated.

But M-81 also entered the Design Bureau only in December and ... in non-working condition! By own forces the motor was put in order. Until the final death of the engine, the aircraft performed 16 flights. The speed of the defective engine, issued from the power 1400 hp turned out to be close to 500 km / h. That confirmed the calculations of Polikarpov and instilled optimism and confidence.

In March, 1941, the flights were officially stopped by Yakovlev’s order, because the aviation industry commissar decided not to engage in fine-tuning the M-81 engine.

But there was a ray of hope. The first motor M-71 was received!

And right there, Polikarpov sends a complaint to Yakovlev: the motor has 15% less power than stated and 13% higher than the nominal weight. The second M-71, received after it, weighed 1079 kg instead of the 975 declared, but at least produced the specified number of “horses”.

The motor worked disgustingly. All attempts to debug it failed. The lousy M-71 also worked for Sukhoi on the Su-6 attack aircraft.

As a result, all three instances of the I-185 were on the ground with a very vague prospect of waiting for the moment when the motors would be brought to standard. Or, as Polikarpov wrote in the report, “to a state allowing at least minimal risk of testing the aircraft.”

The situation was not easy. Just a year ago, the idea of ​​another purchase of imported engines for the next copy soared in the air. This time it was about the American "Wright" and "Pratt-Whitney." But they refused the idea, because they seemed to have their own approach.

However, they did not pull their own, and M-90, M-81 and M-71 hung in the finalization stage for more than a year.

There was an attempt to buy a few BMW-801 from "friends" from Germany, but they frankly delayed the question, and in 1941, the Germans were no longer such friends, and they refused to sell motors.

In fact, it took Polikarpov a year to tear the 185 off the ground. On the eve of the war - a luxury.

If you read Yakovlev's book “The Purpose of Life”, then there is quite cynically signs Polikarpov’s defeat in the fight against “young unknown designers” (quoted by Yakovlev). As I said, they were not so young and completely unknown. Rather, on the contrary, very similar to all rooms. Deputy People's Commissar of the aviation industry, head of the department of the same NCAP, curators of plants in the NCAP system, brother of the Minister of Foreign Trade and colleague of Stalin.

Is it possible to justify Polikarpov? Need to. 4 relocation for 4 of the year, withdrawal of the best employees, the actual defeat of the KB - how is it?

And Yakovlev writes: “He (Polikarpov) perfectly understood ... that to be empty-handed in front of the Motherland at the most difficult time for her is not only a personal failure.”

Indeed, in those days Polikarpov was gloomy. It was from what. And it was something to rejoice Yakovlev.

However, the war put everything in its place, and non-Polikarpov fighters were powerless against the Germans. And-16, sorry, was weaker, and this was not a secret. The latest fighters of Yakovlev and the rest were beaten by the Messers. And this is a fact from which it is difficult to get out.

But on the part of Alexander Sergeevich, it was simply blasphemous to reproach Polikarpov, who had already died by that time, that he had not provided the proper fighter. The fighters gave "young and unknown". And the fact that all three new Soviet fighters were absolutely no match for Bf-109 - wasn Polikarpov really to blame?

Fools and scoundrels


Meanwhile, the motor for the I-185 was. All the same Shvetsova. All in the same Perm. Arkady Dmitrievich performed a double miracle for those times.



The first is to create an 82 M-1700 horsepower. and (especially valuable), the motor was very small in diameter, just 1260 mm.

Secondly, he defended his engine when an order came from NCAP to switch the plant to water cooling engines. With the help of the first secretary of the Perm regional committee of the party, Gusarov Shvetsov managed to break through to the reception to Stalin.

The whole problem of that time was precisely that Stalin physically could not accept and listen to everyone. Alas. Even without being a specialist in the industry, Iosif Vissarionovich understood that Shakhurin and Yakovlev were making obvious idiocy, trying to transfer the plant from the production of air-cooled engines to liquid ones. A completely different process.

In early May 1941, after meeting with Shvetsov, Stalin canceled the NCAP resolution on the Perm plant, and then decided to transfer the M-82 to repeated state tests. Motor tests passed, and 17 May was the ruling on the launch of the series.

Yes, when Stalin straightened out his subordinates, things went very quickly. But half a year is still lost.

It is interesting to me, but what would Yakovlev and Shakhurin babble in their memoirs and who would they blame for the fact that suddenly there were no motors for La-5, La-7, Tu-2?

By the way, the ASH-82 in modifications after the war regularly carried not only airplanes, but also helicopters. La-9, La-11, Yak-11, Il-12, Il-14, Mi-4 - it all flew exactly on ASH-82. And the direct descendants still plow in our aviation even today.

It looked like a 57-mm anti-tank gun. They took it off, abandoned it, and when it turned out that there was nothing to beat the Tigers, they ran like skirts, loyally looking Stalin in the eye with the question: “What are we going to do, Comrade Stalin”?

And after death all to blame on the commander in chief. Not spotted, did not stop, did not order.

Yes, Shakhurin, to his credit, served it and later admitted mistakes in his memoirs. Yakovlev did not fall to apologies. But I’m sure if they had the opportunity to write memoirs after such a scenario, I’m sure they would have unanimously accused Stalin, who did not stop them.

Yakovlev repeatedly robbing Polikarpov


So, at the end of 1940, we still seemed to have a plane, head and shoulders superior to the designs of the “young and early”. Well, on paper, at least.

It is clear that the NKAP was completely uninterested in I-180 and I-185 machines, there were enough people around and around who were hungry for orders and awards. It's clear.

In general, all that was needed was in the interests of the country to give Polikarpov an opportunity to bring the plane to mind, and Shvetsov to build motors. Both of them, in fact, just wanted to do this.

But no, the NKAP by all means slows down this line. And only 5 May 1941, Polikarpov, finally, receives an official task for the I-185 with M-82.



By that time, the OKB had two versions of the aircraft: using the existing fuselage and building a new, somewhat elongated one - specially for M-82.

Moreover, having forgiven Mikoyan, Polikarpov began work on a unified propeller group, since at that time it had become clear that the MiG-3 was, to put it mildly, “not a cake”. And he needs another motor. And initially the MiG was developed precisely by Polykarpov people.

The I-185 speed was estimated at 600-625 km / h. That is better than any of the "young and early." But this is not the main thing. Speed ​​is great. How to fight?

According to the draft design, completed in May, the armament of the 185 and the M-82 consisted of three (!!!) synchronous ShVAK guns and two synchronous ShKAS machine guns. And you could still stick in the wing on the ShKASU.

Brilliantly placing all this battery around the engine, Polikarpov did not give chances to any of the Germans, not even the five-point "Messerschmitt", since the three synchronized guns are three synchronous guns.

This, when compared, is FW-190. But 190-th is, sorry, 1943 year. But not 1941. And again, the "Focke-Wulf" cannon in the wings. That is - the spread. And-185 is more accurate at the output, which means more efficiently.

E-185 with M-82A made the first flight in August 1941. In September, flights began at the flight test institute. Simultaneously with the tests and X-Numx with the motor M-185.

Even with a very raw M-71 engine, which also constantly messed up, the I-185 M-71 showed a speed of 620 km / h. The prospect of using air-cooled engines has become obvious, and please appreciate what Yakovlev did.

By order of Yakovlev, the drawings of the I-185 propeller group with the M-82A and the installation of the ShVAK synchronous guns were transferred to the Lavochkin Design Bureau, Mikoyan, Yakovlev. This greatly accelerated the work on the creation of aircraft with air-cooled engines La-5, MiG-9М-82 (version MiG-3) and Yak-7М-82.

And Polikarpov? What about him?

And with Polikarpov Shakhurin and Yakovlev did a very peculiar way.

In October, 1941, the work in the Design Bureau was stopped due to evacuation. Polikarp's OKB was evacuated to Novosibirsk, but not to an aircraft factory. At the aircraft factory number XXUMX moved ... Yakovlev Design Bureau!

And Polikarpov was provided with the premises of the city menagerie and the aeroclub airfield ...

In general, it is very difficult for me to assess the human qualities of Polikarpov. When you are beaten in the back like that every day and spit in your face, when your plane is not allowed to fly by all means, an understanding of the deepest spirituality and love for your Motherland of this person arises.

Five months - and in February 1942 for state tests are presented with the I-185 M-71 and I-185 M-82А. 28 March these tests successfully completed.

Challenge trials


Test pilot Pyotr Emelyanovich Loginov wrote in his flight assessment:

Huge for a fighter payload, 500 kg bombs, 8 RS, 3 ShVAK with a huge stock (almost 200 on the barrel) shells. Excellent take-off and landing properties of the aircraft. Great speeds above the ground and in height, very good climb rate give me the right to conclude that the plane X-NUMX M-185 is one of the best fighters in the world.




Pyotr Emelyanovich Loginov tested many airplanes of that time: La-5, La-5Н, And-153, MiG-1. He made the first flight on the 185 and carried out combat tests of the aircraft. Peter Loginov died in 1944 in a battle with four German fighters.

His son, captain Valentin Petrovich Loginov, died in the 1962 year, to the last turning away the emergency fighter from the large village of Angelovo near Moscow (it still exists today near Mitino).



Can you not believe the words of such people?

Leading Engineer of the Scientific-Research Institute of the Air Force Iosif Gavrilovich Lazarev:



1) The I-185 M-71 aircraft, in its flight characteristics, is higher than all existing domestic production and foreign aircraft.
2) According to the piloting technique and take-off and landing properties, the aircraft is simple and accessible to middle and lower-level pilots ...
3) ... When tested, the plane lifted 500 kg of bombs (2х250 kg) and took off and landed with 4 bombs on 100 kg.


And finally, the general conclusion of the Air Force Institute:

The I-185 M-71, armed with three synchronous guns ShVAK-20, meets the modern requirements of the front and can be recommended for use by the Red Army Air Force ...
I-185 M-82 ... second only to the I-185 M-71 aircraft, surpassing all production aircraft, both ours and foreign ones ...
The piloting technique is similar to the I-185 M-71, i.e. simple and affordable for pilots below average qualifications.


Immediately after the state tests, a flight was carried out by front-line pilots who received airplanes in Novosibirsk. The commander of the 18 Guards IAP, Major Chertov, and the squadron commander Captain Tsvetkov wrote to Shakhurin in a memo from 1.04.42:

"After flying around the I-185 M-71, we report our considerations: speed, maneuverability, armament, ease of take-off and landing, low mileage and takeoff, X-NUMX type X-NUMX, survivability in combat, similar to I-16, comparative lightness and pleasantness in the technique of piloting, the possibility of repair in the field, the ease of retraining pilots, especially with the I-24, give the right to recommend to start this aircraft into mass production.


But it's too early to start rejoicing. So, it seemed that a panacea against the Messers was found, it only remains to put on stream, and ...

And no decision on the aircraft followed.

You can start to wonder.

And all the more surprising, because 24 December 1941, after testing the captured Bf-109F at the Air Force Institute, the institute management sent AS. Yakovlev letter, which, in particular, said: "Currently, we do not have a fighter with flight tactical data better or at least equal to Me-109F."

And then the question arises: “we” - who is this? Filled with honors, awards and money Yakovlev, Mikoyan and Gorbunov and his comrades?

Many people who write on this subject often say, they say, the NCA has made a bet on La-5. And here is just some bitterness of understanding. Well, who are you trying to deceive, gentlemen? La-5 began to undergo factory testing only in March of the 1942 year, what are you all about?

And honestly, after the titanic efforts of the creators of LaGG-3, who struggled to breathe life into their aircraft. Yes, Lavochkin succeeded. But how!

The plane itself was created underground. And collected Semyon Alekseevich La-5 in a barn on the outskirts of the plant in Gorky. And if it had not been for the first secretary of the Gorky regional party committee (the party intervened again) Mikhail Ivanovich Rodionov, who took the risk and went to Stalin to report to La-5, it is not known how it would be with him (La-5).

In defense of Lavochkin, I want to say that although La-5 was inferior in flight data and armament of the I-185 with the M-82, it also had a certain advantage. Launch 5 can be adjusted to the factories producing LaGG-3, which was as many as five. What, in fact, happened in practice.

Perhaps the defenders have in mind that Yakovlev relied on his fighter with an air-cooled engine Yak-7 M-82. Yes, in fact it was a good aircraft with good weapons. And not the fact that when bringing to mind this car would be worse than La-5.

But I-185 was already !!! Flew !!! He fought !!!

And the best result of the work of the I-185 is, from my point of view, the act, which was signed by the head of the Air Force Scientific Research Institute, Major General P. Losyukov 29 January 1943.

Aircraft I-185 with M-71 design Comrade. Polikarpov, armed with three synchronous guns ShVAK-20 with 500 ammunition ammunition, with a fuel reserve of 470 kg, is the best modern fighter.
By maximum speed, climb and vertical maneuver, the I-185 with the M-71 surpasses the domestic and latest production aircraft of the enemy (Me-109-2 and FV-190).


The final blow and the lie of Yakovlev


Everything seemed to be going well: an excellent fighter is launched into the series, which surpasses all existing modern aircraft, moreover, it has already developed modifications ...

But the decision to adopt the I-185 was not followed.

The fate of I-185 was decided by the discussion of the letter, which February Polikarpov wrote to 4 in the name of Stalin. Really fearing new delays and bases.

All the meanness of the moment, oddly enough, was described by Yakovlev in his book The Purpose of Life. I have in the library two copies of this book. 1972 and 1987's. So, during the 6 reprints, Yakovlev spoke more and more about I-185. He gave the truth on a teaspoon, but nonetheless.

In the last edition, Yakovlev writes the following legend:

... And-180 was built in the amount of three copies. At the first of them, Valery Chkalov died at the very beginning of the flight tests. On the second, after a short time, the military test pilot Susi crashed. Later on the third I-180, the famous tester Stepanchenok, making an emergency landing due to the engine being stopped, did not reach the airfield, crashed into the hangar and burned.


It is clear why Yakovlev needed to pull out two AND-180 and one AND-185 from all the AND-180 and AND-185, to issue them as 3 experienced AND-180, each of which killed a test pilot. I wrote about this in the beginning. Orders, awards, glory and honor.

... Shakhurin and I tried to objectively evaluate the car and give it as much more comprehensive information as possible. But since the plane passed only part of the factory tests, it was impossible to give a final conclusion.


But Malenkov was left with THREE state tests at the Scientific-Research Institute of the Air Force, and testimonies of test pilots and front-line pilots, which, unlike Yakovlev, appreciated the car, were attached to the acts.

I just assume that “an attempt to objectively evaluate a car” was just as objective and truthful as the fairy tale in the book for the masses… Suffering, in general, comrades Shakhurin and Yakovlev tried.

But honestly, Shakhurin didn’t go into design business. He was a production coordinator. For design affairs he had a whole deputy. Yakovlev.

There are a lot of reasons why the 185 did not go into the series. And the plant was not free, and the production was rebuilt for a long time, the undecided M-71 motor ...

Problems with the motor - this is the reason that touched all designers. Let's just say this is a black line that stretches across the history of our aircraft. But the motor was!

But there were those “young unknown” designers who really wanted to become kings. And they absolutely didn’t like the situation of having a plane that was superior to their car. Lavochkin and Gudkov in 1942 would simply not have started working on La-5 and Gu-82, but they would have been completely unclear on what position.

Yes, and Yakovlev would have very difficult. And-185 is not Yak-1, Yak-7, Yak-9 and not even Yak-3. Unable to resist the Messerschmitt and Focke-Wulfs, they too would not be needed.

It turns out that I-185 was needed only to Polikarpov, fighter pilots, and even engine builders.

Meanwhile, already in the sky of Stalingrad, Bf-109G-2 showed its complete superiority over all Yakovlev fighters (Yak-1, Yak-7, Yak-9) in speed, rate of climb and armament. Yes, and appeared in the same La-5 speed advantage was minimal, only the ground afterburner.

The I-185 with the M-71 motor exceeded Bf-109G-2 near the ground at 75-95 km / h, at the height of 3-5 km - at 65-70 mm / h, at 6000 m - at 55 km / h, and only at altitudes 7,5 - 8 km speed advantage passed to the "Messerschmitt". But there they somehow did not fight on the Eastern Front.

It remains to acknowledge finally ...


We have to admit that in that war we fought with numbers. But not quality. Yes, quantitative superiority in the sky is, of course, good, but when this amount is achieved by such things as dismantling “all unnecessary” type of oxygen equipment, machine guns, ammunition from an airplane ...

And with one gun to go against the "Messerschmitt", who had from 3 to 5 trunks and "Focke-Wulf" with six barrels, four of which are cannon.

However, I already wrote about this in the article about the Yak-1.

By and large, while in the NKAP and the Air Force Research Institute were engaged in what has always been called fraud. Very often you meet today the reasoning about how important the number of aircraft is for winning air superiority. This amount of 22.06.1941 helped a lot, for some reason nobody remembered. And Germany and the Allies had almost 5 000 planes against 11 000 from the Red Army Air Force.

In general, one can talk endlessly about the turns of Yakovlev and Shakhurin. Especially about Yakovlev, a man with a not very clear conscience.

Yes, in the end we managed in that war without AND-180 and AND-185. We have done a lot without what. Without the industry of Ukraine, lost in the first year, without bread of the Chernozem region, without trained and competent military leaders, without an army ready for war ...

We did a lot without what. The question is - at what cost. But we know the price paid by the Soviet people. And we must understand that each such "cost" is measured in a certain number of human lives.

It is very strange today, even after 80 years, it looks like this. Excellent samples of military equipment did not even reach the series at all (I-180, I-185, Su-6, ZiS-2), or they required such efforts that it is even strange to talk about it today. No need to go for examples and here, it suffices to recall the stories of the emergence of IL-2, Tu-2, T-34, Su-100.

Polikarpov was comforted by another sop - the Stalin Prize for the I-185. But money is dead to nothing. The order to design a high-altitude interceptor with an airtight cabin based on an I-185 also turned out to be nothing.

Cancer of the esophagus in 52, dumped Polikarpov. 30 July, 1944, Nikolai Nikolayevich is gone.

Immediately after the death of Polikarp's OKB, it was disbanded, all projects were stopped and closed. On the basis of the Design Bureau V.N. Chelomey created his design bureau, which was engaged in the creation of cruise missiles.

What have we lost? What have we acquired? It is difficult to judge.

Based on:
Ivanov V.P. Unknown Polikarpov.
Yakovlev A. S. The purpose of life.
Shavrov V. B. The history of aircraft designs in the USSR 1938-1950.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

447 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +16
    18 May 2019 04: 38
    Thank you, very interesting article!
    She opened her eyes to many things.
  2. +18
    18 May 2019 04: 52
    And they say, Stalin is a bloody terran, and BERIA DID NOT WORK
  3. +24
    18 May 2019 05: 17
    We still have the main time to lick, go in line with the party, be photogenic, and so on, the mind is shorter is not very important, because the proverb help talents, mediocrity will break through not for nothing appeared, that's how Sikorsky helicopters appeared in America
    1. 0
      22 May 2019 12: 47
      And not only Sikorsky, but many more
  4. +20
    18 May 2019 05: 28
    Yes, when Stalin straightened out his subordinates, things went very quickly. But half a year is still lost.
    Yes, he is with us since time immemorial goes, and now it is no better. Only in those days it was hard to escape with the billions of state funds stolen to the West, and now the head of one of the Roskosmos directorates, MEDIUM OF SECRETS, without problems, did not go much abroad, and sent his family with the loot there in advance ... Well this is so ...
    1. +5
      19 May 2019 18: 08
      Quote: Fitter65
      the head of one of the offices of Roskosmos, the MEDIUM OF SECRETS, without problems, did not go much abroad,

      Here you can sleep peacefully - all the secrets of Roscosmos have long been stolen and sold out. It seems that he pulled away from the fact that there was nothing more to trade.
  5. +18
    18 May 2019 05: 31
    Somewhat emotionally, but fairly ... and sadly, the author raised a very painful topic, or rather many topics, but the fact remains that cuts and raider attacks are not the invention of restructuring ..., aviation is just in sight ... that happened in other industries covered in darkness. Unfortunately, Stalin was not enough for everyone ..., yes, the myth of his power is tenacious, but the king is retinue, and the retinue is not at all interested in exposing the myth ....
  6. +12
    18 May 2019 06: 18
    This, when compared, is FW-190. But 190-th is, sorry, 1943 year. But not 1941. And again, the "Focke-Wulf" cannon in the wings. That is - the spread.
    The first combat sortie of the FW-190A-1 in the Luftwaffe records from JG26 dates back to July 1941, with the British, who identified it as a captured French Curtiss "Hawk" 75 a month later. At the end of 1941, the units already had a modification of the FW-190A-3. In November 1941. several FW-190A-1s were sent to the Eastern Front for testing. The first FW-190A-3, on the Eastern Front, received I / JG1942 "Molders" in September 51. It's about 1943.
    By arming ...

    We see that only two points are spaced behind the landing gear, two machine guns above the engine, and two guns in the wing root. Moreover, the F and G modifications of the external guns were removed, or rather they were not even put.
  7. +5
    18 May 2019 06: 24
    I also have the memoirs of Yakovlev. And there are memoirs of Pokryshkin, which describes the meeting of a combat pilot with Yakovlev. And I'm trying to remember how many winged cars left the Yakovlev Design Bureau after the war and were operated for a long time. Yak-11, Yak-18, Yak-50 (52), well maybe Yak-40 and Yak-42. Everything else either did not go into the series, or was operated for a very short time. Does this mean something?
    1. +6
      18 May 2019 08: 24
      You forgot the Yak-28 and Yak-38.
      This does not mean anything. Reactive Lavochkin also after the war was released sparsely.
      1. +3
        18 May 2019 21: 23
        Well, Lavochkin Design Bureau has been successfully working "for space" for a long time - I don't see any sedition in this, rather, on the contrary: people have gone forward, into new, more complex spheres of activity ...
      2. 0
        18 May 2019 21: 52
        after the end of the war and the beginning of the reaktina era - the designers were told that reducing the army also means reducing military spending
        In addition, the Soviet Union moved from the concept of design offices - to the concept of industry research institutes and then KB
        Khrushchev just said that airplanes are nonsense - we need to make rockets
        Many faced the question of either rocketing or disbanding
        Sukhoi was disbanded - he later recovered miraculously on copying saibra
        Myasishchev did not receive the promised KB
        Lavochkin agreed on the rocket
      3. +2
        19 May 2019 18: 14
        Quote: kvs207
        You forgot the Yak-28 and Yak-38.
        This does not mean anything. Reactive Lavochkin also after the war was released sparsely.

        You forgot the serial Yak-25, Yak-27 and helicopter Yak-24.
        But, for example, the Yak-28 officially never was put into service, the military refused to sign documents. Nevertheless, the supply of the Air Force entered. Like the pre-war Yak-2 and Yak-4, about the combat use of which they are shamefully silent, and there were several hundred of them.
      4. +1
        20 May 2019 11: 22
        Quote: kvs207
        You forgot the Yak-28 and Yak-38.
        This does not mean anything. Reactive Lavochkin also after the war was released sparsely.

        Lavochkin died in the 1960 year, from the beginning of the 50's, his design bureau was redesigned for cruise missiles, which is why he did not have a large number of jet aircraft.
        Yak-38 called a full-fledged aircraft somehow hard. It is clear that the first pancake is lumpy, but a combat aircraft with a radius of 200 km and a combat load of 1 ton? During operation, almost 25% of aircraft were lost in accidents. Without radar ...
      5. 0
        22 May 2019 09: 32
        Reactive Lavochkin also after the war was released sparsely.

        KB Lavochkin was translated to a different topic. He created the Tempest and experienced it almost successfully. If the Queen's "seven" had not flown, the Tempest would have been on alert. And in the future, the Lavochkin Design Bureau was occupied with space topics and still exists.
      6. 0
        22 May 2019 12: 49
        And still yak23,25
    2. +10
      18 May 2019 09: 48
      Yak-40 is one of the most numerous and reliable machines of Aeroflot, 1011 airplanes are released! The workhorse of the civilian fleet, the world's first jet aircraft for local airlines with the comfort of linear aircraft.
      1. +7
        18 May 2019 11: 48
        You forgot the Yak-28 and Yak-38.


        Yak-25, an excellent interceptor with a serious locator. "Airplane-samosad".
        A tall weight culture that has always distinguished the aircraft of this design bureau. And the pearl is the training Yak-30, completely undeservedly forgotten.
        Aircraft makes a team of people under the leadership of the Chief.
        And it is necessary to talk about wartime planes, taking into account the realities of the industry, and not "Wishlist" and performance characteristics.
        The two-row star "air" to Polikarpov was already installed on pre-production aircraft by the Germans, the Japanese, and the British. The fact that we did not have an engine in the 40th, and in the 42nd it was already easier to plug the engine into the serial LAGG - what a is there "bullying" and "intrigue"? The right informed choice.
        1. -5
          18 May 2019 13: 23
          Question: what is better than 100 I-185 made of scarce aluminum or 400 wooden La-5s and in them 100 fighters trained according to the 3-4 times stronger program or 400 "yellow-horns", which even aerobatics only knew in theory?
          Alas, Comrade. Stalin preferred quantity, not quality.
          1. 0
            18 May 2019 16: 40
            Quote: dmmyak40
            Alas, Comrade. Stalin preferred quantity, not quality.

            15 December 1938 G.V.P. Chkalov lifted the car (I-180) into the air. Trying to reach the airfield, the pilot tried to increase the engine speed, but the plane fell on the way to the airfield. (Chkalov died) Two subsequent accidents and even a catastrophe also occurred on subsequent aircraft instances, and work on it was stopped.
            Several I-185 aircraft were used on the Kalinin front during World War II. The fighter’s fate was further complicated by the fact that one of the best test pilots, V. A. Stepanchonok, died on one of the flights on it.
            1. +3
              18 May 2019 18: 30
              In addition to Chkalov and Stepanchenko, Thomas Susy is also a pilot of the NIIAP.
              1. +1
                18 May 2019 18: 32
                In general, this is a separate chapter in the memoirs of Stefanovsky.
          2. +9
            18 May 2019 17: 27
            Q: What is better 100 and 185 from deficient aluminum or wooden 400 La-5


            You can imagine the ready-made equipment of three factories, plazas, templates, documentation, woodworking machines, sharpened for specific operations, trained people - and all this in war conditions, throw away nafig and a new one ... And even from woodworking and glue to switch to a new one for the plant and in addition the scarce duralumin with riveting, casting and milling. How long will it take and for what? Exactly the same aircraft by and large? After all, the duralumin FW.190 is not really a "super miracle", and they learned how to fight it on the same wooden La-5. And tactics, and the same number so unloved by you

            On planes weighing 3 -3,5 tons of gain in duralumin is not very big in front of the tree, the only thing is the durability of the airframe. The decision on La-5 is reasonable and correct at the time. .
            And even funnier is that Kurt Tank (the creator of Focke Wolfe 190) in the middle of the war tried to establish mass production wooden !!! twin-engined aircraft - and, lo and behold - such a "simple" thing was too tough. Either the glue is not the right one, the machines are not the right ones, then the time is short. Him, poor thing, even to judge !!!! wanted for failure.
            1. +5
              18 May 2019 18: 50
              Quote: dauria
              Can you imagine the ready-made equipment of the three plants, plazas, templates, documentation, woodworking machines, sharpened for specific operations, trained people, and all this in the conditions of war throw nafig and a new one .... But even with the woodworking and glue, switch to a new one for the plant and in addition deficient duralumin with stamping riveting, casting and milling. What time will it take and for what? Exactly the same aircraft by and large?

              And you imagine that at the time of launching a series, at one of the factories, ready-made plazas, templates, documentation, plant machines were sharpened for a specific operation, the people of this plant have been producing aircraft of similar design for several years - and all this was thrown away ..... Yes, even with a mixed design go to a completely new wooden product for the plant .... Guess what plant and aircraft are we talking about?
              1. +2
                19 May 2019 18: 19
                Quote: KERMET
                and all this was thrown away nafig and everything is new ..... And even with a mixed design, go to a completely new wooden product for the plant .... Guess what plant and aircraft are we talking about?

                I'm afraid most did not understand what it was about you. I completely agree. Switching from I-16 to I-185 would be easier and faster than on LaGG-3.
                1. +1
                  20 May 2019 12: 19
                  Familiarize yourself with the construction of the 185 in more detail:
                  https://naukatehnika.com/istrebitel-polikarpov-i-185.html
                  https://naukatehnika.com/istrebitel-polikarpov-i-185-2.html
                  I think you are wrong.
              2. +1
                20 May 2019 08: 47
                for several years produce a similar design aircraft
                - This is similar in design, may I ask? Isn't it an 16? Compare the construction of the 16 and the 185. More closely. Be surprised at the number of differences.
                1. +1
                  20 May 2019 10: 31
                  it was about the current situation at the plant №21 of the end of 40-beginning of 41 of the year, therefore I compared 16 with I-180 (their designs are similar), and if we recall about I-185, then it was smoothly planned from I-180 Е7 ( a kind of hybrid: the tail of the I-185 with the plumage docked to the moto and the wing of the I-180)
                  1. +4
                    20 May 2019 11: 01
                    therefore, compared I-16 with I-180 (their designs are similar)
                    - what are the same? technologically?
                    And-16, wing:

                    - wood, percale.
                    I-180, wing - "I-180-3 had a smooth all-metal wing completely new compared to previous designs... The spar belts made of pipes in this aircraft were replaced with T-shaped open profiles made of 30 KhGSA steel. "(http://www.k2x2.info/transport_i_aviacija/_korol_istrebitelei_boevye_samolety_polikarpova/p37.php)
                    This is just the wing console we examined. If we go further into the design, then the statement that from the "similarity of the design of the I-16 and I-180" there will be no stone unturned. wink
                    1. +2
                      20 May 2019 18: 15
                      Quote: Dooplet11
                      - what are the same? technologically?

                      Here you have to compare, as they say - find the differences:


                      Quote: Dooplet11
                      - wood, percale


                      you can see from the picture that the wing was almost half-sheathed by duralumin.

                      Quote: Dooplet11
                      I-180, wing - "I-180-3 had a smooth all-metal wing of a completely new design compared to the previous designs. The spar belts made of pipes in this aircraft were replaced with T-shaped open profiles made of 30 HGSA steel."

                      That is why Polikarpov made concessions to the plant and the first series went along the construction with tubular spars, which had been worked out for the I-16 long ago, and only with the gradual mastering of new technologies for the plant, did they switch to open profiles.
                      Let me explain, if someone is frightened by the words "T-shaped open profiles" - they do not give the I-180 or any other aircraft magical surface properties, they only add manufacturability to production and simplify it, I will not say better than Ilyushin, so I will give him:
                      " The main reasons for the use of T-section spar belts instead of pipes are the ease of production, both in terms of reducing the cost of hours and in terms of lowering workers' skills. The wing spars of the pipes do not allow to widely apply the mechanization of the wing building processes, they require a very large number of small welded assemblies ... These knots can be made only by hand, in addition, they tend to crack during welding and heat treatment, and therefore there is a very large defect .

                      The use of Tavriki on the wing spar belts makes it possible to extremely simplify the fastening of the ribs to the wing spars and, thus, get rid of 400-500 knots that are inevitable on the tubular spar belt. With Tavrika, all riveting is made open, which means ... its quality increases, it is easy to control ... It is enough to come to the plant and see the process of building the same wing of our DB-3 airplane of tubular structure and Tavrik structure to make sure in the immeasurable simplicity of building a Tavrik wing. In conclusion, I consider it necessary to note that the use of tavriks is a real implementation of a new technological process for the production of our aircraft. amounted to 30301 h.
                      "
                      and if that, at the time of the closure of the I-180, the Dnepropetrovsk plant was already preparing the rental of steel chromansil-type T-profiles, the Moscow “Hammer and Sickle” was producing sheet steel for 25XGSA.
                      Quote: Dooplet11
                      This is the only we considered the wing console

                      Use further?
                      1. +3
                        20 May 2019 20: 43
                        That is why Polikarpov made concessions to the plant and the first series went along the construction with tubular spars, which had been worked out for the I-16 long ago, and only with the gradual mastering of new technologies for the plant, did they switch to open profiles.
                        What series "went"? What are you speaking about? Let me explain: At Plant 21, there was no serial production of the I-180 in the conventional sense of the serial production process. Therefore, the production of all-metal wings could not be mastered at that time.
                      2. -3
                        20 May 2019 21: 50
                        I understand the similarity of the wings, we clarified?
                        "We went" in the production plans, which were not implemented at all for technological reasons.
                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        Therefore, the production of all-metal wings could not be mastered at that time.

                        Dry with Tupolev, and Ilyushin froze from such a discovery ....
                      3. +1
                        21 May 2019 08: 21
                        I understand the similarity of the wings, we clarified?
                        It was clarified: the I-180-3 (manufactured at the Moscow plant) had a different wing structure from the I-16. In terms of materials used and assembly technology. The question to you is which wing had the next 10 of military series airplanes that were assembled, but not completely assembled at the plant number XXUMX? Similar constructive and-21, or and-16-180?
                        Dry with Tupolev, and Ilyushin froze from such a discovery ....
                        - what does Ilyushin and Tupolev have to do with it, if we are talking about plant # 21, which had the I-16 assembly technology (which did not have an all-metal wing). This is your discovery that "the people of this plant have been producing aircraft of a similar design for several years now" (with all-metal wings. I wonder what kind of aircraft these have been produced at the plant for several years? wink )
                      4. +2
                        21 May 2019 09: 01
                        What wing did the next 10 of military series airplanes assembled, and so not fully assembled at Plant No. XXUMX? Similar constructive and-21, or and-16-180?
                        I answer from the memory of the phone, so clumsily. The wing was with the use of tubular spars, without internal braces, fully sheathed with duralumin. What is structurally close to the wing of the I-16 (see the photo again)
                        About several years of production of a similar design, I repeat once again the I-16 wing from the bottom and partially from above almost half-sheathed with duralumin, i.e. the riveting of the sheet duralumin was mastered by the plant, what technological religion does not allow to finish the wing completely with duralumin?
                      5. 0
                        21 May 2019 09: 05
                        Therefore, the production of all-metal wings could not be mastered at that time.
                        your words? Where is the 21 plant? Here, about the production of that time, here you and the answer was appropriate
                      6. +1
                        21 May 2019 09: 43
                        your words? Where is the 21 plant? Here, about the production of that time, here you and the answer was appropriate

                        Here
                        I will explain: At the 21 plant There was no serial production of the I-180 in the generally accepted understanding of the serial production process. Therefore, the production of all-metal wings could not have been mastered at that time.

                        Here, about the production at the plant number 21 at that time, and not "about the production of that time."
                      7. +1
                        21 May 2019 12: 25
                        Paraphrasing your pearl, you can get this:
                        At the 21 plant, prior to this, there was no LaGG-3 mass production in the generally accepted understanding of the mass production process. Therefore, the production of solid wood wings could not be mastered at that time. tongue
                      8. +1
                        21 May 2019 12: 35
                        Yes exactly. Pearl can be paraphrased. I agree. And in many ways, therefore, the quality of serial LaGG-3s was much inferior to the standard. But if the sawmill or "glue" can be prepared in a couple of days, and the flow is ensured, then the thermist, tinsmith or welder must be prepared for months. With the inevitable drop in production. wink
                      9. +1
                        21 May 2019 18: 41
                        then a thermist, a tinsmith or a welder must prepare months. With the inevitable failure in the number of products. wink

                        But who doubts the initial difficulties, but let's better give the floor to the "tinsmiths and welders" themselves:
                        An excerpt from the report of the chief of the fighter department of the military engineer 1 - th rank Vojvodina who visited the plant:
                        ‌ "The production technology of the I-180 aircraft requires a higher production level than the I16 aircraft, especially in terms of heat treatment and subsequent machining ... At the same time, the I180 aircraft technology improves and in some cases simplifies manufacturing issues (head of the wing shop of the plant, comrade DUDNIK) and assembly (head of the assembly shop, comrade ZAYCHIK), which, in the opinion of comrade ZAYCHIK, will allow the assembly process of a more complex machine to be put into mass production within the time frame for the assembly of the I-16 M63. considering that in the 6th month of the introduction of the aircraft into the series, the plant will be able to produce the same number of these I-180 M88 aircraft as it is currently producing the I-16 M63
                      10. +1
                        21 May 2019 18: 44
                        As we see the head wing shop does not see any insurmountable difficulties in the manufacture of the wing and 180
                      11. +1
                        22 May 2019 08: 37
                        First, everything can be overcome and solved. No problem! Question prices and terms solutions. Therefore, from several solutions, taking into account additional introductory (availability of raw materials, labor resources, engines, etc.), LaGG was chosen, not the I-180 or the Pashinin machine.
                        Secondly, the answers given by your superiors are those in peacetime. Now project it on the conditions of war. Every kilowatt spent on heat treatment is a kilowatt taken from metallurgists and tank builders. Every extra month spent on training a thermist or a welder from a teenager who came to the factory instead of a worker who went to the front is either an undershoot aircraft, or a production incorrigible marriage. If the curve or poorly pasted rail stringer / rib / spar in the wooden wing set can be replaced, then the skewed spar truss can only be melted down.
                      12. +1
                        22 May 2019 17: 20
                        Again, I don’t keep up with the flight of your thought - we seemed to be arguing about the factory difficulties in mastering I-180 when switching from I-16, it all had to happen just in peacetime, but .... from the same report:
                        Thus, the plant makes a very slow troop series of I-180 planes, in the long run without assuming to build it serially and (judging by the conversations) hopes more in the future for the transition to building PASHENIN planes [in the document, more correctly, Pashinin. - Approx. auth.] ...

                        You wrote in another koment that pushing the Pashinin's plane’s management by the directorate of the plant - it seems to me, but as we see it seemed not only to me
                      13. 0
                        23 May 2019 07: 38
                        we kind of argued about the factory difficulties in mastering I-180 when switching from I-16, it all had to happen just in peacetime

                        Well, it was you who first "remembered" the I-185:
                        it was about the current situation at the plant №21 of the end of 40-beginning of 41 of the year, therefore I compared 16 with I-180 (their designs are similar), and if we recall about I-185, then it was smoothly planned from I-180 Е7 ( a kind of hybrid: the tail of the I-185 with the plumage docked to the moto and the wing of the I-180)

                        You wrote in another koment that pushing the Pashinin's plane’s management by the directorate of the plant - it seems to me, but as we see it seemed not only to me
                        - Apparently, not only to you. The question of what actually happened was "pushing through", or an objective situation when the plant is clearly not ready for the design and technologies of the I-180, ready for the I-21 Pashinin, but the I-21 in terms of performance characteristics is outsiders of the "big competition" of fighters ... And NGOs, together with the NKAP, must decide what to produce at plant # 21?
                      14. 0
                        23 May 2019 14: 57
                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        Well, it was you who first "remembered" the I-185:

                        No! laughing (we are like children in kindergarten about who first started)
                        browse too, there, in my first comment, a person mistakenly thought that I was talking about I-16 and I-185 (although I didn’t write about him at all) and you already began to reply to this comment:
                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        for several years produce a similar design aircraft
                        - This is similar in design, may I ask? Isn't it an 16? Compare the design of the 16 and And-185. More closely. Be surprised at the number of differences.

                        and that is why I began to write "if I remember the I-185 ... etc."
                      15. 0
                        24 May 2019 07: 38
                        Well, then Pushkin is the first. laughing
                        But "if you remembered" you are an obvious fake. wink
                      16. 0
                        24 May 2019 16: 02
                        Well, how obvious is it - the question remains open
                      17. +1
                        22 May 2019 08: 48
                        Considering that on the 6 month of the introduction of the aircraft into the series, the plant will be able to produce the same number of these I-180 М88 aircraft, as it is now producing the I-16 М63
                        - these promises should be divided into two. Tumansky promised in 40 to bring M-88. Neither in 40, nor in 41, nor in 42. Brought in 43. It did not work out before. The engine was in short supply even to maintain the combat operation of already released DB-3F.
                        And through the 6 months the war and the spars for the I-180 wing are not from the word at all, - the Dnepropetrovsk plant is under occupation. This, of course, is after-knowledge, but it says that from the point of view of the availability of resources, the promises of Dudnik, Rabbit and Kupriyanov could not be fulfilled.
                      18. +1
                        22 May 2019 17: 23
                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        Neither 40, nor 41, nor 42.

                        Not brought ... to the resource in 200 hours!
                        On this basis, M-82 during the war, too, was not driven by the word at all.
                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        Dnepropetrovsk plant in the occupation

                        About him:
                        After the start of World War II, due to the approaching front line to the city in the summer of 1941, the plant’s equipment was evacuated to the east and installed at existing plants: Chusovsky, Guryevsky, Orsko-Khalilovsky and other enterprises
                      19. +1
                        23 May 2019 07: 44
                        Not brought ... to the resource in 200 hours!
                        - in 43? And in 41-m 25 hours.
                        About him:
                        After the start of World War II, due to the approaching front line to the city in the summer of 1941, the plant’s equipment was evacuated to the east and installed at existing plants: Chusovsky, Guryevsky, Orsko-Khalilovsky and other enterprises
                        - From the summer of 41 until the installation and adjustment of equipment at the listed factories (end of autumn 41?), Consider that there is no rental. IL-2 in 41 was forced to receive wooden consoles. For the metal consoles of the first series of Il used the products of the same plant. And it was released "in the tree" until the 43rd, if I'm not mistaken.
                      20. 0
                        23 May 2019 14: 49
                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        - in 43? And in 41-m 25 hours

                        How many in 42? (if you mentioned it?) At first, the 190-25 watched the FW-40 too.
                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        - From the summer of 41 until the installation and adjustment of equipment at the listed factories (end of autumn 41?), Consider that there is no rental. IL-2 in 41 was forced to receive wooden consoles. For the metal consoles of the first series of Il used the products of the same plant. And it was released "in the tree" until the 43rd, if I'm not mistaken.

                        Oh, hold on, right now apologists of the deficiency of duralumin will make you - that is what they give as a reason for the transition of IL-2 to wooden consoles.
                        And if that, the production of this plant is a T-profile, for the spar I-180. And about the transition from IL-2 we read from Rastrenin:
                        So, in the summer of 1941 from the all-metal structure of the wing went to the mixed: metal spars, all-metal center section, trim, stringers and ribs of the detachable part of the wing - from plywood and wood, or from duralumin
                        . Those. with spars he had no problems
                      21. 0
                        24 May 2019 07: 37
                        How many in 42? (if you mentioned it?) At first, the 190-25 watched the FW-40 too.
                        - 100 at the stand. But at this time the plant is "on the move."
                        Oh, hold on, right now apologists of the deficiency of duralumin will make you - that is what they give as a reason for the transition of IL-2 to wooden consoles.
                        - They are not "apologists", this is the wrong term. They simply assess the situation soberly. And they are right about the reasons.
                        And if that, the production of this plant is a T-profile, for the spar I-180.
                        - and for all other spars, - IL-2, Pe-2, further on the list where there are spars from alloyed steel.
                        Those. with spars he had no problems
                        - that is why La and Yak had problems (well, not problems, there were simply no metal spars). The I-180 would not have it either. "The calf is small, not enough for everyone!" (C)
                      22. 0
                        24 May 2019 16: 17
                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        - 100 at the booth

                        at the stand M-88Р passed 100 hours at the end of 39 year lol
                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        - They are not "apologists", this is the wrong term. They simply assess the situation soberly. And they are right about the reasons.

                        Well, and you found a new reason - oh, they will find ...
                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        - and for all other spars, - IL-2, Pe-2, further in the list, where there are spars of alloyed steel

                        Can you provide data on the replacement of wood or reduce the rate of release due to the lack of steel spars in relation to these aircraft?
                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        just did not have metal spars) in La and Yak.

                        I have already explained in another answer why they were not there on the first La (LaGG) and Yak
                      23. 0
                        27 May 2019 08: 26
                        at the stand M-88Р passed 100 hours at the end of 39 year
                        - on factory tests?
                        And in 40-m stopped its production due to the fact that the serial engines resource CHRONICALLY not nursed.
                        Can you provide data on the replacement of wood or reduce the rate of release due to the lack of steel spars in relation to these aircraft?
                        “Neither the Yak nor the La had any steel spars due to a shortage. Almost everyone ate Il and Pe.
                        I have already explained in another answer why they were not there on the first La (LaGG) and Yak
                        - just "why" you did not explain. LaGG was initially focused on a wooden raw material base. At the cost of losing specific weight indicators. The war already in 41 showed that the price was too high. I had to make changes to the design. But in the 43rd. Not earlier. The yak was based on the constructive solutions mastered by Yakovlev. But he understood. where are the reserves. And he used them in the Yak-30. At 41m. And rental is in short supply. And he postponed the improvements by as much as two years. wink
                      24. 0
                        27 May 2019 12: 39
                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        - on factory tests?

                        no, on the stand (you wrote about the stand?)
                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        “Neither the Yak nor the La had any steel spars due to a shortage. Almost everyone ate Il and Pe

                        Then bring the facts of the transition in the constructions of the Yak and La from steel spars to wooden ones due to the shortage. Although you yourself answered by repeating my statement that - LaGG was originally focused on the tree, and the Yak - on the mastered design. Or do you claim that only these two designers have seen where the reserves are and the rest are not?
                      25. +2
                        21 May 2019 09: 29
                        Wing was using tubular spars, without internal braces, fully lined with duralumin. What is structurally close to the wing of the I-16 (see the photo again)
                        This you say. Here
                        http://www.k2x2.info/transport_i_aviacija/_korol_istrebitelei_boevye_samolety_polikarpova/p37.php
                        state that
                        "I-180-3 had a smooth all-metal wing of a completely new design in comparison with previous samples. The belts of the side members of the pipes in this aircraft were replaced with T-shaped open profiles made of 30 HGSA steel.."
                        About several years of release of a similar design, I repeat once again the wing of the I-16 from the bottom and partially from above. almost half it was sheathed with duralumin, i.e., riveting to the point of sheet duralumin was mastered by the plant, what technological religion does not allow to sew the wing completely with duralumin?
                        29% is "almost half"? Tell me, do you know what "flaps" are, why do they appear, how do they affect aerodynamics and how to deal with them? After several years of production of mixed-design wings, plant No. 21 had technologies for sealing compartments, adjusting and adjusting slats and other elements of wing mechanization (you are campaigning for a trouble-free production of the I-185 at 21 factories?), Drawing and stamping large-sized duralumin parts of double curvature?
                      26. +1
                        21 May 2019 09: 50
                        This you say. Here
                        http://www.k2x2.info/transport_i_aviacija/_korol_istrebitelei_boevye_samolety_polikarpova/p37.php
                        state that
                        "AND-180-3 had a smooth all-metal wing
                        Your question was about:
                        What wing did the next 10 of military series airplanes assembled, and so not fully assembled at Plant No. XXUMX?
                        the first I-180 military series (I do not remember the numbers) were assembled with the wing of the very structure that I wrote
                      27. +1
                        21 May 2019 10: 31
                        the first I-180 military series (I do not remember the numbers) were assembled with the wing of the very structure that I wrote
                        - where did the firewood come from? What is confirmed besides your statement? And, even if this is so (which I strongly doubt!), And Polikarpov was forced to "take a step back", then:
                        a) not because of the unavailability of production for serial production, he did it?
                        b) How could this affect the performance characteristics of the aircraft?
                      28. 0
                        21 May 2019 12: 26
                        In the evening at home I will try to dispel your doubts.
                      29. 0
                        21 May 2019 12: 36
                        Be kind!
                      30. +1
                        21 May 2019 17: 39
                        The excerpts from the book Maslova cited in another answer.
                        a) due to the unavailability of the industry to supply the necessary blanks
                        b) on the aircraft's performance characteristics almost at all - see the answer with a quote from Ilyushin about Tavrovye. spars, all plus in facilitating production
                      31. +1
                        22 May 2019 08: 27
                        b) on the aircraft's performance characteristics almost at all - see the answer with a quote from Ilyushin about Tavrovye. spars, all plus in facilitating production

                        And here you are wrong. Ilyushin wrote in general about the manufacturability of various design solutions. And if we consider a special case with the wings I-180-1,2 and I-180-3. then ...:
                        The strength of the wing mounted on the I-180-3 has been increased. And this is a large bomb load and large disposable overloads, a high dive speed. Plus a larger lateral V, - this is a greater directional stability and roll stability. So the "old wing" is definitely a loss in performance characteristics.
                      32. 0
                        22 May 2019 09: 51
                        By the way about your flakes, which were observed on the E-180-2 and which together with other defects led to wing deformities (!!!) during the May Day flight of the Suprun
                        - Did you write? Is this the wing of the I-180-2, which then, according to Maslov, was forced to put on the I-180? And which of the E-180 with such a wing fighter? Should the aircraft add a heavier M-88, walkie-talkie, heavy machine guns or cannons?
                      33. +1
                        22 May 2019 17: 48
                        Wave formation began at the end of the console and increased to the rib number 1. The deformation of the skin loosened the rivets in the center section and consoles. Two of them turned out to be torn out, and the rest of the trimming of the skin worked together under the others, as a result of which it began to move away from the power set. Commissioned on an emergency basis, which included: from the Design Bureau - Olkhovikov, Trostyansky, Mazurin, Kurguzov, test pilot Suprun, from Plant No. 156 - Komenkov, Koloverkin, Vlasov, from the Air Force Research Institute - Chief of the Fighter Division Voevodin, military engineer 2- Go rank Nikashin, in a special act noted, in addition to the above, slamming the tip of the center section (with a note that they existed before), other destructive changes in the design. In the final part of the act, it was proposed to terminate the tests, convene a commission of specialists for a detailed analysis of the consequences of the flight, force the static tests of the wing.
                        Copies of the act were sent to the First Main (Aircraft) Directorate of the NKAP, Plant Director No. 156 and the NKVD .....
                        More detailed inspection revealed the presence of marriage, retreats from technology. May 7 1939. Plant Director No. 156 V. A. Kuchur was arrested; V. I. Lenkin was appointed instead of him on May 10. After repair tests resumed
                      34. 0
                        22 May 2019 17: 44
                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        The strength of the wing mounted on the I-180-3 has been increased. And this is a large bomb load and large disposable overloads, a high dive speed. Plus a larger lateral V, - this is a greater directional stability and roll stability. So the "old wing" is definitely a loss in performance characteristics.

                        The bomb load on the I-180-3 remained the same - 200kg (2 bomb rack), about the strength - it was increased according to tests:
                        25 August 1940. According to the order of the People's Commissariat, in the laboratory of the plant No. 21, statistical tests of the I-180 fighter were conducted. They showed that the strength of the fuselage, motoramy, crutch, shields, other units meets the standards of strength (for example, the crutch withstood 110% load). At 95% load, the lower belt of the front longitudinal of the center section collapsed. This corresponded to the destructive overload of 12,23 units (the norm of 13, the operational overload is 8,7). Reporting Deputy Commissar Yakovlev, Polikarpov suggested making the necessary reinforcement of the wing structure on machines of the first series, on aircraft of the military series they should not be made, limiting the speed of the dive to 600 km / h on the [74] device. However, by order of Yakovlev already assembled planes of the I-180 military series had to disassemble and perform the appropriate improvements.
                        Those. strength and 180 with old spars also increased.
                        The only minus is the smaller lateral stability; I will give excerpts:
                        Factory testing of the first production aircraft continued until July 4 1940 g ....
                        tester E. G. Ulyakhin gave this assessment to the car: ....
                        Longitudinal stability when centering 24% SAX is good, lateral stability and road stability is good ...
                        it is necessary to change the centering to 19 – 21% САХ due to the creation of swept wings. Also increase the transverse “V” of the wings to improve lateral stability.
                      35. 0
                        23 May 2019 07: 48
                        Those. strength and 180 with old spars also increased.
                        - that is, it was insufficient and the design of the wing AND-180-3 was not born from fat. The strength of the old design increased. How - not wondered?
                      36. 0
                        23 May 2019 14: 37
                        Few people, without statistical tests, could accurately guess the strength - usually either insufficient or, on the contrary, overloaded. The design of the wing I-180-3 was born precisely for the transition to a more advanced technology - Illyushin has already given you. How? - overlays on already made, increase in section, form, etc. on new ones.
                      37. +1
                        21 May 2019 09: 57
                        Khlopuny, this is a technological marriage, completely solved at that time — a bunch of all-metal airplanes of the time produced in the USSR as an example.
                        What are the slats on the i-xnumx? You so jump from one plane to another, that I do not have time for the flight of your thoughts
                      38. 0
                        21 May 2019 10: 39
                        Khlopuny, this is a technological marriage, completely solved at that time — a bunch of all-metal airplanes of the time produced in the USSR as an example.
                        - produced at the factory number XXUMX? Specialists and equipment factory number 21?
                        What are the slats on the i-xnumx? You so jump from one plane to another, that I do not have time for the flight of your thoughts
                        - this is you from I-16 to I-185 through I-180-7:
                        it was about the current situation at the plant №21 of the end of 40-beginning of 41 of the year, therefore I compared 16 with I-180 (their designs are similar), and if we recall about I-185, then it was smoothly planned from I-180 Е7 ( a kind of hybrid: the tail of the I-185 with the plumage docked to the moto and the wing of the I-180)

                        So, if we talk about the I-185 and the situation at the plant №21 (and not about the incomprehensible "hybrid"), then the "peculiar hybrid" is somehow not drawn for the end of 40s - beginning of 41. At that time, there was already an I-185 project with slats.
                      39. +1
                        21 May 2019 12: 52
                        produced at the factory number 21? Specialists and equipment factory number 21?
                        once again, the riveting of the duralumin sheathing at the 21 plant was mastered; flakes can also be obtained on a not completely metal wing.
                        About I-185 you first remembered (see first your comment)
                        About the "hybrid" E-180 E7 You to comrade Polikarpov - it was he who invented it, not me.
                        At that time, there already existed an AND-185 project with slats.
                        Do you hope to understand the difference between the project and its implementation at the plant? It is for this that they come up with such hybrids, so as not to break the continuity of production when switching to other products.
                      40. 0
                        21 May 2019 13: 27
                        Do you hope to understand the difference between the project and its implementation at the plant? It is for this that they come up with such hybrids, so as not to break the continuity of production when switching to other products.
                        I hope you understand the difference between the "hybrid" invented in the form of an advance project and the serial aircraft being introduced at the plant? Where, in what basket was this "hybrid" lying around when the I-185 was ALREADY under construction at the Moscow plant under the M-81?
                        once again, the riveting of the duralumin sheathing at the 21 plant was mastered; flakes can also be obtained on a not completely metal wing.
                        - undoubtedly possible. And on the all-metal even faster, especially not having the appropriate experienced staff in sufficient quantities. After all, to rivet 100% surface, and not 29%, you need three times more resources for riveting. wink
                      41. +1
                        21 May 2019 18: 14
                        I hope you understand the difference between the "hybrid" invented in the form of an advance project and the serial aircraft being introduced at the plant? Where, in what basket was this "hybrid" lying around when the I-185 was ALREADY under construction at the Moscow plant under the M-81?

                        And-185 serially built at a Moscow factory?
                        April 1941, faced with the lack of powerful air-cooling engines needed to build a new I-185 fighter, Nikolai Nikolayevich developed a kind of hybrid: the tail section of the I-185 docked to the moto mount and wing of the I-180. According to N.N.Polikarpov when organizing mass production this could provide an easy transition from I-180 to I-185. So there was a new modification of the aircraft -I-180 E-7.
                      42. 0
                        22 May 2019 08: 53
                        And 185 serially built at a Moscow factory?
                        - Of course not. The I-180 M-81 was built with an all-metal wing with a slat. And the "hybrid" you mentioned has been lying in the basket for a long time.
                      43. 0
                        22 May 2019 09: 54
                        Ochepyatka Meant and-185 M-81
                      44. +1
                        22 May 2019 17: 03
                        I-185 with M-81:
                        10 December 1940 g. The first engine test took place; 21 December replaced the gear shaft and tested the engine again; December 25 conducted a full-blown test run of the M-81
                        30 December 1 940 was a meeting of the commission on the first flight of the aircraft AND -187, after which the aircraft was allowed to conduct tests.
                        9 January 1 941 Test Pilot E.G. Ulyakhin conducted trial taxiing, and on January 11 the first flight took place .....
                        ...... flights continued up until 18 March 1941 gwhen M-8 1 failed. The plane made 16 flights at this point .... Further, the flights of the machine were stopped, because it became known that the M-8 1 engine is not being taken off the market and will not be brought further

                        and here is an excerpt about "hybrid":
                        April 1941Faced with the lack of powerful air-cooled engines needed to build a new X-NUMX fighter, Nikolai Nikolayevich developed a kind of hybrid:

                        You probably looked in the wrong basket request
                      45. 0
                        22 May 2019 21: 23
                        April 1941, faced with the lack of powerful air-cooled engines needed to build a new I-185 fighter, Nikolai Nikolayevich developed a kind of hybrid:

                        It looks like an April Fool's joke.
                      46. +1
                        22 May 2019 23: 51
                        Perhaps because I found Maslov under the designation E-7 a little different:
                        The last experienced I-180, designated as E-7, was built in Moscow on the basis of aircraft factory No. 51 as early as 1941. This aircraft had all the innovations for the 1941 series of g. It is believed that in the summer of 1941, this machine performed several flights. At least one I-180 sheathed was parked at plant number 51 in Moscow. Already in October, 1941 was decided to evacuate this plane to the east, but there was no place on the railway platform. Then the Chief Designer decided to ship the last prototype by air. We contacted the headquarters of the air defense of Moscow, from there they sent a pilot. After a brief briefing, the pilot, who had not even sat in the 180 before, safely rose into the air, made a farewell circle over the airfield and flew away. A few hours later, reporting on the assignment by telephone, he spoke with enthusiasm and surprise about the previously unknown plane. The story ended, the traces of the last evacuated AND-180 were lost.

                        those. Maslov's E-7 is a built copy, but what is not specified in it from I-185
                      47. 0
                        23 May 2019 07: 29
                        but what is in it from the I-185 not specified
                        Ideas and ideas - perhaps, but the tail! Do not tell and do not discredit Nikolay Nikolaevich. Do not...
                      48. 0
                        23 May 2019 07: 26
                        You probably not in the basket viewed request

                        Or you.
                        “After the first three production vehicles with serial numbers 25211, 25212 and 25213 were sent to Moscow, at the end of the summer we finished another I-180 with suspended tanks. The last experienced I-180, designated as E-7, was built in Moscow on the basis of aircraft factory №51 already in 1941 g. This aircraft had all the innovations for the 1941 series of the year: a transparent sliding lantern, a single rack retractable landing gear, a wing of a modified configuration. It is believed that in the summer of 1941, this machine performed several flights. At least one shrouded I-180 in the parking lot of plant No. 51 in Moscow at that time was available.
                        Modifications:
                        I-180-1 (1938) - the first prototype modification with the M-88P engine.
                        And-180-2 (1939g.) - Modification with the engine M-87A and M-87B.
                        I-180-3 (1939) - modification with an M-88 engine for industrial production. Serial machines had the I-180-C nomenclature. Equipment 2-12,7 TKB-150 (BS) + 2 ShKAS
                        And-180-Е5 (reference) - modification with the engine M-88А for mass production. The design of the center section is changed, the position of the oil radiator is changed.
                        I-180-Е7 (1941) - the last experimental aircraft built on the plant №51
                        Sources:
                        Shavrov V.B. The history of aircraft designs in the USSR to 1938 year. M .: Mashinostroenie, 1978
                        Maslov M.A. AND-180 / AND-185.
                        http://www.k2x2.info/transport_i_aviacija/_korol_istrebitelei_boevye_samolety_polikarpova/p37.php http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fww2/i180.html "
                        Отсюда: http://war-russia.info/index.php/nomenklatura-vooruzhenij1/342-aviatsiya/istrebiteli-perekhvatchiki/1361-istrebitel-i-180-1938g
                      49. 0
                        22 May 2019 08: 57
                        April 1941, faced with the lack of powerful air-cooling engines needed to build a new I-185 fighter, Nikolai Nikolayevich developed a kind of hybrid: the tail section of the I-185 docked to the moto mount and wing of the I-180. According to N.N.Polikarpov, when organizing serial production, it was possible to ensure an easy transition from I-180 to I-185. So there was a new modification of the aircraft -I-180 E-7.
                        The modification did not appear. The idea is at the sketch level. No more. No flight tests, no purging, or even a mock-up sample.
                      50. +1
                        22 May 2019 17: 08
                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        The modification did not appear. The idea is at the sketch level. No more. No flight tests, no purging, or even a prototype

                        Naturally, it was not in the metal, as was the large-scale issue of the I-180 (apparently in April, Polikarpov still admitted this possibility), therefore, in reality, there was no need to provide
                        easy transition from i-xnumx to i-xnumx
                      51. +1
                        21 May 2019 08: 39
                        Dry with Tupolev, and Ilyushin froze from such a discovery ....

                        Polikarpov turned over in his grave from this "discovery":
                        compared I-16 with I-180 (their designs are similar)

                        The similarity of the wing design assumes the similarity of the power circuit, materials used for structural elements, mechanization and built-in wing reinforcement, fasteners, assembly technology.
                        Although ... I-16 and I-180 are similar. There is a motor, wings, fuselage and empennage. I think both the I-16 and MiG-21 are similar. Plant No. 21 could have launched the MiG-21 series back in 40. If he had drawings and the goodwill of the Deputy People's Commissar of the NKAP. Yes, and "Dnepropetrovsk plant has already prepared rolled steel chromium-steel tee profiles, Moscow" Hammer and Sickle "carried out sheet rolled steel 25HGSA." (from) laughing
                      52. +1
                        21 May 2019 09: 14
                        All of the above listed corresponded to the wings of the I-16 and I-180, starting with the I-180-3, the design of the side members was changed, and making it possible to significantly simplify production (see the post above for Ilyushin quote)
                      53. 0
                        21 May 2019 09: 39
                        since I-180-3 the design changed spars, and allowing to significantly simplify the production (see the post above with a quote Ilyushin)
                        - And-180-3 released at the Moscow plant. Was its wing different from the I-16 wing? What was the wing of the pre-series I-180, launched into production at the plant number 21?
                        To simplify the production "according to Ilyushin" (I will not argue with Ilyushin, it will really be simplified!) Does it not need to be rebuilt, to replace technological processes, equipment, tooling and retrain personnel?
                      54. +2
                        21 May 2019 09: 52
                        All of the above listed on the wings of the I-16 and I-180,

                        Power circuit: I-16 side members from tubular trusses, I-180, - T-section
                        Materials: I-16 trim on% 71 canvas, and 180-100% dural
                        Armature control, - And-16 cable lugs, And-180- rigid wiring.
                        Assembly technology: And-16, - Welding with quenching and tempering + riveting + firmware, And-180 riveting.
                        Full match, definitely! laughing
                      55. +1
                        21 May 2019 13: 06
                        Again, for comparison, the brands from E-180-3 bustle, which should have been transferred as they were mastered by the plant. If the wing of the first I-180 was covered with cloth in general (you can find a photo on the stocks in the internet)
                        In general, I get the impression that the dispute is going on because of a different understanding of the definition of "similar construction" for me it is a similarity, for you it seems to be a complete correspondence ...
                      56. -1
                        21 May 2019 13: 29
                        to which they had to move as they were mastered by the plant.
                        - while this is your speculation.
                      57. +1
                        21 May 2019 17: 05
                        Well, probably not mine, we read in Maslov:
                        The first three aircraft, sometimes called the I-180C (serial), were ready in late April. These were cars number 25211, 25212, 25213. Their main difference from the third prototype, on the model and likeness of which they were built, was the design of the wing. The spars were made in the old manner of steel pipes, so the wings of the airplanes of the Gorkov plant were more in tune with the wing of the second experienced I-180.

                        In 1939, it was time to introduce more modern technologies. In the I-180-3, it was decided to replace the wing spar belts made of pipes with progressive T-profiles. Since the industry has not yet supplied suitable blanks, the pilot production of aircraft plant No. 1 spent considerable time on the machining of these profiles (along the span, they should decrease in cross section). It is clear that such methods of work were not suitable for a serial plant. That is why Polikarpov really went to meet production and agreed to use the old technology for manufacturing wing spars for the first series of the aircraft. Therefore, the old transverse V wing remained on production aircraft (it is known that on the third prototype the transverse V was increased to improve lateral stability up to 6 ° 30 ').
                      58. +1
                        21 May 2019 17: 10
                        He has the same:
                        In September, 1940, at the time of the closure of work on the I-180, in Gorky there were six ready-made aircraft (without engines) from the military series. In October, despite the prohibitions, since the situation wasn’t finally clear, work was going on in the second and third series. A common groundwork for the details was prepared for hundreds of machines, and the production of tooling continued. Allied plants for I-180 had orders for materials and semi-finished products. Dnepropetrovsk plant cooked Hire of steel chromansil profiles, Moscow “Serp and Molot” led sheet metal 25HGSA.
                        i.e. even if the 21 factory produced 30 airplanes of a military series, all of them would have assembled with tubular spars
                      59. +3
                        22 May 2019 08: 17
                        Thanks for the quote. Maslova can be trusted.

                        i.e. even if the 21 factory produced 30 airplanes of a military series, all of them would have assembled with tubular spars




                        Well, you have answered many "why", which was asked in this and other branches, where they talked about the I-180 or I-185.
                        Why couldn't the 21 plant do at the end of the 40-beginning of the 41-I-185?
                        -Because I did not yet have the technologies for the implementation of the reference design (there is no rolling, the technological chain of the "new wing" at the plant has not been tested even using bypass technologies).
                        Why at the end of 40-i-180 could not compete on the TTX with the I-26 or I-300?
                        -Because the "old wing" has cut its capabilities (strength is insufficient, stability is not the same)
                        How would it be with the release of the I-180 or I-185 series in 41 -42?
                        - And no way. For the Dnepropetrovsk plant with its rental on the territory of the enemy.
                        And somehow, behind these answers, neither Yakovlev’s hands nor Pashinin’s hands are visible.
                      60. +1
                        22 May 2019 18: 14
                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        Why couldn't the 21 plant do at the end of the 40-beginning of the 41-I-185?

                        I do not remember that I announced the launch of I-185 in these terms ...
                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        -Because I did not yet have the technologies for the implementation of the reference design (there is no rolling, the technological chain of the "new wing" at the plant has not been tested even using bypass technologies).

                        rental was introduced into the series as it was developed, for example, a single-rack chassis instead of a pyramidal one was planned from an 31 aircraft, etc ...
                        about the rest of the technological chains - I gave you excerpts with the opinion of the "technologists" of plant 21.
                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        Why at the end of 40-i-180 could not compete on the TTX with the I-26 or I-300?
                        -Because the "old wing" has cut its capabilities (strength is insufficient, stability is not the same)
                        The strength is sufficient, according to statistical tests, all strengthened, stability was less than the reference one only at the first series (and even at the first series it was indicated as good), then it improved.
                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        How would it be with the release of the I-180 or I-185 series in 41 -42?
                        - And no way. For the Dnepropetrovsk plant with its rental on the territory of the enemy.

                        About the evacuation of the Dnepropetrovsk plant you wrote, and during the evacuation period - the mastered release with tubular spars is only a plus.
                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        And somehow, behind these answers, neither Yakovlev’s hands nor Pashinin’s hands are visible.

                        I liked one comment from another branch; I can give it:
                        Quote: Gamdlislyam
                        Quote: PilotS37
                        This is a feature of the Soviet system: the headquarters were in themselves, the factories in themselves ...

                        Dear colleague PilotS37, 11 January 1939 was created by the People's Commissariat of the aviation industry (isolated from the People's Commissariat of the defense industry). KAGANOVICH Mikhail Moiseevich (elder brother of Kaganovich Lazar Moiseevich Kabanovich politburo member) was appointed People's Commissar. It was he who, by order of the People's Commissariat, allowed the factory design bureau to engage in experienced aircraft construction.
                        It must be remembered that the salary in the factory design bureaus was lower than in the design bureau several times, since they had the lowest category. Pursuing an experienced aircraft industry, factory designers were able to upgrade their category (and the salary is quite significant). It is not necessary to exclude the ambitions of the leaders of the factory design bureaus.
                        It was profitable and the leadership of the plants. Additional (and not small) funds, increased funding (including bonuses), supply of equipment, materials in short supply.
                        As a result, about 40 design bureaus were formed in the People's Commissariat, engaged in the design and construction of experimental vehicles. But to deal with "other people's" aircraft, i.e. no one was willing to introduce them into mass production. It was financially unprofitable.
                        With this "Makhnovshchina" the deputy. People's Commissar Yakovlev A.S. at the beginning of 1941, when he closed about three dozen projects with his Order, and forced the factory designers to engage in the introduction of aircraft into serial production in accordance with the Government Decree. And after the outbreak of the war, the same "evil genius" reassigned the factory design bureaus as branches of those design bureaus whose aircraft were produced at a particular enterprise. Here is this Yakovlev A.S. they cannot forgive, because he has built a vertical power structure. Now it was necessary to "bow" to the people's commissar or deputy. People's Commissar (the appeal to the Kremlin was not rolled over the heads of the leadership of the People's Commissariat).
                      61. 0
                        23 May 2019 08: 05
                        I do not remember that I announced the launch of I-185 in these terms ..
                        -Remember:
                        it was going about the current situation at the plant number 21 of the end of 40-beginning of 41, therefore, I compared 16 with I 180 (their constructions are similar), and if we recall about the I-185, then it was smoothly planned from the I-180 Е7 (a kind of hybrid: the tail of the I-185 with the tail docked to the moto mount and the wing of the I-180)
                        we are talking about plant number 21 at 40-41, and I-185, in your opinion, is "smoothly planned." laughing
                        the strength is sufficient according to the statistical tests all intensified,
                        - enough for which flight weight? Enhanced at the cost of increasing console weight? And what about the technology and the cost increase affected? it remains only to guess.
                        About the evacuation of the Dnepropetrovsk plant you wrote, and during the evacuation period - the mastered release with tubular spars is only a plus.
                        - they wrote about the evacuation, but about the fact that because of the same evacuation of the same IL-2 plant, it flew wooden until 43, - they forgot. The release (possible!) With tubular spars is not a plus, but a minus (minus TTX). As was the minus of the performance of the Elah because of the replacement of consoles.
                        I liked one comment from another branch; I can give it:

                        Good comment. I like it too.
                      62. 0
                        23 May 2019 14: 32
                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        I do not remember that I announced the launch of I-185 in these terms ..
                        -Remember:
                        it was about the current situation at the plant №21 of the end of 40-beginning of 41 of the year, therefore I compared 16 with I-180 (their designs are similar), and if we recall about I-185, then it was smoothly planned from I-180 Е7 ( a kind of hybrid: the tail of the I-185 with the plumage docked to the moto and the wing of the I-180)
                        we are talking about plant number 21 at 40-41, and I-185, in your opinion, is "smoothly planned."

                        if you raise my comment, there really was a discussion of the 40-41 situation of the year at the 41 factory.
                        That IS-185 is planned there and on the same timeline? !! ... The thing is that I-185 was logically planned to replace 180 (but you don’t think to release it all through the war?) if this happened speech did not go.
                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        - enough for which flight weight? Enhanced at the cost of increasing console weight? And what about the technology and the cost increase affected? it remains only to guess.

                        According to statistical tests, all the "new" fighters did not escape reinforcement of the structure; on already assembled ones, they were usually reinforced with overlays, on subsequent ones, they were already assembled with modified (reinforced) parts. If anything, on tests, the first three military series even showed slightly better results than they achieved on the experimental one. (You can guess why, but this is an indicator that the gain - performance characteristics did not worsen)
                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        - they wrote about the evacuation, but about the fact that because of the same evacuation of the same IL-2 plant, it flew wooden until 43, - they forgot. The release (possible!) With tubular spars is not a plus, but a minus (minus TTX). As was the minus of the performance of the Elah because of the replacement of consoles.

                        A possible choice in designs during production is a minus? ... (The performance characteristics did not suffer much, by the way I am tormented by doubts that it was impossible to increase the transverse "V" with tubular spars ...) And where did the firewood come from that the Il-2 passed a mixed wing design due to the fault of this plant?
                      63. 0
                        23 May 2019 14: 41
                        According to statistical tests, all the "new" fighters did not escape reinforcement of the structure; on already assembled ones, they were usually reinforced with overlays, on subsequent ones, they were already assembled with modified (reinforced) parts. If anything, on tests, the first three military series even showed slightly better results than they achieved on the experimental one. (You can guess why, but this is an indicator that the gain - performance characteristics did not worsen)
                        Strengthened-HOW? Increasing weight. If you do not change the power circuit and structural material.
                        And where did the firewood come from that the IL-2 switched to a mixed wing structure through the fault of this plant?
                        - it was "woody" not "through the fault" of the plant, but because of the acute shortage of rolled steel and duralumin. The plant is not to blame for the evacuation.
                      64. 0
                        23 May 2019 15: 03
                        Steel rental is clearly nothing to do with - Spars on the consoles of the IL-2 remained metal
                      65. 0
                        24 May 2019 07: 43
                        Yes, metal. On IL-2. But all the other figs, not hire. Steel spars Yakovlev and Lavochkin could afford only after the 43rd. But back in 41, Yakovlev developed an I-30 with an all-metal wing. So the rental and its deficit "and".
                      66. 0
                        24 May 2019 16: 00
                        Well, nevermind, they were held in front of their face ... belay Lavochkin deliberately left the use of metal - it was a kind of highlight of his project. Yakovlev released the I-26 in his usual pattern (timed race) - the whole-wood wing of his design bureau was better worked out. And-30 by the way was in the plans in the series - yes the war confused all the cards. So hire nothing
                      67. 0
                        27 May 2019 08: 16
                        Lavochkin deliberately left the use of metal - it was a kind of highlight of his project.
                        - Exactly. "Zest" made it possible to bypass the shortage of alloyed steel products and duralumin at the cost of increasing the specific weight of the airframe.
                        And-30 by the way was in the plans in the series - yes the war confused all the cards.
                        - yes, I pulled the "card" with rental and duralumin from the deck and returned it only in 43rd.
                        So hire nothing
                        - The facts show the opposite.
                      68. 0
                        27 May 2019 12: 32
                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        - Exactly. "Zest" made it possible to bypass the shortage of alloyed steel products and duralumin at the cost of increasing the specific weight of the airframe.

                        Let's just say, at the time of its adoption in a series of catastrophic shortages there was no other matter in the event of war, the problems with metal were foreseen.
                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        -yes, I pulled the "card" with rental and duralumin from the deck and returned it only in the 43rd

                        The front needed aircraft here and now - look at the failure in the first half of the production of the same LaGG-3 at 21 plants. along with the number of new aircraft in the western districts on 22 June. Therefore, the "deck of cards" was postponed
                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        - facts suggest otherwise

                        Then give the facts to reduce the reduction of the output or replace it with a tree because of steel spars
                      69. 0
                        23 May 2019 15: 10
                        By the way, DB-3F, becoming IL-4 also acquired wooden consoles. And also not from a good life.
                      70. 0
                        23 May 2019 15: 29
                        Duc with the serial production of the I-180 it could also be "degreased" for duralumin. But fortunately for the I-180, he avoided this. laughing
                      71. 0
                        24 May 2019 07: 46
                        Duc with the serial production of the I-180 it could also be "degreased" for duralumin. But fortunately for the I-180, he avoided this laughing
                        - apparently yes, fortunately. Otherwise, the X-NUMX with a wooden wing would obviously be heavier. If the all-metal wing has weight in 180-25 kg / m28, then all-wood 2-32 kg / m36.
                      72. 0
                        24 May 2019 15: 41
                        Solid wood, I rather meant that they would switch to a mixed wing design (in reality, because of the savings, this was the case with the IL-2 and the DB-3F, the same MiG-3 received wooden consoles) By the way, sometimes this transition also gives a positive moment:
                        In particular, one of the means of increasing the flight speed was seen in improving the quality of the external surface. The main enemy here was the rivet seams, which turned some areas of the skin into a quilt-like look. It was possible to get rid of them, either using a wooden structure or electric welding.
                        It's about IL-4. Here for example how many riveted seams on the console and 180
                      73. 0
                        27 May 2019 08: 32
                        in the reality due to savings the same happened with IL-2 and DB-3F, the same MiG-3 received wooden consoles
                        - What do we save? Dural and alloy steel? wink
                        sometimes such a transition gives a positive point
                        In the case of a tree, this moment only reduces the amount of negative points. Which (in particular on the IL-4) in fact led to a deterioration of the performance characteristics.
                      74. 0
                        24 May 2019 16: 25
                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        By the way, DB-3F, becoming IL-4 also acquired wooden consoles. And also not from a good life.

                        Are you sure that wood, and not a mixed design?
                      75. 0
                        27 May 2019 08: 34
                        Are you sure that wood, not mixed design
                        To be precise, really mixed. From the metal in the power structure of the consoles were only spars.
                      76. 0
                        23 May 2019 15: 05
                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        Good comment. I like it too.

                        The main thing he fully explains why I believe that the directorate of the 21 plant pushed through its aircraft, and not the I-180
                      77. 0
                        24 May 2019 07: 49
                        The main thing he fully explains why I believe that the directorate of the 21 plant pushed through its aircraft, and not the I-180
                        - It shows one of the reasons. But not the fact that the main one of many. I am convinced that this is definitely not the main one. Although she added her pebble to the scales of Destiny.
                      78. 0
                        24 May 2019 15: 24
                        What reason do you think is the main one?
                      79. 0
                        27 May 2019 08: 40
                        And there is no "main". NPOs had LaGG, IP-21 and I-21 on the scales of Plant 180. It's on one bowl. On the other, weights from the availability of raw materials, motors, labor resources, cost, "human factor" (lobby), plans and capabilities of subcontractors and performance characteristics of aircraft. By aggregate LaGG outweighed. And, by the way, the pushing by Pashinin of his I-21 in this case did not prevent. LaGG launched into a series in a short time.
                      80. 0
                        27 May 2019 12: 52
                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        On the other, weights from the availability of raw materials, motors, labor resources, cost, "human factor" (lobby), plans and capabilities of subcontractors and performance characteristics of aircraft.

                        Production of the I-180 prepared for the series (compared to the same LaGG, IP-21 got off the race without having had time to eliminate its defects) and watch that ticked (the war is not far off) hung on the same bowl
                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        On the whole LaGG outweighed.

                        Raw material? - the use of delta woods, which in fact turned out to be just as scarce as the metal? Factory option number 21? Who made airplanes of mixed design with their performance characteristics? (and what is better in him than the maximum horizontal speed — rarely attainable in battle?)
                      81. 0
                        27 May 2019 13: 12
                        Production of the I-180 prepared for the series (compared to the same LaGG, IP-21 got off the race without having had time to eliminate its defects) and watch that ticked (the war is not far off) hung on the same bowl
                        - I agree with everything except "the production of the I-180 prepared for the series", - there is no stock of motors, no personnel, no tools, no small series produced. But a lot of things hung on the bowl. Outweighed LaGG.
                        Raw material? - the use of delta woods, which in fact turned out to be just as scarce as the metal? Factory option number 21? Who made airplanes of mixed design with their performance characteristics? (and what is better in him than the maximum horizontal speed — rarely attainable in battle?)
                        - Who then knew that tar would be in short supply? They didn’t know that there would be rent and M-88 in deficit (although, they already knew about M-88 deficiency!), But as it turned out, they guessed with LaGG, -
                        a) it could be done without "delta ..."
                        b) it turned out you can do it with the hands of minor joiners and carpenters
                        c) it turned out to be possible to do, even when the motor (M-88) and rolling mills were evacuated.
                        d) it turned out you can make La 5.
                      82. 0
                        27 May 2019 13: 39
                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        - I agree with everything except "the production of the I-180 prepared for the series", - there is no stock of motors, no personnel, no tools, no small series produced. But a lot of things hung on the bowl. Outweighed LaGG.

                        frames, tools were - quotes of the heads of the wing assembly departments and the final assembly resulted. if anything :
                        In 1939, the four leading Soviet aircraft plants No. 1, 18, 21 and 22 not only provided 78% of the gross output of the aircraft industry, but also were recognized leaders in the development of serial technology and equipment. They had the best machines and equipment, well-trained personnel.
                        An example of Su-2 development is much less developed and prepared for this 135 plant is

                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        - Who then knew that tar would be in short supply? They didn’t know that there would be rent and M-88 in deficit (although, they already knew about M-88 deficiency!), But as it turned out, they guessed with LaGG, -
                        a) it could be done without "delta ..."
                        b) it turned out you can do it with the hands of minor joiners and carpenters
                        c) it turned out to be possible to do, even when the motor (M-88) and rolling mills were evacuated.
                        d) it turned out you can make La 5.

                        It turns out in the NCAP were fortune tellers? And an aircraft can be made from anything - and it does not matter that the aviation wood in the USSR which fits the norm turns out to grow only in the Baikal region and it does not matter that it should be harvested only at a certain time of the year and after that it should be dried for a certain time and FIG. that during the war it was impossible to withstand all conditions in temperature and humidity in unheated workshops. But from the side of cheap-out trees, how many ...
                      83. +1
                        27 May 2019 14: 22
                        frames, tools were - quotes of the heads of the wing assembly and final assembly workshops
                        - and this is the planned management of the NKAP:
                        "1. In 1939, 10 358 aircraft were delivered to all customers, including 7421 combat vehicles; by 1938, delivery was 134% for all aircraft, and 157% for combat aircraft. In addition to the delivered vehicles, the rolling stock of assembled vehicles increased from 331 units on January 1, 1939 to 667 units on January 1, 1940

                        Delivery program airplanes performed on 90%, and for combat vehicles on 85%. With a significant increase in the output of the mastered machines in 1939, there was a sharp failure to comply with the plan for new cars envisaged by the government resolution of 29 in July 1939.

                        Aircraft
                        Factories
                        Delivery plan
                        Surrendered
                        BB ‑ 22
                        № 1
                        10
                        0
                        BB ‑ 1
                        № 135
                        10
                        0
                        I-xnumx
                        № 21
                        10
                        0
                        DB-Zf
                        No. 18 and 39
                        110
                        0
                        2. The same situation with the engines: with a significant increase in the motor program in general, new engines are lagging behindstipulated by the government decision of April 26 1939

                        The total output of the engines in 1939 was 22 803 units, including: military aircraft engines - 14 341 units, which accounted for the growth over the year for all engines by 34%, and for combat vehicles - by 57%. The annual plan for the delivery of the engines is executed on 91%.

                        On new engines there is a sharp underperformance, as can be seen from the following:

                        [Motors]
                        Factories
                        Plan
                        Surrendered
                        M-105
                        № 26
                        500
                        169
                        M-88
                        № 29
                        500
                        204

                        M-35
                        № 24
                        300
                        10
                        M-63
                        № 19
                        1605
                        973¹
                        5. The main disadvantages of the aviation industry include:

                        a) the incompleteness of new designs of machines (airplanes, motors, assemblies, instruments), launched into mass production, causing problems in production and, ultimately, failure to meet the deadlines for serial development of machines;

                        b) insufficient preparation of factories in the area of ​​technology and tooling for the production of new machines, as a result of which new dies, devices and tools did not keep up with the date of launching machines into mass production;

                        at) the tool economy of a number of factories in their capacity is not prepared for the rapid equipping of mass production of new machines. Thus, at plant number 22, for the development of an SPB aircraft, 37,6 thousand are required. tools, devices and stamps of various names, and the throughput of tool farming in the quarter is 19,5 thousand;

                        d) the production base for the engines lags behind the aircraft. Existing 5 engine factories hardly provide the current program for aircraft with their products and do not sufficiently provide the air force reserve with motors, and also limit the further deployment of aircraft. At one of the main engine factories - Plant No. 24 - the multi-subject matter of the nomenclature (8 names) interferes with the specialization of the plant and the full use of its production capabilities. A lagging plot is also motor-aggregate plants (carburetors, self-starts, etc.);

                        e) loading of aircraft factories is uneven. So, in 1939, the factories were underloaded: “Sarcombine”, No. 135, No. 124, No. 84. According to the 1940 plan, these plants are loaded, but plants No. 31 and 207 remain without full load;

                        f) Delivery of products during 1939 was uneven. So, according to the data for September-December, the last five days of the month for airplanes falls 64% of the monthly delivery; on motors - 33,7%; on screws 43%; on radio stations - 70,7%. Such a surrender demonstrates the frenetic work in the factories, the downtime at the beginning of the month and overtime at the end of the month. So, the downtime for 11 months 1939 amounted to 7,5 million man-hours, overtime - 22,3 million hours. Of course, this amount of downtime and overtime is not only due to the above reason, but was also caused by interruptions in supply, lack of labor and a number of other reasons;

                        g) lack of a long-term plan for the development of the aviation industry. "

                        Or here:
                        "7. Given perfect failure in specialists and skilled workers at existing plants and bearing in mind the major expansion of the production base due to the construction of new plants, it is necessary:

                        a) strive for such an organization of the production process, which would allow the use in the production of female labor and low-skilled workers;
                        "- this is from the NKAP Act.

                        and it does not matter that aviation wood in the USSR, which fits the norms, turns out to grow only in the Baikal region and it does not matter that it should be harvested only at a certain time of the year and after that it should be dried for a certain time and figs so that during the war it can be kept in unheated workshops All conditions for temperature and humidity is unrealistic.
                        - And thank God that is not on the right bank of the Dnieper.
                      84. 0
                        27 May 2019 17: 07
                        Regarding 39 of the year that 135, that 21 have not passed any Su-2 and I-180, respectively, which is not surprising - I cited the example of 1940 year
                      85. 0
                        28 May 2019 12: 32
                        Regarding 39 of the year that 135, that 21 have not passed any Su-2 and I-180, respectively, which is not surprising - I cited the example of 1940 year

                        If during 1940 something has changed at the 135 plant, it isn’t due to the fact that all accepted by military acceptance M-88 priority went there, and not to the 21 plant, which in September 1940 engines for the I-180 did not have? But Pashinin has nothing to do with it! wink
                      86. 0
                        28 May 2019 22: 29
                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        If something changed at the 1940 plant during 135, it isn’t due to the fact that all those accepted by the military acceptance of the M-88 priority went there

                        Imagine that nothing has changed there after the production of the P-10 ... Well, did the motors come in priority and ...? Where to put them - if the plant did not collect anything?
                      87. 0
                        29 May 2019 08: 19
                        Imagine that nothing has changed there after the production of the P-10
                        - I will not. For the BB-1 design is different from the P-10. Undoubtedly, the technology worked. But, as noted here:
                        http://istmat.info/node/58226 :
                        "e) the loading of aircraft factories is uneven. So, in 1939, the factories were underutilized:" Sarcombein ", № 135, No. 124, No. 84. According to the 1940 plan, these plants are loaded, but plants no. 31 and 207 remain without full load; "and the 21st is loaded above the coil. Where is it easier to change technologies - at a loaded plant or at an unloaded plant?
                        Here http://istmat.info/node/58225 and here http://istmat.info/node/58229 says:
                        "2. Prohibit further expansion of mass production giants (for example, Plant No. 22, No. 1), and newly built plants should be designed for production capacity no more than 1 ‑ 1,5 thousand aircraft per year."
                        "Ensure uniform loading of all aircraft factories, defining a solid profile for each of them. Prohibit further plant expansion No. 1, 18, 21 and 22.
                        ...
                        Establish that newly built plants should be designed for 1 ‑ 1,5 production capacity of thousands of aircraft per year.
                        ...
                        Achieve assurance of serial plants a three-month supply of necessary materials."
                        This is all 1940 and the "illiterate leadership of the NKAP". Where it is easier to introduce a series - at a plant designed for 0,5 thousand. planes, or a giant?
                      88. 0
                        29 May 2019 12: 54
                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        - I will not. For the BB-1 design is different from the P-10. Undoubtedly, the technology worked

                        And why with respect to 21 (which has much greater possibilities in the development of mixed structures), did you imagine this? In 39 - not ready ... in 40-m - not ready ...
                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        Where is it easier to replace technologies - in a loaded plant or in an unloaded one?

                        That is why in relation to the 21 plant (engaged in the production of the I-16 and UTI-4), only the 30 planes of the military series were discussed, and not the plan in 400 pcs. as 135.
                      89. 0
                        29 May 2019 15: 42
                        And why with respect to 21 (which has much greater possibilities in the development of mixed structures), did you imagine this? In 39 - not ready ... in 40-m - not ready ...
                        - because he was overloaded with orders. Unlike the 135 plant. Plus, the deficit of M-88, plus the presence in the plans of I-21 (which also no one took off from the plan 1940g). Well, an unsuccessful example with the 135 plant.
                      90. 0
                        29 May 2019 19: 01
                        Overloaded and that is why the military series is only in 30 aircraft, and not in 400 (according to the plan of the NKAP 135 plant for 1940). And 21 in the plans stood only in the form of an experienced aircraft for the construction of which was an indication.
                      91. 0
                        29 May 2019 15: 53
                        That is why in relation to the 21 plant (engaged in the production of the I-16 and UTI-4), only the 30 planes of the military series were discussed, and not the plan in 400 pcs. as 135.
                        - to "only" it should be added that the plan for the I-16 and UTI was not fulfilled, in terms of the I-21 and spare parts for the manufactured aircraft. I have given you excerpts about very different loading for plants 21 and 135. If the 135th plant had nothing to do except BB-1, then it was engaged in BB-1 in full force of free capacities. And if, besides the 30 I-180, the 21st plant still has a lot of headaches, and the engines for the I-180 are not being transported, despite all the letters and demands, then it is clear that instead of the I-180, which, though " use "(sorry for my French) there is nothing to" motorize ", the plant management will do what there are raw materials and materials - I-16, UTI and I-21. So that labor resources do not stand idle.
                      92. 0
                        29 May 2019 19: 19
                        I-21 was not included in the plans for the 40 year for the series, due to strong loading, which prevented us from doing it earlier as suggested
                        20 May 1940. Chief Designer Polikarpov and Deputy Chief Engineer of the Plant No. 21 Kupriyanov: Stop [produce] numerous modifications of AND-16, retaining only UTI-4 and I-16 29 type in production (with 2 synchronous heavy machine guns and 1 synchronous large caliber callers and BS) ...

                        And so
                        In May, the Resolution of the Defense Committee of the USSR SNK No. 223ss was issued, according to which in 2 sixth year of 1940, plant No. 21 for GUAS KA should pass X-NUMX fighters I-110 with M-180P engine and leave only I-88 fighters in production type 16. All other modifications of I-29, including types 16 and 24, were removed from production.
                      93. 0
                        29 May 2019 20: 08
                        those. then it was logical to reduce the load on the plant reducing the output of old products on it
                      94. 0
                        30 May 2019 08: 15
                        those. then it was logical to reduce the load on the plant reducing the output of old products on it
                        - it is logical, undoubtedly. But the quotes you cited:
                        a) Not within the competence of Pashinin.
                        b) They do not answer the question of how quickly, and at what cost it is possible to "Stop [producing] numerous modifications of the I-16, keeping in production only the UTI-4 and I-16 type 29 (with 2 synchronous machine guns and 1 synchronous heavy machine gun BS) "taking into account the in-house reserves.
                        c) Impossible in the part "to hand over 110 I-180 fighters with the M-88R engine" due to the actual lack of the required number of M-88R
                        d) The phrase "to leave in production only the I-16 type 29 aircraft. All other I-16 modifications, including types 24 and 28, were withdrawn from production" does not mean that the plan for the total number of I-16s has been reduced for the plant ... Changing the modification "on the fly" while maintaining the release plan leads, unambiguously, to additional labor costs, and not to a decrease in load.
                      95. 0
                        24 May 2019 10: 36
                        The main thing he fully explains why I believe that the directorate of the 21 plant pushed through its aircraft, and not the I-180

                        Look carefully at these two documents:
                        http://istmat.info/node/58225
                        http://istmat.info/node/58226
                        Probably, the "push through" version will fade into the background.
                        You can also work on this work in terms of numbers and the relationship of phenomena:
                        Simonov N.S. "The military-industrial complex of the USSR in the 1920s-1950s: rates of economic growth, structure, organization of production and management".
                      96. 0
                        24 May 2019 15: 17
                        I am familiar with this resource (I looked through the documents there with interest), could you indicate why
                        push-through version
                        should fade into the background? Rather, in one of the paragraphs of the first document it is confirmed:
                        The chief designers of serial plants who are not authors of the aircraft manufactured at these plants are in a series of aircraft, for example: Plant No. 21 - T. Pashinin, Plant No. 23 - T. Nikitin, Plant No. 301 - Gorbunov, Plant No. 153 - T. Silvansky and others not are engaged in fulfilling their immediate tasks for the production of a series, and in the design bureaus at their disposal they develop new aircraft designs that are not tied to the technological profile of the plant. At the same time, designers-authors of aircraft that are in serial construction do not and cannot actually deal with production issues related to the manufacture of his aircraft in the series.
                      97. 0
                        24 May 2019 15: 25
                        And you see nothing else ?:
                        "The disruption of the program for new engines had a strong impact on the release of new and modernized aircraft (DB-3F, M-88, SB-105, I-16, M-63, etc.) in 1939, and also resulted in the installation on a number of aircraft (SB, DB-Zf, I-16) of old engines. Detailed data on the production of aircraft and engines for plants and machine types are attached (Appendix No. ... [1])."
                        "The work style of the people's commissariat, and first of all, the people's commissar M. M. Kaganovich -

                        bureaucratic, based on external effect, the pursuit of quantitative indicators. In the Commissariat, the practice of unverified, poor-quality information was common, for example, on the issue of the readiness of M-105 and M-88 motors, a synchronizer for firing through a three-bladed propeller, etc.
                        "
                        "Only two factories, No. 39 and No. 115, have the ability to test prototype aircraft for strength, yet the rest of the factories are forced with great losses of time to test the strength of their aircraft in the only statistical testing laboratory at TsAGI, which is extremely overloaded, and therefore is a brake on the work of all design bureaus. "
                        "Of particular note are the following major shortcomings in the development and use of the production capacity of the aviation industry:

                        a) large investments in several major giant plants still being reconstructed. The small number and large size of motor plants (5 plants, while in Germany there are 18) make it very difficult to introduce new and modified motors into a series, since switching large plants to producing new samples is much more difficult and longer than small plants and, apart from Moreover, the failure of one of the plants at the time of its transfer to the production of a new sample causes a sharp reduction in the total output of the engines. From a military point of view, the small number and large size of the motor factories are also completely inappropriate;

                        b) the lack of stand-ins for the most important factories of the combat equipment of our aircraft. This plant in the first place is the plant number 32, which holds the main aircraft armament. Similarly, plant number 213 is the only plant that produces aviation instruments, and the plant them. Lepse is the only plant producing aircraft generators;
                        "
                        And a lot of other things, objective and not so much. A whole bunch of reasons why I-180 was built slowly.
                      98. 0
                        24 May 2019 16: 42
                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        A whole bunch of reasons why I-180 was built slowly.

                        Yes, there was a mess and problems in our industry, but I-180 was not just built slowly ...
                        He just went down on the brakes (and this was indicated by numerous commissions), think almost in 2, one of the largest aircraft factories could not master a military series in 30 aircraft! ....
                        Here for example:
                        "Plant No. 1, having received a task to build an E-180 E-3 similar in design and at the same time and also starting from scratch, at the end of 1939, was able to release the fighter from the assembly shop, having also produced a backlog of parts and components for -184. "and 21 did not release more than one in the same period!
                      99. 0
                        27 May 2019 08: 11
                        (and this was indicated numerous commission)
                        - how many commissions? One, ten?
                        think almost for 2, one of the largest aircraft factories could not master the military series in 30 aircraft!
                        - Consider, the 21 plant could not manage in two years (39-40) the construction of the 10 and 21 series from Pashinin (who allegedly was lobbying by Pashinin himself, and which 100% corresponded to the technologies of the plant). Only two were able, the third was already completed in 41. And the plan for the 16 and chronically did not fulfill. So, maybe, it’s not about Pashinin’s attitude to I-180, or to his brainchild (I-21), he didn’t treat better than I-180 and braked all experienced aircraft.
                      100. 0
                        27 May 2019 12: 23
                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        - how many commissions? One, ten?

                        A joint commission of the NKAP and the Air Force, chaired by Deputy People's Commissar of the Aviation Industry, V. P. Balandin, was sent to the plant itself, and the head of the fighter department, military engineer of the 1 rank Voevodin, was sent from the Air Force Research Institute GUAS KA to the plant. There were also meetings on the X-NUMX in NCAP without going to the factory
                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        - Think about it, the 21 plant could not manage in two years (39-40) to build a series from 10 and-21 Pashinin

                        You can find out where the data on the series of 10 and 21? If anything, all three were experienced, the third in general did not reach state tests. The fact that he didn’t have enough experience to bring the plane doesn’t mean that he slowed him down - well, what kind of perverted conclusion is this? ...
                      101. 0
                        27 May 2019 12: 40
                        A joint commission of the NKAP and the Air Force, chaired by Deputy People's Commissar of the Aviation Industry, V. P. Balandin, was sent to the plant itself, and the head of the fighter department, military engineer of the 1 rank Voevodin, was sent from the Air Force Research Institute GUAS KA to the plant.
                        - that is, the commission was one? Not the essence, of course, but the accents ...:
                        He just went down on the brakes (and this was indicated by numerous commissions),

                        Commission one claimed about the brakes. And not numerous commissions. And if you delve into the conclusions of this commission, then the brakes climbs much more than the machinations of Pashinin. Starting from the shortage of qualified personnel to the lack of engines and test and experimental base.


                        You can find out where the data on the series of 10 and 21? If anything, all three were experienced, the third in general did not reach state tests. The fact that he didn’t have enough experience to bring the plane doesn’t mean that he slowed him down - well, what kind of perverted conclusion is this? ...
                        ,
                        yes my memory was wrong. Ordered 4 items:
                        http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fww2/i21.html
                        By the way, there is also a version about the fact that the "third" even fought:
                        (from) "In fact, the history of IP-21√3 continued, with the beginning of the war they tried to use it in the Moscow air defense system. It is not known whether the aircraft carried out combat missions, however there is the following document sent by 17 in January to 1942 by the former deputy chief designer of the plant No. 21 Khramov in the name of Deputy People's Commissar of the aircraft industry Voronin:

                        "Before leaving 27.12.1941 from Moscow for a special assignment, comrade M. Pashinin, by letter, said that one copy of the aircraft AND 21 (Pashinin’s design), after the combat work, had entered for repair on the former territory of the 301 plant. Since I am not familiar with the design of the aircraft AND 21 there, it would be useful to call for general fault detection and repair Ing. R.A. Popova from plant no. 21, and for testing and adjusting weapons (mainly gun mount) designer A. D. Danilov from plant No. 1 in Kuibyshev (works in the design office at comrade Mikoyan). Both of these comrades at one time conducted tests of the aircraft and its weapons in Moscow"."
                        Now let us project your opinion that "he did not have enough experience to bring the plane up does not mean that he slowed it down - what a perverted conclusion is that" - on the story with the I-180.
                      102. 0
                        27 May 2019 13: 18
                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        And if you delve into the conclusions of this commission, then the brakes climbs much more than the machinations of Pashinin. Starting from the shortage of qualified personnel to the lack of engines and test and experimental base.

                        Let's clarify the capabilities of our industry and in particular the plant number 21 to master the release of the 180.
                        Here for example:
                        On his initiative, in the frame of the machine, pressed open-type duralumin profiles, recently mastered by our industry, and high-strength aluminum alloys were used in the manufacture of parts by hot or cold forming and casting as the main elements.
                        without looking at Google, guess what kind of plane is it? wink Okay, this is a Su-2 (although almost all of this quote can be said about the I-180). According to your words, the 21 plant was poorly prepared for such constructions.
                        If anything, Sukhoi constructed the all-metal Su-2 in general, but since Polikarpov with his Ivanov (mixed design) was late for Dry Dali 20 days for processing of drawings under the mixed design, for serial production - the head plant 135. Which released before solid wood P-10. The Su-2 wing is a full metal two-spar, with a working skin. The trim on the toe and in the upper part up to the second spar was fastened with rivets, the rest of the trim was riveted with lenticular heads. That's really what the plant was not ready for the development of such structures, so it is 135!
                        I-180 transfer of drawings to 21 plant in June 39
                        Su-2 work on drawings for the plant June 1939
                        The result - for 41-th year 21-th assembled 3 aircraft of the military series, 135 - in May 1940 - 16 aircraft of the military series, just 40-year 110 aircraft ...
                      103. 0
                        27 May 2019 14: 33
                        Come on, come on! Now compare with the pre-war plans for the production of aircraft and engines for them, the construction of new factories (I once gave you a link). And remember, where at the beginning of the war were the factories that "recently mastered" pressed duralumin profiles of the open type?
                        Total? By the end of 41, there are no raw materials and components for the production of the I-180 (if it is launched into a series), and the Su-2 is discontinued.
                      104. 0
                        27 May 2019 17: 03
                        The result is that despite a bunch of reasons that allegedly prevented the 21 plant number from building the 30 machines of the military series, a much weaker and less prepared plant for producing airplanes with similar technology could still produce them in orders of magnitude larger - these are not a lot of them. acted
                      105. 0
                        28 May 2019 12: 29
                        I think for another plant, all the factors should be considered. Speaking of birds, "another plant", having released new aircraft "by orders of magnitude", according to this document
                        http://istmat.info/node/58226
                        The plan did not fulfill, maybe it was released, but it did not pass! :
                        "The aircraft delivery program has been completed by 90%, and for combat vehicles by 85%. With a significant increase in the production of mastered vehicles in 1939 there was a dramatic failure to comply with the plan for new cars, as stipulated by the government resolution of July 29 1939.

                        Aircraft
                        Factories
                        Delivery plan
                        Surrendered

                        BB ‑ 1
                        № 135
                        10
                        0

                        I-xnumx
                        № 21
                        10
                        0
                        DB-Zf
                        No. 18 and 39
                        110
                        0"
                        This is the data on 01.01.1940. The result is not much different from the 21 plant. And if during the 1940 something changed at the 135 plant, it wasn’t due to the fact that M-88 priority went there, and not to the 21 plant, which in September 1940 motors for I-180 is not had? But Pashinin has nothing to do with it! wink
                      106. 0
                        28 May 2019 22: 25
                        Yes, for six months to demand from the plant that previously produced an all-wood plane (as opposed to the 21) to master such a wing
                        could only Kaganovich .... We then loved to ask impossible plans.
                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        And if during the 1940 something changed at the 135 plant, it wasn’t due to the fact that M-88 priority went there, and not to the 21 plant, which in September 1940 motors for I-180 is not had? But Pashinin has nothing to do with it!

                        On 135, much has changed, the main thing to want:
                        There, by the summer of 1940, they introduced a plasma-template method, mastered the high-speed method of making dies, began to use the latest Nord-Amsriksn milling machines and hydraulic presses on 500 tons. In the first five months of 1940, three more new workshops were built, 20% the number of workers increased and the complexity of a single machine decreased by 40%.

                        With motors, of course, a complete w ..., but we were ready to master an 180 21, or could it not? The 21 engines didn’t do it, they were delivered to it in finished form (all that was needed was 30 units for the military series). But Pashinin, moreover, only partially - he acted as he was allowed by the illiterate leadership of the NKAP - that is, to engage in his projects, and not to help the plant in the development of mass-produced airplanes; naturally, he did this not without the support of the plant administration, which expressed the interests of even higher-ranking bosses.
                        Here are the motors on 135:
                        Director Yu.N.Karpov and Chief Engineer I.M. Kuzin explained to the leadership of the aviation industry the non-fulfillment of the plan by interruptions in the supply of components and, above all, engines. Thus, Motor Plant No. 29 sent 1940 132 and M-87 motors instead of 88 planned for the period (first five months of 185): of these, 116 turned out to be intact.
                      107. 0
                        29 May 2019 08: 03
                        but we were ready to master the 180 21, or could not?
                        - Not at all ready in 1940. And in 1941-m could not release. I think so. laughing
                        And pashinin here, moreover only partially
                        - here you are right.
                        was allowed illiterate leadership NCAP
                        - Are you talking about 1939? In January 1940 new The NCAP leadership drew roughly the same conclusions. (http://istmat.info/node/58225)
                        and not to help the plant in mastering serial airplanes
                        - Again, you are very free with terms. Production aircraft can be released. To master You can series. And before Pashinin, as the director of the plant, the task was to release TWO experienced series. AND-21 and AND-180. So you personally (hand on heart!) Would you prefer to release yours or someone else's? Moreover, the comparative result for the performance characteristics for you personally is not yet known? But it is known that YOUR offspring in YOUR production is mastered on 60-70% (exactly this percentage of sources according to the succession of the design and I-21 technologies from I-16)?
                        Here are the motors on 135:
                        - You see! But for each aircraft accepted by military acceptance, in order to operate it normally, one and a half engines must also be taken from the engine plant to the Air Force warehouses. And where are these motors? You say that Polikarpov needs 30 more, and some more Yatsenko. Even at this time, non-motorized freshly released DB-3Fs are queuing up. And in parts, the same DB-3F is idle, because the motors do not nurture the resource. M-88 Polikarpov drive or raise the combat readiness of the line units? This is a task for NGOs, NKAP and the Air Force! "Illiterate leadership" ....
                      108. 0
                        29 May 2019 12: 45
                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        - Not at all ready in 1940. And in 1941-m could not release. I think so.

                        Not at all ready in 39, I gave you the example of the 135th plant for a reason, it started, so to speak, together with the 21st in the development of a new aircraft, but in the 40th instead of 3 it assembled 110. And we "started" then they are in different weight categories. Therefore, with regard to the 21st, "not ready" does not lie in the technological plane. Let's just say - they didn't try to cook it.
                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        And before Pashinin, as the director of the plant, the task was to release TWO experimental series. AND-21 and AND-180. So you personally (hand on heart!) Would you prefer to release yours or someone else's? Moreover, the comparative result for the performance characteristics for you personally is not yet known? But it is known that YOUR offspring in YOUR production is mastered on 60-70% (exactly this percentage of sources according to the succession of the design and I-21 technologies from I-16)?

                        Pashinin is not the director, but the chief designer of the factory design bureau (having his job duties). Here I personally (hand on heart!) Would generally prefer not to go to work and get paid for it laughing , but they do not pay the same - but they pay for the fulfillment of my duties (my administration is following this). Pashinin, as we see, was engaged in something else, under the strict guidance of his superiors. By the way DB-3Ф , and there were still DB-XNUMHA, B - this is a gradual modernization, with the replacement of not only the motors. And about the problem with M-3: NCA did not consider them a priority:
                        In the future, M-106 and M-107 were to become the main Soviet "fighter" engines .... In addition, the production of M-105 engines was supposed to be launched at once in several enterprises that had not previously been engaged in aircraft engine building. When the types of engines were distributed to new-built 29 plants on June 1940, it was decided that the aircraft engine plant in Ufa (on the same day, the plant was transferred from NKSredmash to NKAP (GA XF. 8007. On 1. D. 25.) L. 5)) M-88 will be produced, however 22 of August of the same year this decision was changed in favor of M-105. The production plan included 1940 motors in 20, 1941 in 1000, and with 1942 continuously produce 2500 per year (F. 8418. Op. 24. D. 649. L. 1). The decision was motivated by the fact that the capacities of factories No. 26,27 and 16, producing M-105, are clearly not enough to fulfill the plan, while the need for M-88 is fully covered by plant number 29..... The second most important were the Mikulino motors
                      109. 0
                        29 May 2019 15: 36
                        Not at all ready in 39, I gave you an example of the 135 plant for good reason, it started with the 21 in mastering the new aircraft, but in 40, instead of 3, I assembled 110.
                        An unfortunate example. Just because of the different "weight categories" of factories. And different priorities for them on the part of NGOs, NKAP and the Air Force.
                        Pashinin is not the director, but the chief designer of the factory design bureau (having his job duties).
                        -Yes, to blame, messed up. Pashinin - ch. Designer KB. Then set out as follows: And before Pashinin, as the chief designer of KB plantThe task was to release TWO experimental series. AND-21 and AND-180. So you personally (hand on heart!) Would you prefer to release yours or someone else's? Moreover, the comparative result for the performance characteristics for you personally is not yet known? But it is known that YOUR offspring in YOUR production is mastered on 60-70% (exactly this percentage of sources according to the succession of the design and I-21 technologies from I-16)?
                        And about the problem with M-88: NCA did not consider them a priority:
                        - quite possible. Taking into account the protracted terms of its refinement. This affected the fate of the I-180 more than Pashinin's "intrigues". wink
                      110. 0
                        29 May 2019 18: 56
                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        An unfortunate example. Just because of the different "weight categories" of factories

                        From the point of view of mastering new technologies, the example is just right.
                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        And different priorities for them from NPO, NKAP and the Air Force.

                        But with different priorities - I agree, and therefore wrote about the I-180:
                        Quote: KERMET
                        Let's just say that they didn’t try to cook it

                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        So you personally (honestly!) That you would rather release - yours or someone else's?

                        Of course I would have preferred mine, but who would ask me? bully
                        There was a decree according to which:
                        Aircraft Plant No. 21 ordered to finish in February the first series (militarystarted by ein June 1939), consisting of 10 aircraft, the second series - of 20 aircraft - in March.

                        Ch. the designer of the factory design bureau is obliged to help the factory in this.
                        А
                        4 April 1940 g... followed by a resolution of the Defense Committee: "To oblige the NKAP and designer Pashinin to build experienced single-engine fighter under the motor M 105P

                        One decree does not cancel another, but he does one thing with the plant’s management, and the other .... (again, compared to the 135th) he simply releases the brakes. It is clear that without approval from above it was risky in those days
                      111. 0
                        30 May 2019 08: 03
                        From the point of view of mastering new technologies, the example is just right.

                        - Yes, it does. It just illustrates that the unloaded main production and the smaller plant size contribute to a less painful introduction of new technologies.

                        One decree does not cancel another, but he does one thing with the plant’s management and the other .... (again, compared to 135) just brakes.

                        - What Pashinin could have "let go on the brakes" was the release of working drawings. Everything else is beyond his competence. But, as far as I remember, Polikarpov himself was engaged in the release of working documentation for the 21st plant.

                        It is clear that without approval from above it was risky in those days

                        -Remind you one quote:
                        "6. Chief designers of serial plants who are not the authors of the aircraft produced at these plants in a series of aircraft, for example: plant number 21 - t. Pashinin, plant number 23 - t. Nikitin, plant number 301 - Gorbunov, plant number 153 - t. Silvansky and others are not engaged in the fulfillment of their immediate tasks for the production of the series, and in the design bureaus at their disposal they develop new aircraft designs that are not tied to the technological profile of the plant.At the same time, the designers-authors of aircraft that are in serial construction are not and cannot actually deal with production issues related to the production of his aircraft in series. "
                        Let's analyze this paragraph from the "Act of the 1st (aircraft building) of the Main Directorate of the People's Commissariat of the Aviation Industry of the USSR" On the state of aircraft construction and research work on the I and II Main Directorates of the NKAP as of January 1, 1940 " - January 17, 1940 "
                        "(comrades Pashinin, Silvansky) are not engaged in the fulfillment of their immediate tasks for the production of the series, but in the design bureaus at their disposal they are developing new aircraft designs that are not linked to the technological profile of the plant. " - But after all, someone gave them the task to deal with new designs, despite the small composition of the design bureau and the lack of a scientific and experimental base! And who is it? Someone who .... NKAP! By the way, on the issue "not related to the technological profile of the plant" in relation to I-21 Pashinin, the conclusions contained in the Act are controversial.
                        "At the same time, the designers-authors of aircraft in serial construction do not and cannot actually deal with production issues related to the production of his aircraft in series." - How! In fact, there is no author's support in the series. This is how the chain of relationships between aircraft design bureaus and factories is built. And this is not only about Polikarpov. This is about Ilyushin. And most importantly, this is about Tupolev, Petlyakov, Myasishchev - about the "sharazhka". But it's not these constructors' fault. And, moreover, not Pashinin. This is how work was organized in the NKAP and NKVD ("sharashka") at the end of 1939. The NKAP began to correct this practice in 1940, but did not have time for 1940. Is it only Pashinin's fault?
                      112. +2
                        21 May 2019 08: 58
                        you can see from the picture that the wing was almost half-sheathed by duralumin.
                        - for maintenance on I-16 "Console plating - linen. Due to heavy loads on the plating, the toe of the console is sheathed with sheet duralumin from above by 44,5% and from below by 14,5% of the chord." To be precise, 29% of the sheathing is duralumin, the rest is canvas. Thus, the design of the wing console I-16 is MIXED. What is the design of the I-180 console?
                      113. 0
                        21 May 2019 10: 02
                        That is, we have almost the same wing power structure and operating time for wing sheathing with duralumin — what insurmountable problems in similarity and development do you see here?
                      114. +1
                        21 May 2019 10: 27
                        Well, if the working duralumin sheathing and sheathing on 70% is plain, the welded truss and the stamped profile of the side members are the same power circuit, then you are right.
                      115. +1
                        21 May 2019 13: 09
                        If, in the process of creating the I-180, three constructive types of wing were put on it figuratively, what do you compare?
                      116. +1
                        21 May 2019 13: 15
                        By the way, about your clunks that were observed on the E-180-2 and which, together with other defects, led to deformation of the wing during the May Day flight of Suprun, were created at the 156 factory and the factory director answered for this marriage
                      117. -1
                        21 May 2019 13: 34
                        By the way, about your clunks that were observed on the E-180-2 and which, together with other defects, led to deformation of the wing during the May Day flight of Suprun, were created at the 156 factory and the factory director answered for this marriage
                        Apparently, the director of plant # 21 was aware of this, which is why the assembly of the "military series" I-180 proceeded so slowly.
                      118. 0
                        21 May 2019 16: 59
                        No, the director just pushed the design of his factory bureau
                      119. 0
                        22 May 2019 08: 04
                        It seems so to you. Life is usually more difficult than "just".
                      120. 0
                        21 May 2019 13: 33
                        The one that should go into the series. The last sample, with the corresponding strength standards and eliminated deficiencies. To legitimately assert that the I-180 in terms of performance characteristics is better than the aircraft designed by "young designers".
                      121. 0
                        21 May 2019 17: 02
                        To which the plant would go gradually, first with tubular spars, and a pyramidal chassis, without closed visors, etc.
                      122. 0
                        22 May 2019 08: 05
                        While it is only your "would". Data?
                      123. 0
                        22 May 2019 10: 00
                        And the facts show that even with the old wing, which clearly cut down the TTX I-180, the series at the factory went with great creak. And with a wild lag behind all schedules and plans.
                      124. 0
                        22 May 2019 17: 56
                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        with an old wing that clearly cut down the TTX I-180

                        It didn’t cut back, for the military series - which is intended for personnel to learn and identify TTX defects during operation, it’s quite sufficient (it’s like launching the Su-57 in a series with the engine of the first stage, without waiting for the second ... if it were only in the engines there was a plug)
                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        a series at the factory went with great creak. And with a wild lag behind all schedules and plans.

                        a series at the factory went with a great creak not on technological obstacles
                      125. -1
                        23 May 2019 07: 52
                        Not cut back, for the military series - which is intended for the development by personnel and identification of TTX defects during operation, they are quite sufficient,
                        - didn’t cut it, or did it cut it, but is it enough for development? Enough to master, but how to fight?
                        a series at the factory went with a great creak not on technological obstacles
                        - Perhaps not only in technology. Maybe. But for them too.
                      126. -1
                        23 May 2019 14: 11
                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        Enough to master, but how to fight?

                        test pilots noted that with the old wing the lateral and track stability is good, with the new (with increased transverse "V") yes, it will be even better. Is this a reason to say that the aircraft is not suitable for fighting?
                      127. 0
                        23 May 2019 14: 24
                        Suitable. But to a lesser extent. Not casualty increased, despite these testimonial reviews? And do not forget about strength. You wrote that in the autumn of 40, you had to strengthen the wing with tubular spars. How? Only increasing weight. Yes, we got the required margin of safety in the end. But the weight of the design has grown! Do you want to say that this did not affect TTX in any way? Again, the question of what estimated weight did the test do? And what weight did the I-180 E-7 have, having received an additional walkie-talkie, heavier weapons and a larger oil tank? And how did this affect the margin of safety? wink
                      128. 0
                        23 May 2019 15: 20
                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        Only increasing weight. Yes, we got the required margin of safety in the end. But the weight of the design has grown! Do you want to say that this did not affect TTX in any way?

                        On August 25, 1940, according to the order of the People’s Commissariat, in the laboratory of Plant No. 21, statistical tests of the I-180 fighter were carried out. They showed that the strength of the fuselage, engine mount, crutch, shields, and other units meets the strength standards (for example, a crutch withstood 110% of the load). At 95% load collapsed the lower belt of the front spar of the center section. This corresponded to destructive overload. 12,23 units (norm 13, operational overload - 8,7).

                        Not much, I think, and the weight was increased - 5% of the strength was not enough ...
                        Quote: Dooplet11
                        And how much weight did the I-180 E-7 have, having received an additional walkie-talkie, heavier weapons and a larger oil tank? And how did this affect the margin of safety?

                        What is E-7, on E-5 (the 41-year standard - which production should gradually have reached) there was already a long list of changes:
                        1. Single rack chassis instead of pyramidal.
                        2. Accordingly, the center section modified in design.
                        3. Reinforced front spar.
                        4. The tail wheel 300h125 and in this regard, a new tail coc.
                        5. Lantern cockpit.
                        6. Increased to 6 ”30 'angle of the transverse" V "consoles.
                        7. Centering up to 20–22% SM.
                        8. Installation of suspended gas tanks.
                        9. Installation of the RSI-4 radio station with an antenna of type I-185.
                        10. Motor M-88a instead of M-88R.
                        11. Simplified flap management.
                        12. Three gas tanks of a new configuration instead of one.
                        13. Oil cooler under the cockpit of the type I-185.
                        14. Installing a gas tank filling system with neutral gases.
                        15. Headlights of a new design, additional oil tanks of 30 liters, other minor improvements.
                        There are too many changes to make it so easy to answer — and by weight, changes are possible in both directions (for example, a single-post landing gear, a modified center section could weigh even less than the old ones. From practice, of course, the weight of an airplane usually only grows) laughing
                      129. 0
                        23 May 2019 10: 52
                        it's like starting a Su-57 in a series with the engine of the first stage, without waiting for the second ... if there was only a plug in the engines
                        - that's it. But you will not argue that with the engines of the first stage TTX Su-57 is not worse? Why are you sure what is wrong with the wing?
                      130. 0
                        23 May 2019 15: 22
                        Let's just say that I’m sure that the changes will be insignificant
                      131. 0
                        24 May 2019 07: 59
                        Let's just say that I’m sure that the changes will be insignificant
                        - RDK-43 in your hands! wink
                      132. 0
                        24 May 2019 15: 24
                        It is impolite to "send" your opponent to a document of 1053 pages. Can you give a quote from there that would prove your statement?
                      133. 0
                        27 May 2019 08: 00
                        Section for calculating available overload.
                      134. 0
                        24 May 2019 07: 57
                        Not much, I think, and the weight was increased - 5% of strength did not reach ...
                        - I will ask you once again, - from what calculated weight did you miss 5%? If for a weight of 2600 kg it is 5%, then by increasing the weight to 2700 (only 4%!) We will no longer get 10% in destructive overload. So, taking into account the list of changes given by you for the I-180 E-5 with the "old wing" would have to impose restrictions on overload and max. dive speed. And what is this if not a deterioration in performance characteristics?
                      135. 0
                        24 May 2019 15: 52
                        You need to ask these questions at the Air Force Research Institute of that time - there the test methods were worked out and the I-180 is not the first aircraft in the history of the Air Force
                      136. 0
                        27 May 2019 08: 02
                        You need to ask these questions at the Air Force Research Institute of that time - there the test methods were worked out and the I-180 is not the first aircraft in the history of the Air Force
                        - answering these questions, you will understand how the performance characteristics change with increasing weight of the airframe.
                  2. +4
                    20 May 2019 11: 08
                    If we really remember the "similarity of design", then rather you can find the constructive, layout and technological similarity between the I-200 and I-185, than between the I-16 and I-185, especially in terms of the technologies of the 21st plant of the period 1939- 1942gg
                    1. +1
                      20 May 2019 18: 26
                      About a certain technological similarity between the I-200 and I-185 completely agree
                      1. +2
                        21 May 2019 08: 27
                        This is about the I-16 and I-180, we can say about "a certain technological similarity." In separate elements. And the I-200 and I-185 are simply built on identical technologies, design solutions and materials. Illustration of design solutions:

                      2. +1
                        21 May 2019 09: 20
                        Pick up the same schemes for I-16 and I-180 (I’m not at work right now at work) and you will be surprised at the similarity of design solutions.
                      3. +1
                        21 May 2019 09: 34
                        By the way, if you use your nit-picking, what technological similarity can we talk about if the I-200 came to wooden consoles, and the I-185 they are made of metal? winked
                      4. +1
                        21 May 2019 10: 05
                        if on I-200 they came to wooden consoles, but on I-185 they were metal?

                        “The all-metal wing console of the I-185 fighter gave it a noticeable gain in weight over the all-wooden aircraft. with a wing converted into the Mikoyan Design Bureau) lost - see the table at the end of the section "

                        Content Source: https://naukatehnika.com/istrebitel-polikarpov-i-185.html
                        naukatehnika.com
                        Indeed, there are differences. But where are there more? Between I-185 and I-16, or between I-185 and I-200? wink
                      5. +1
                        21 May 2019 10: 15
                        I am familiar with this tag. (quality pictures there)
                        So does it give him "a noticeable gain" or did not give him "big advantages"? You are like a Chukchi, I see here, but not there. For the I-200 and I-185, you easily saw the technological similarity, despite the fact that one has an all-metal wing, the other has a mixed wing, and for the other pair of aircraft you have this stumbling block
                      6. 0
                        21 May 2019 10: 24
                        For I-200 and I-185, you can easily see the technological similarities, despite the fact that one has an all-metal wing, the other has a mixed one, and for the other pair of planes you have this stumbling block
                        For the "other" couple, I did not "see any technological similarity", she in separate elementsis definitely present. I did not see "I-16 with I-180 (their designs are similar)".
                      7. +1
                        21 May 2019 09: 59
                        and you will be surprised at the similarity of design solutions.


                        Well, except in the kinematics of the main landing gear and in the design of the rear fuselage.
                      8. +1
                        21 May 2019 10: 23
                        You can also be skeptical about your photos above. winked
                      9. 0
                        21 May 2019 10: 44
                        You can also skeptically approach your photos above. Winked
                        If we talk about the readiness of production to replace the manufactured aircraft, it is NECESSARY to approach even more skeptically, and not like this:
                        so I compared the I-16 with the I-180 (their designs are similar), and if I recall the I-185, then it was smoothly planned from the I-180 E7 (a kind of hybrid: the tail of the I-185 with feathers docked to the engine and wing from I-180)
                      10. +1
                        21 May 2019 11: 09
                        Are we at the factory with you and I need to go wrong, but with a heap of documentation? smile
                      11. 0
                        21 May 2019 11: 48
                        For such statements about the type of missed opportunities, yes, with a heap of documentation. What is the difference between a project and a project, and proof from libel? The quality and detail of the documentation. wink
                      12. +1
                        21 May 2019 12: 14
                        Well, in the quality and detail of the documentation you ran away from me
                      13. +1
                        21 May 2019 12: 29
                        The burden of proof lies with the initiator of the idea .. The similarity of the I-16 and I-180 design is your idea. hi
                      14. +1
                        21 May 2019 13: 18
                        If you don’t see her, then I’m afraid none of my arguments will help, fortunately, many still see her
                      15. -1
                        21 May 2019 16: 04
                        Many see what is not. To my own happiness. You are happy - and I am sincerely happy for you! ))))
                        The design of the I-180 in relation to the I-16 is successive in certain points, which cannot be argued with. But not the same. Otherwise, the I-180 would be called "I-16type ..."
                      16. +1
                        21 May 2019 16: 58
                        What I said, you see the continuity, I called it analogy, the whole debate in the definitions
                      17. 0
                        22 May 2019 08: 03
                        Definitions should be accurate and not double-read.
                      18. -1
                        21 May 2019 16: 51
                        But where is the similarity? even the schemes seem to be similar - both are low wing monoplanes, but the engines are completely different, the aerodynamic scheme is different - the donkey was dynamically unstable, and the i-200 was made as stable.
                        the altitude of the aircraft was completely different, the specific pressure on the wing was completely different
                        there are a huge number of differences. only the technological base matches
                      19. +1
                        21 May 2019 17: 46
                        Actually, here the whole debate is about technological similarity, i.e., how easily the plant could switch from the production of one aircraft to another
            2. +3
              18 May 2019 19: 22
              Quote: dauria
              You imagine the ready-made equipment of three factories, plazas, templates, documentation, woodworking machines, sharpened for specific operations, trained people - and all this in the conditions of the war throw out nafig and a new ...

              Yes, this is a huge problem in peacetime, and even in war conditions it is an insoluble task, especially given the large losses of aircraft at the front.
              I completely agree with your conclusion, because what you write is known to experts, and not to those who can only fly.
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. +3
                  19 May 2019 11: 25
                  Quote: sdk
                  And your pilots are not specialists at all?

                  In the army, only specialists from ordering departments can know about the problems of the military-industrial complex, and even then not all of their depth, but what they have to deal with when it comes to adopting and releasing serial models. Not everyone knows about the intricacies of technological processes and costs, even in industry, but you want to say something about pilots here. No, you can hardly imagine the level of problems of the industry, even being an excellent pilot.
                  Quote: sdk
                  They gain the same knowledge as other aviation engineers,

                  Have you any idea how designers differ from technologists?
                  1. sdk
                    0
                    20 May 2019 13: 18
                    Of course I can imagine both the level of problems and how they differ from each other. Otherwise, you would not be blamed. The pilot is the top of the pyramid, the concentration in one person of many related knowledge of aviation science. It is unlikely that I will immediately calculate the technological map, I will make an aerodynamic or strength calculation. But, as an engineer, I know how to do this, and, unlike a designer or a technologist, I can take into account something that no one ever taught them.
                    1. -1
                      20 May 2019 19: 22
                      Quote: sdk
                      The pilot is the top of the pyramid, the concentration in one person of many related knowledge of aviation science.

                      As a pilot, he can be talented, but that without serious knowledge and understanding of the military-industrial complex, he can understand his problems, I will never believe.
                      Quote: sdk
                      But, as an engineer, I know how to do this, and, unlike a designer or a technologist, I can take into account something that no one ever taught them.

                      Do not build illusions - I, unlike you, was the gas-carrier by a certain technique, and I know very well what your ideas may be.
                      Quote: sdk
                      Otherwise, you would not be blamed.

                      You torture me to blame - unlike you, I went through a school that you could hardly pass, even as a military engineer.
        2. -1
          21 May 2019 04: 23
          Quote: dauria
          Yak-25, a great interceptor with a serious locator.

          Relatively recently, I read the memoirs of one of the veterans who flew the Yak-25. He said that the Yak-25 had a kind of glider, "soft". It seems that when landing, you do everything as always, almost the same, but you will never let him down to one landing point on the strip. At the same time, the plane is pleasant to fly in flight.
          At the end of 60's father studied at the academy. In the courtyard of the house where we lived, the half-assembled Yak-25 stood and the boys and I occasionally jumped on it.
      2. +1
        18 May 2019 21: 24
        dmmyak40 Wrote:
        Yak-40 is one of the most numerous and reliable machines of Aeroflot, 1011 airplanes are released! The workhorse of the civilian fleet, the world's first jet aircraft for local airlines with the comfort of linear aircraft.

        dmmyak40, and have you ever flown on it?
        1. +1
          19 May 2019 18: 25
          Quote: PilotS37
          dmmyak40 Wrote:
          Yak-40 is one of the most numerous and reliable machines of Aeroflot, 1011 airplanes are released! The workhorse of the civilian fleet, the world's first jet aircraft for local airlines with the comfort of linear aircraft.

          dmmyak40, and have you ever flown on it?

          Once I had a chance to fly from Gorky to Kuibyshev. The ticket was on the Yak-40. At the counter, they suggested flying away half an hour earlier on the L-410. He refused, and not in vain. Arrived at the same time. Only a small difference - the Yak-40 passengers were pink-haired and funny, and with the L-410 with curved green faces - they walked over the Volga at low altitude and they were seriously chatted all the way.
          1. +1
            20 May 2019 13: 49
            I was struck by the fact that the Yak40 and 42 gave the comfort that you expect to see only on a large airliner, but the plane is small
        2. +3
          20 May 2019 01: 15
          Quote: PilotS37
          Have you ever flown on it?

          I had to fly once to the Yak-40, almost like a Tu-134, only smaller. By the way, the Yak-42 was generally liked, after the Tu-134 it is the same as the Volga after Zaporozhets.
    3. +1
      18 May 2019 15: 32
      In addition to the Yakovlevsky aircraft listed below, do not forget about the Yak-24 (this is a heavy helicopter)
      1. 0
        19 May 2019 18: 28
        Quote: gurzuf
        In addition to the Yakovlevsky aircraft listed below, do not forget about the Yak-24 (this is a heavy helicopter)

        By the way, he flew on the ASh-82 (M-82) engines. At one time I was in the record holders, but quickly went into oblivion - I could not stand the competition with Milevsky cars
    4. +1
      18 May 2019 21: 21
      Andrey NM wrote:
      I also have the memoirs of Yakovlev. And there are memoirs of Pokryshkin, which describes the meeting of a combat pilot with Yakovlev. And I'm trying to remember how many winged cars left the Yakovlev Design Bureau after the war and were operated for a long time. Yak-11, Yak-18, Yak-50 (52), well maybe Yak-40 and Yak-42. Everything else either did not go into the series, or was operated for a very short time. Does this mean something?

      Well, there was something else ... For example, the Yak-28 (a miracle in feathers) or the Yak-38 (not the Harrier, of course, but other Soviet design bureaus did not undertake this either). But the series of disasters with the Yak-42, for example, is memorable to me.
      And then another (in the late 1980s) several of our collections crashed into the Yak-55.
      As Napoleon said in one anecdote: "If I had such a press, no one would ever know about my defeats ..." This is about our Great Fable Writer, not Pushkin, too ...
      Although I must admit that I also began my acquaintance with aviation with his books, but today, in my library, sa-a-ah-all other authors ...
      1. 0
        19 May 2019 18: 32
        Quote: PilotS37
        But a series of accidents with the Yak-42, for example, is memorable to me.

        Yak-42 was launched raw. Ilyushin's design bureau was charged with the debugging. Does he need it? The Ilyushin testers were amazed, as they experienced at Yakovlev, "not noticing" the obvious jambs.
        1. +1
          24 May 2019 21: 08
          Captain Pushkin wrote:
          Yak-42 was launched raw. Ilyushin's design bureau was charged with the debugging. Does he need it? The Ilyushin testers were amazed, as they experienced at Yakovlev, "not noticing" the obvious jambs.

          Oops! This is something new...
          And when did Sergey Vladimirovich start wiping after Alexander Sergeyevich?
    5. +1
      20 May 2019 13: 47
      yak40 and yak42 nice and quite comfortable cars
      I flew them instead of a bus
    6. 0
      21 May 2019 06: 24
      I also read "The Sky of War". There, Pokryshkin correctly writes after meeting with Yakovlev, "I got the impression that the conversation did not take place ..." Yakovlev, with a disdainful grin, defiantly did not listen to Pokryshkin's remarks on Yak aircraft. At the same time, Lavochkin, when they met, he himself asked to express all the comments and suggestions to the La-5 aircraft and then took them into account.
  8. +1
    18 May 2019 06: 35
    In the book of test pilot Stefanovsky "Three hundred unknowns", the failures of the I-180 and I-185 are unambiguously attributed to the motors. And Yakovlev, Mikoyan and Lavochkin, apparently, stepped on the same place for the author
    1. +3
      18 May 2019 12: 14
      Quote: itarnmag
      .A. Yakovlev, Mikoyan and Lavochkin apparently stepped in one place to the author

      Yes, no, it’s just that the author is trying not to give out quite a lot of his opinion as the ultimate truth. An article of similar content, but without the blunders that are a common thread in this article appeared somewhere in the late 80s and early 90s, I don’t remember exactly where in the AiF, or in the Komsomol ...
    2. +3
      19 May 2019 18: 34
      Quote: itarnmag
      In the book of test pilot Stefanovsky "Three hundred unknowns", the failures of the I-180 and I-185 are unambiguously attributed to the motors. And Yakovlev, Mikoyan and Lavochkin, apparently, stepped on the same place for the author

      I-185 - one disaster. On which prototype of those years did not happen?
  9. -1
    18 May 2019 06: 42
    What a pre-Merz article! The author, in his attempts to arrange a "dump for dogs" on the themes of the I-180 I-185, goes over the lines of all colors and the boundaries of any decency. Chasing a deliberate lie in the style of a partisan of perestroika perfectly representing the true reasons for the failure of Nikolai Nikolaevich Polikarpov - wow, shame on you!
    1. 0
      18 May 2019 09: 21
      To drive a deliberate lie in the style of the partisan of perestroika is perfectly presenting the true reasons for the failure of Nikolai Nikolayevich Polikarpov - well, it’s a shame!

      Well, you can’t but spoil it ......
      I haven’t heard anything good about Russia ...
    2. +2
      18 May 2019 11: 14
      Quote: mark1
      The author, in his attempts to arrange a "dump for dogs" on the themes of the I-180 I-185, goes beyond all colors and the boundaries of any decency.

      By the way, the author of the article writes:
      A lot of reasons have come down to our days that I-185 did not go into production. And the plant was not free, and to rebuild production for a long time, the unfinished M-71 motor ...

      Any customer from the Ministry of Defense who knows this topic, for these reasons, would never have ordered this aircraft, if only because it understands that these problems cannot be solved within a month or six months. So, when the choice arises what to take into service with an acute shortage of weapons and equipment, preference is given to actually produced serial equipment, rather than a prototype with the best characteristics, the release of which can be delayed for years.
      So the author launched a biased article, clearly not understanding how everything is in the military-industrial complex, and what role the customer plays in such complex issues when he determines what to use based on his needs, sometimes even to the detriment of some characteristics when comparing prototypes.
    3. +1
      19 May 2019 18: 36
      Quote: mark1
      What a pre-Merz article! The author, in his attempts to arrange a "dump for dogs" on the themes of the I-180 I-185, goes over the lines of all colors and the boundaries of any decency. Chasing a deliberate lie in the style of a partisan of perestroika perfectly representing the true reasons for the failure of Nikolai Nikolaevich Polikarpov - wow, shame on you!

      Do mercy, open the eyes of the public to "the true reasons for the failure of Nikolai Nikolaevich Polikarpov."
      1. 0
        20 May 2019 07: 25
        Quote: Captain Pushkin
        Do mercy, open the eyes of the public

        The public's eyes have long been open. Another thing is that one part of the public sees objective reasons, while the other is exclusively subjective, and here people cannot be persuaded (like belief in God) - they need a guilty enemy in everything (in this case, a "gang" of general designers headed by Yakovlev)
    4. 0
      20 May 2019 13: 55
      But what about the vile article?
      our analogue of a heavy fighter turned out only in the year 42 from the alteration of the lagga and not very successful
      brought the car only to 44, and Yakovlev’s projects of ready-made heavy fighters had been accumulating since 34 (not only 180 and 185, but others like ITP) and the Red Army could get a good fighter no worse than la-7 in 41, if not for activity Mikoyan, Yakovlev, Shakhurin and others.
      This is a real fact! The extent to which their actions were justified is a matter of controversy, but it cannot be denied that, voluntarily or unwillingly, the robot Polikarpov was methodically destroyed.
      therefore, without hysteria, just admit that there is a question.
      You just need to analyze it without going to extremes
      and at the same time I remind you that there were not 1 and 26 perspective fighters, and not 3, but at least 7 projects that were quite close in potential, 2 of which Yakovlev personally destroyed. And to raise the question exclusively with an edge - who, Yakovlev or Polikarpov is stupid.
      1. -1
        20 May 2019 16: 09
        Quote: yehat
        But what about the vile article?

        Tastes differ
        Quote: yehat
        and the Red Army could get a good fighter no worse than la-7 in 41, if not for the activities of Mikoyan, Yakovlev, Shakhurin and others.

        Oh, these tales, oh, these storytellers! ...
        Quote: yehat
        And to raise the question exclusively with an edge - who, Yakovlev or Polikarpov is stupid.

        And here to the very point, but this is probably not for me but for Skomorokhov hi
    5. +1
      22 May 2019 09: 43
      And before that, he wrote an article about the Yak-1. Compare both articles and you will be shocked how he changed his shoes in the air.
      1. -1
        22 May 2019 10: 10
        A typical renegade. His task is pragmatic and cynical - to earn money by throwing in scandalous questionable material and by organizing a "dog dump"
  10. -1
    18 May 2019 06: 47
    Reading the memoirs of people of those years, you understand that the Work for them was more important than personal awards. And for Yakovlev as well. Polikarpov was very unlucky. It happens. Two catastrophes and even the death of the "icon" of those years Chkalov came out of trust. In addition, if the I-16 is the best fighter in the world before Spain, then suddenly it is no longer there. And where did you look and what did you think? Why is there no analogue? And away we go. The trust of managers in engineers and their belief in the ability of specific people to create the necessary equipment has always played and plays a huge role.
    Everyone is wrong. And we were greatly mistaken in many ways, and the Germans. And Stalin was very mistaken not expecting an attack by Germany. But Hitler made a mistake much more by attacking the USSR.
  11. +5
    18 May 2019 06: 58
    Polikarpov, for the sake of justice, threw candy. Awarded the Stalin Prize for the creation of the MiG-1. And they appointed the director and chief designer of the plant number 51, which at that time did not even exist. In this post, Polikarpov remained until his death.
    In fact, the MiG-1 legs grow from Polikarpovsky I-17.
    1. +4
      19 May 2019 18: 41
      Quote: Amurets
      In fact, the MiG-1 legs grow from Polikarpovsky I-17.

      In fact, the MiG-1 legs grow from Polikarpovsky I-200. This is he himself, the plane stolen from Polikarpov, along with the design bureau and the plant.
  12. +6
    18 May 2019 07: 04
    Unfortunately, at all times there are "defactic menegars" that strangle normal production workers.
  13. +4
    18 May 2019 07: 33
    .And collected Semyon Alekseevich La-5 in the barn at the backyard of the factory in Gorky ...
    From the memoirs of S.M. Alekseev, deputy S.A. Lavochkin: "... all the leading experts, led by Lavochkin, gathered in the workshop near the" non-motorized "LaGG glider, to which the M-82 was brought on hoists ..." Moreover, it was an experimental workshop of plant No. 21
    La-5 began to undergo factory tests only in March 1942,

    March 21, 1942 LaGG-3 M-82 was transferred to the LIS plant number 21. Where V.Ya. Mishchenko.
    La-5 production could be established at the plants producing LaGG-3, of which there were as many as five.
    10.10.1940, it was decided to launch LaGG-3 into mass production at factories No. 21 of Gorky, No. 23 of Leningrad, No. 31 of Taganrog, No. 153 of Novosibirsk. 14.08/1941/482 GKO issued order No. GKO- 683ss on the basis of which an order was issued by the NKAP No. 1ss for the production of Yak-3 and laGG-153 aircraft. In short, the plant number 23 moved to Yaki. Plant number 21 after the evacuation was redesigned to produce other products. and that left two factories number 31 and number 31 which was evacuated to Tbilisi. Plant No. 3 almost until the end of the war produced LaGG-1942, in October 5 the production of La-683 (the plane received this name according to the order of the NKAP No. 8.09 of September 1942, 2) expanded due to the release of the Il-2 attack aircraft and Tu-99 bomber at plants No. 381, Ulan-Ude and No. XNUMX, Nizhny Tagil.
    1. -10
      18 May 2019 07: 49
      author-- provocateur, funny, aviation in those years was that it was an oil industry now, plants were being squeezed out, projects for which it was possible to get money, everything was as it is now or everything was then ....
    2. +1
      20 May 2019 14: 08
      Lavochkin would not have been able to cope with a star remake in a short time (threatened to close the design bureau) if Polikarpov did not share all the documentation on the motor group for the Su-2 and his comments. In general, it was a successful pop-paste with a slight revision and recalculation of centering
  14. +7
    18 May 2019 08: 02
    The lack of a powerful and reliable engine in the USSR did not cause the take-off of the I-185 aircraft. Is it worth it to blame anyone. Although .... if you dig a little deeper ... the aircraft of the Russian Empire aircraft flew on foreign engines, there was no aircraft engine building in Russia. By the way, even Mozhaisky put French steam engines on his airplane.
    1. +4
      18 May 2019 09: 45
      The plane took off!!! And even fought !!! The reviews were excellent, only the factory was taken away from Polikarpov not without the help of Yakovlev. and therefore they did not begin to make a plane - they pretended that there was no such plane. And they themselves made oak Yak-3 with which there were problems above the roof. The survivability of an aircraft with an air-cooled engine is much higher than with a liquid engine. The problem was only in the cross-sectional area of ​​the fuselage. But Polikarpov at the same time reached speeds almost like that of the P-51 Mustang - and this is before the war !!! And the pilots sang songs about the handling of I-185.
      By the way, MIG-1 and MIG-3 are not Mikoyan and Gurevich planes - but Polikarpov’s plane !!! Do not fig someone else’s merits to ascribe to yourself. While Polikarpov was in Germany - Yakovlev bombed the design bureau and created a new design bureau with these comrades, taking the finished one !!! plane at Polikarpov.
      1. +5
        18 May 2019 16: 54
        They allocated the Mikoyan Design Bureau from the Polikarpov Design Bureau in October 1939 by order of the plant director Voronin and chief engineer Dementyev (the future deputy commissar, and subsequently the minister of the aircraft industry, by the way, was at enmity with Yakovlev - in the 50s, he banned the test of Yak competing with the MiG-21 by willful decision). Yakovlev became deputy commissar in 1940, and in the fall of 1939 he traveled to Germany as part of the same delegation as Polikarpov.
        1. -3
          18 May 2019 19: 57
          About the 40th year in the article and written. It was then that I-185 was stabbed to death. And graters with Polikarpov from Yakovlev from the mid 30s were
          1. +1
            20 May 2019 00: 41
            Not I-185, but I-180, the 3 of which crashed in July 1940 in state trials. Three lost planes plus a plane crash from the military series plus the LaGGa, MiG and Yak state tests in June-August, with their acceptance into service and the launch of the series. I-185 Polikarpov was designed in January-March 1940 of the year under the M-90, the first copy made in January 1941 of the year with the M-81, since there was no M-90 suitable for installation on the aircraft. Later on this instance was installed M-71.
          2. +3
            20 May 2019 00: 45
            And what "graters" in the mid-30s did the King of Fighters with a designer of light aircraft have?
      2. sdk
        +7
        19 May 2019 01: 14
        Quote: Gogia
        The plane took off!!! And even fought !!! The reviews were excellent, only the factory was taken away from Polikarpov not without the help of Yakovlev. and therefore they did not begin to make a plane - they pretended that there was no such plane. And they themselves made oak Yak-3 with which there were problems above the roof. The survivability of an aircraft with an air-cooled engine is much higher than with a liquid engine. The problem was only in the cross-sectional area of ​​the fuselage. But Polikarpov at the same time reached speeds almost like that of the P-51 Mustang - and this is before the war !!! And the pilots sang songs about the handling of I-185.
        By the way, MIG-1 and MIG-3 are not Mikoyan and Gurevich planes - but Polikarpov’s plane !!! Do not fig someone else’s merits to ascribe to yourself. While Polikarpov was in Germany - Yakovlev bombed the design bureau and created a new design bureau with these comrades, taking the finished one !!! plane at Polikarpov.

        So, by the way, Yakovlev was in Germany in 1939 with Polikarpov. I went with the latter to German factories. Let me ask you, did he give orders about the NNP design bureau section from there via mobile or Skype? Well, yes, in your opinion, it was such a Jesuit disguise on the part of Yakovlev))) But Polikarpov should not have gone to Germany - he was sent instead of the suddenly ill Ilyushin. That Ilyushin also participated in the "conspiracy"?
        We read from M. Maslov "The fatal fighter of Chkalov": 4.9.42 Deputy People's Commissar Yakovlev instructed the NNP to prepare 4 aircraft to be sent to the front for military trials - he just drowned a competitor!
      3. +3
        19 May 2019 21: 30
        Quote: Gogia
        The plane took off!!! And even fought !!! The reviews were excellent,

        Do you happen to describe the history of the Su-57 now ?! winked And with dviglom something similar for him ... as with I-185. That's just not Yakovlev! request Or is there an analogue of the problem to whose intrigues to write off !? lol
      4. 0
        20 May 2019 14: 10
        Mig-3 is already Mikoyan and Gurevich on the basis of Mig-1, and Mig-1 is Polikarpovsky i200.
    2. +2
      19 May 2019 18: 44
      Quote: parusnik
      parusnik (Alexey Bogomazov) Yesterday, 08:02

      +5
      The lack of a powerful and reliable engine in the USSR did not cause the take-off of the I-185 aircraft. Is anyone worth blaming

      There was an M-82 engine. With it, the I-185 was superior to the La-5 and La-5F. And with the ASH-82FN, it would surpass both La-5FN and La-7.
      1. +1
        20 May 2019 07: 37
        Quote: Captain Pushkin
        And with the ASH-82FN, it would surpass both La-5FN and La-7.

        Even if and so (theoretically) - how much surpassed? Once in 1,5-2 or 1-2%? Was it worth a fence?
        1. 0
          20 May 2019 11: 01
          Quote: mark1
          Quote: Captain Pushkin
          And with the ASH-82FN, it would surpass both La-5FN and La-7.

          Even if and so (theoretically) - how much surpassed? Once in 1,5-2 or 1-2%? Was it worth a fence?

          Worth it. I-185 (M-82) could enter the front at least six months earlier than La-5, which he exceeded in all respects. Plus, it was of mixed construction, like the I-16, instead of which it could become a production. LaGG-3 and La-5 were solid wood and had a completely different manufacturing technology.
          For a batch factory, changing technology is a big problem, and for technologists it's just a nightmare.
          Those. the maximum release rate would be typed significantly faster with the I-185.
          1. 0
            20 May 2019 12: 13
            Blessed is he who believes ...
    3. -1
      20 May 2019 18: 30
      there are many features about engines.
      Firstly, the USSR was under an embargo. We were friends with the French before the war for about 2 years
      and had a chance to get a ready-made powerful engine, but did not grow together
      and there were many "ifs". The main thing is different - not enough attention was paid to the fact of obtaining the necessary engines on time.
  15. +10
    18 May 2019 08: 21
    the testimonials of test pilots and front-line pilots, which, unlike Yakovlev, appreciated the car, were attached to the acts.
    I-185 On the front-line tests: The commander of the 728th regiment, captain V.S. Vasilyaka, stated in his report the following: “185 people fly to the regiment on I-5 aircraft, all 5 people. flew and fly without difficulty both after the Yak and after the I-16. Personally, I flew on airplanes: I-16, Yak-1, Yak-7B, LaGG-3, La-5, Hurricane and I-185 with an M-71 and M-82 engine and came to the following conclusion:
    1. The transition from other fighter aircraft to the I-185 is simple and does not cause any difficulties for pilots.
    2. The aircraft in flight is controlled easily, very stable and without any vagaries.
    3. Take-off and landing is exceptionally easy.
    4. The advantage of the aircraft is its extremely high maneuverability on verticals due to its good rate of climb, which makes it possible to conduct an air battle with enemy fighters, which is not always possible on Yak-1, Yak-7B and La-5 aircraft.
    5. In horizontal speed, the I-185 aircraft has a great advantage over domestic aircraft, as well as enemy aircraft.
    The horizontal speed range near the earth is extremely large: 220-540 km / h, which is an important factor for a modern fighter.
    The plane develops speed along the horizon from evolutionary to maximum very quickly in comparison with LaGG-3, La-5 and Yak'ami, i.e. has good pick-up.
    Aerobatics performs easily, quickly and energetically, similar to the I-16. Disadvantages discovered during operation, which I recommend the plant to eliminate when new cars are manufactured:
    1. Make the front of the lamp faceted.
    2. Simplify or facilitate the operation of motor blinds.
    3. The insulation of the steering wheel cables (thimble) is unsatisfactory when performing aerobatics, such as: barrels, flips through the wing; heel shoe clings to kooshi.
    4. Improve aircraft handling in taxiing in the sense of facilitating U-turns.
    5. Move the gas sector forward by at least 100 mm; in the old position of the sector, it is not possible to completely remove gas without special combinations.
    6. It is necessary to replenish the air flow to raise the chassis and shields to put a compressor.
    7. Obligate to equip the engine with compressed air.
    8. Develop emergency opening of a flashlight on newly manufactured cars.
    9. Improve the ventilation of the cabin (very hot).
    I believe that the I-185 aircraft with the M-71 or M-82 engine and armed with 3 ShVAK guns meets all the requirements for conducting combat work.
    We must assume that at present the I-185 is the best fighter aircraft in terms of ease of operation, speed, maneuver (especially on the vertical), armament and survivability.
    Front-line pilots are looking forward to this aircraft at the front. ”
    1. -1
      18 May 2019 09: 36
      Twice Hero of the Soviet Union Arseny Vorozheikin served in the 728th IAP. In his memoirs "Soldiers of the Sky" I did not find a single word about the front-line tests of the I-185. Perhaps during the retraining of the personnel of the 728th IAP from the I-16 to the Yak-7B in the spring of 1943, such tests were carried out, but they cannot be called "front-line" tests, since the regiment at that time was far from the front line.
      Also, I did not find a single fact of the air battle of the I-185 with the Luftwaffe.
      Talking about the advantages and disadvantages of a fighter is possible only when confronting enemy vehicles, and serial copies, and not prototypes.
      Do not forget that time. The enemy was strong and lane to the east, like a locomotive. The Air Force of the Red Army of the USSR suffered huge losses. It was urgent to replenish fighter regiments with airplanes and there was simply no time for reequipping the air units on the I-185. It was necessary to withstand the weapons that were.
      They survived and won.
      A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
      1. +11
        18 May 2019 11: 21
        Quote: pro100y.belarus
        Twice Hero of the Soviet Union Arseny Vorozheikin served in the 728th IAP. In his memoirs "Soldiers of the Sky" I did not find a single word about the front-line tests of the I-185. Perhaps during the retraining of the personnel of the 728th IAP from the I-16 to the Yak-7B in the spring of 1943, such tests were carried out, but they cannot be called "front-line" tests, since the regiment at that time was far from the front line.
        If Vorozheykin is not indicated, then this does not mean that they were not. The tests took place from December 42 to January 43. From a conversation with the Hero of the Soviet Union N.P. Ignatiev who served in the 728th IAP ... At the end of the conversation, he said that more modern aircraft with powerful weapons, in particular, would be commissioned I-185 fighter. [Ignatiev participated in front-line tests of this aircraft, which did not go into the series. ] ... (airaces.narod.ru/all2/ignatyev.htm). Here's the answer for air combat ... For reasons of secrecy, pilots were forbidden to fly across the front line, engage in air battles and engage in maneuverable combat. According to the memoirs of N.P. Ignatiev, he was told: "The fall of I-185 on the territory occupied by the enemy will be regarded as treason to the motherland." The flights had to take place at an altitude of 3-4 thousand meters at a speed of 500-550 km / h, depending on the weather, and each required special permission from the commander of the 3rd Air Army, Major General M.M. Gromov or his chief of staff, Colonel Dagaev.
        https://tverlife.ru/news/56283.html
      2. +4
        18 May 2019 12: 47
        Quote: pro100y.belarus
        Twice Hero of the Soviet Union Arseny Vorozheikin served in the 728th IAP. In his memoirs "Soldiers of the Sky" I did not find a single word about the front-line tests of the I-185. Perhaps during the retraining of the personnel of the 728th IAP from the I-16 to the Yak-7B in the spring of 1943, such tests were carried out, but they cannot be called "front-line" tests, since the regiment at that time was far from the front line.

        In the summer-autumn of 1942, it is based at an airfield in the Kalinin region near the town of Staritsa, operates over Rzhev, Olenino, Kholm, Torzhok, Likhoslavl. From December 9, 1942 to January 12, 1943, he conducts military tests of the experimental aircraft Polikarpov I-185. In the winter of 1942, the regiment was relocated to Toropets and operates in the Andreapol - Toropets - Velikiye Luki regions. We open "Frontal tests of I-185" read ...
        The first combat flight of I-185 took place on December 9, 1942, the last - on January 12, 1943. They flew in two pairs, with the officer (Ignatiev, Kupin) usually leading and the sergeant (Borovykh, Tomilchenko) as the follower. Fighters were often flown when there was an air battle over our territory. I-185 at full speed, firing from cannons, flashed through the formation of enemy aircraft, then with a turn went to their airfield. Two flights were performed to cover the Kittyhawk R-40 reconnaissance unit operating in the Rzhev region. One flight was carried out on a “free hunt” over our territory. According to the memoirs of N.P. Ignatiev, pilot A.E. In this case, one German aircraft shot down or damaged Borovs. e-reading.club
        And how did the La-5 go through front-line tests? They also jumped cleanly and shot at the enemy connected with the battle, and to the base. Well, or for free hunting over their territory, generally good. Still
        Review of the I-185 airplane of the pilot of the 728th giap of junior lieutenant I.E. Kustov: “The combat work on the front of World War II was always carried out on the I-16 airplane, on which I made more than 100 sorties, personally shot down 7, in a group battle - 7 enemy aircraft. The transition from the I-16 to the I-185 was not difficult for me ...
        So after all, all the pilots who flew the I-16 said that if you know how to fly the "Ishak", then retraining to another plane is not a problem ...
      3. 0
        20 May 2019 14: 39
        you are trying to translate a logical trap like
        It was urgent to replenish fighter regiments with airplanes and there was simply no time for reequipping the air units on I-185

        type fight that is and do not blather
        but in reality, in the 39th year, the i-185 project (I want to emphasize that Yakovlev came to 39 already with several different projects, just the topic 180 and 185 were the best) and 26 were on the same level,
        just one was given the green light, and the second was constantly "accidentally" interfered with
        there was time and opportunity to do everything, they were simply flushed down the toilet for their ambitions
        and at the same time they lowered a lot of pilots' lives into the toilet.
        think about Yakovlev’s arguments
        need a massive, super-mass aircraft - why? the Germans had 5-7 times smaller numbers to keep the initiative. Not easier and cheaper, was it not focus on mass, but on quality within reasonable limits?
        streamline aircraft are not so good - why?
        maybe because qualitatively tens of thousands cannot be made, but thousands can?
        did not use duralumin - but on a not very massive fighter and duralumin it was necessary much less
        and the mass of such arguments is far from as obvious as Yakovlev is trying to show
        and I want to say that from the defensive obviously losing air battle (when the Germans shot hundreds of unpunished targets), the Red Army aviation left,
        just got La-5 and Yak-9. So how needed was the i-26?
        I see only 3 of its real advantages - it fits perfectly into the flawed pre-war charter, gave the illusion due to not bad handling and maneuverability, that everything was fine and allowed the industry to stamp planes without any special stress without metal and a powerful engine.
        And I want to say something else - Yakovlev Yak-1 produced on the basis of the best plant in the country in convenient Moscow time
        And if other designers used this resource?
        1. +2
          20 May 2019 17: 20
          About the plant:
          On January 5, 1934, by order No. 23 of the SUAI NKTP, the light aviation group of A. S. Yakovlev at Plant No. 39 was allocated as an independent unit under the name KBP (Design and Production Bureau) and transferred to the direct subordination of the Special Unit of SUAI. In the same year, KBP was named “Light Aircraft Plant”, then - “Plant No. 115”. On March 7, 1935, Order No. 270 of the NKTP approved the charter of the State Union Plant No. 115, which was transferred directly to the People's Commissariat of Industry. The team moves to its own premises on Leningradskoye Shosse [15].
          Plant number 39, this is the plant of Ilyushin:
          In 1934-1936, most of the design teams of the Central Design Bureau transferred to serial aircraft factories, and at plant No. 39 there was only the design bureau of S.V. Ilyushin, who in the pre-war years worked on modifications of the DB-3 bomber and created the Il-2 attack aircraft.
          In October 1941, plant number 39 was evacuated to the territory of the Irkutsk Aviation Plant number 125 named after I.V. Stalin. December 8, 1941 was issued the order of the People's Commissar of the USSR Aviation Industry No. 1139 on the merger of two plants - them. Stalin and them. Menzhinsky. Since December 19, 1941, this was already one enterprise, which became known as the Order of Lenin and the Order of the Red Banner of Labor Aviation Plant No. 39 named after JV Stalin. [2]
          And where is the best plant in the country? No. 39 remained with Ilyushin. But Yakovlev moved to his own room. So he made him the best? Or drove away the unknown unknown genetics designer and began to produce their aircraft on his equipment?
      4. 0
        24 May 2019 14: 26
        Quote: pro100y.belarus
        A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

        Given the fact that the Yak-1 constantly needed to replace the engines, and when stored outdoors they were written off after a maximum of a year, it would be possible to reduce the load on the industry by launching the I-185 in a series.
    2. +3
      18 May 2019 11: 24
      Quote: bionik
      Front-line pilots are looking forward to this aircraft at the front. ”

      One small nuance - front-line pilots, unfortunately do not know how much this aircraft costs compared to others, what reliability it is in operation, and most importantly what it will cost to re-equip existing industries for the production of this aircraft, not to mention the time it takes to launching it in a series.
      So do not give an example with the opinion of those who are not responsible for the rearmament of all fighter aircraft of the Air Force, who may have a different, more objective conclusion about Polikarpov’s plane.
      Although I personally have no doubt that Polikarpov is an outstanding aircraft designer, he created a truly unique aircraft.
  16. +11
    18 May 2019 08: 26
    Quote: wooja
    what was going on in other industries is covered in darkness

    Well, not quite. If we recall the story of Taubin and Baburin, and this is a 23 mm air cannon, then there is approximately a similar story. The truth that ended is sad for the designers. There was a confrontation between Kulik and Shpitalny against Taubin. The result of the confrontation, Taubin was shot, Baburin died in custody. Fighter aircraft remained with very mediocre ShVAK cannons, the Berezin UB heavy machine gun had higher combat characteristics. But the truth still triumphed, the air cannons created on the basis of the developments of Taubin and Baburin are still in service, though not with us anymore. Now the story is the same, there are high-ranking persons who "raked up" factories for themselves and using the administrative resource simply eliminate competitors. Human ESSENCE does not change regardless of the social system, everything is the same, whether under tsarism, under the USSR, or under the modern (not clear to me) system.
    1. +2
      18 May 2019 10: 05
      Quote: 2112vda
      If you recall the story of Taubin and Baburin, and this is a 23 mm air gun, then there is about a similar story.

      not only Taubin also had such a development ...

      AG-2
      Caliber, mm 40,8
      Grenade mass, kg 0,59
      The greatest firing range, m 1250
      Rate of fire, rds / min 436
      Practical rate of fire, rds / min 57
      Weight in combat position, kg 45,5
      Quote: 2112vda
      There was a confrontation between Kulik and Shpitalny against Taubin. The result of the confrontation, Taubin was shot,

      But someone wrote the denunciation, and it was from OKB-16.
      A.E. Nudelman worked at OKB-16 under the leadership of Ya.G. Taubin, after the arrest of the latter, he headed the bureau (then KB Tochmash, now JSC KB Nudelman Precision Engineering in Moscow). From 1942 to 1986 - chief - chief designer. "- here is the answer - who benefits, but still Beria is to blame, yeah, yeah.
      1. +1
        19 May 2019 10: 56
        Uh-huh, Taubin's lovely prodigy. Sleeves for unitars were ordered in Germany (firm "Gecko", 1937 (!)) - domestic manufacturers could not cope with the manufacture of sleeves with a cunningly inverted bottom. The adaptation of the Dyakonov grenade did not work out (as was originally intended), so the grenades also had to be ordered abroad. There are few explosives in the grenade, and the explosives are by no means modern, mixing, but good old TNT. A separate song is the work of the fuse (a quarter of the grenades did not explode when mounted firing). There is no practical rate of fire due to the cassette power supply.
        The aviation version of the Taubin grenade launcher is a separate song, after meeting with it Ilyushin forgot that he was the chief designer and remembered the vocabulary of being an aircraft mechanic ...
        About Nudelman - a separate story. At a time when Taubin stubbornly clung to the cassette power of the MP-6 airgun (which significantly interrupted the testing of the product on projected promising aircraft), Nudelman initiatively designed the tape power mechanism - which was then used on OKB products after the repression of Taubin and Baburin (NS -37, NS-45, NS-23).
        Well, do not forget the moment that with the resistance of the military regarding the adoption of "raw" products of OKB-16, Taubin began to actively scribble denunciations at all levels.
        This energy would be brought to the mind of the air guns ordered for the development - Duc, you see, and they would have been adopted as a result.
      2. 0
        20 May 2019 20: 47
        Interestingly, I did not even know about this.
        1. 0
          20 May 2019 21: 15
          About Taubin grenade launcher - here is the article https://warhead.su/2018/06/26/granatomyot-taubina-kak-stalin-ne-poluchil-superoruzhie
          And here in the comments is interesting: https://ecoross1.livejournal.com/730978.html
          Regarding some of the nuances of the development of aviation cannon weapons before the war itself - Fedor Lisitsin has a sort of review of Rastrenin's book - https://fvl1-01.livejournal.com/65084.html
          Actually, a certain amount of material from the book Rastrenin himself published last year in the journal "Technics and Armament" - a series of articles "Universal Caliber", I recommend.
  17. -2
    18 May 2019 08: 43
    I hardly read it, not because it is not interesting, quite the opposite. It was just that evil seized when the front did not know what to fight on, and in the rear there was a magnificent plane, but due to the fact that Yakovlev and the company wanted "orders, medals, prizes", which slandered the outstanding designer and, over and over again, actually destroyed him KB and I think it's a pity you can't revive the brews and put them against the wall !!!! This is how many vain victims among the pilots, infantry soldiers, ships and their crews through the fault of this camarilla !!!! The walls are few !!! in Hell a frying pan and hotter !!!! am
    1. -6
      18 May 2019 09: 19
      This is how many vain casualties among pilots, infantry soldiers, ships and their crews are the fault of this camarilla!

      What do they care about some goyim there ......
      1. +4
        19 May 2019 05: 47
        Quote: lucul
        some goyim there

        So Yakovlev is also ... a person of Jewish nationality? And Mikoyan and Shakhurin? And finally, there is no water in the tap, there was not, and will not be, it was all taken to the great Israeli river Jordan.
    2. +1
      18 May 2019 13: 13
      Quote: K-50
      when at the front they did not know what to fight on, and in the rear there was a magnificent plane, but due to the fact that Yakovlev and the company wanted "orders, medals, awards",

      If you read the history of the creation of the IL-2 aircraft, then you will find out that not only Yakovlev and the company wanted the same ...
    3. +1
      24 May 2019 14: 41
      Quote: K-50
      due to the fact that Yakovlev and the company wanted "orders, medals, prizes" that treated the outstanding designer and, over and over again, actually destroyed his design bureau, and I think it's a pity you can't revive the brews and put them against the wall !!!!

      I do not think that it is necessary to search for conspiracies everywhere, there was much more mess.
      Let me give an example: in the Baltic, attack aircraft were considered the best means of fighting boats and airborne assault forces; to destroy a boat, only 3 IL-2 sorties were needed, but there were just a few of them at the KBF, only 11. We had to bring in valuable Pe-2 and IL -4 (respectively 26 sorties and 113 sorties to destroy 1 boat), which also suffered losses. For other types of aircraft, the mosquito fleet was too tough (for example, I-153, Sb-2, MDR-2 could not sink a single one).
      Despite the huge release of this type of aircraft, the KBF for 3 years could not get an update to the 11 that were at the beginning of the war. It does not look like a conspiracy, ordinary chaos and a mess.
      The same example with engines M-71 and M-82. For 1941, the list of defects of the M-71 was actually limited only to fuel equipment and candles, which were produced by other factories, in contrast to the M-82. But ... M82 launched into a series, and it was still brought to 1944. M-71 practically did not deal with, although in terms of parameters it was ideal for I-185, bombers, and was also less whimsical to fuel than liquid engines.
      The design team did not really care which engine to concentrate on, especially since they were the same in the kinematics of the cylinders.
      If M-71 were engaged, then by the time of the release in 1942 of new carburetors and injection equipment, then he would have been operational ready, without the childhood diseases M-82.
      The epic with the M-82 refinement revealed jambs, which the M-71 did not do, both in production technology and in engine design.
  18. +4
    18 May 2019 09: 08
    In general, Polikarpov was one of the most talented aircraft designers of the pre-war era. Yakovlev and Tupolev were soiled up to their throats in intrigues and undercover wars. Polikarpov had a great idea - it is necessary to make airplanes from what there are many in the country. Not from scarce aluminum and rolled steel, as Tupolev and Yakovlev wanted, but from wood, delta plywood, etc. Unlike other aircraft designers, he voluntarily transferred his developments to other design bureaus, rightly believing that it would be useful to the country. When at one meeting in the Kremlin, Yakovlev and his company began to pour crap on him, Stalin personally stood up for Polikarpov - he said something like this: "And what aircraft, comrade Yakovlev, do Soviet pilots study on? Not on the Polikarpovs by accident?" PO-2 (U-2) during the war was made by collective farmers on converted SAWS !!!

    Do not be lazy and read the book - one of the most interesting books on this topic has been shared for everyone
    https://yadi.sk/i/s3DCeUPrddJElQ
    1. sdk
      -2
      19 May 2019 01: 43
      Quote: Gogia
      In general, Polikarpov was one of the most talented aircraft designers of the pre-war era. Yakovlev and Tupolev were soiled up to their throats in intrigues and undercover wars. Polikarpov had a great idea - it is necessary to make airplanes from what there are many in the country. Not from scarce aluminum and rolled steel, as Tupolev and Yakovlev wanted, but from wood, delta plywood, etc. Unlike other aircraft designers, he voluntarily transferred his developments to other design bureaus, rightly believing that it would be useful to the country. When at one meeting in the Kremlin, Yakovlev and his company began to pour crap on him, Stalin personally stood up for Polikarpov - he said something like this: "And what aircraft, comrade Yakovlev, do Soviet pilots study on? Not on the Polikarpovs by accident?" PO-2 (U-2) during the war was made by collective farmers on converted SAWS !!!

      Polikarpov was one of the first for his talent to cut the budget. The largest design bureau before the war (400 people) belongs to the NNP, most of the budget orders are from the NNP. To select the canopy of the cockpit for the I-180, we make several experienced ones, and on the plane we check which is better in the air. Why waste time on trifles: designers draw, workers make, testers fly day and night, receiving bonuses for overtime. Fuel pours, scarce materials are consumed. Lafa and more! And what is the result of these costs? Which of the budget orders was brought to the series by the Polikarpov Design Bureau before the war? Instead of going to a powerful aircraft factory in Gorky and there to apply his talent, he huddled in an old hangar, so long as he did not leave Moscow with its distribution and benefits. And you tell tales about the "intriguers" Tupolev and Yakovlev.
      You obviously heard some kind of ringing about the situation with Stalin, but you yourself don’t know where he is. This episode is cited by Yakovlev himself in his book. And he describes the words not his own, as you write, but not the third parties mentioned (he probably could have named everyone by name, but didn’t - for those who were present at that conversation, and this hint was enough).
      1. +1
        19 May 2019 20: 35
        Where did you find such fierce nonsense that you chose the option of the I-180 cab visor in the air?
    2. -3
      20 May 2019 14: 52
      I would also like to add a description of one incident - Yakovlev was brought to study a captured BF-109 (from where he regularly licked the latest developments and successful solutions, and then described it as an equal "battle of designers"). So, he was asked to see Polikarpov and Lavochkin. Both were refused.
      1. +5
        20 May 2019 15: 57
        Trophy say:
        On the recommendations of a delegation visiting Germany, in early 1940, through the People's Commissariat of Foreign Trade, an order was made for German aircraft and equipment for a detailed study of them in our country. It included more than 100 items. In particular, it was planned to purchase five copies of He 100 with steam cooling, five He 100 with conventional water cooling, five Me 109E, five Me 110 C, two Ju 88 and Do 215 bombers, three Bücker B training aircraft each? 131 Jungmann, B? 133 Jungmeister and FW 58, Me 209 record-breaking aircraft, as well as two Fa 226 helicopters. Each aircraft had to be equipped with all necessary equipment and spare parts, and He 100, Me 109 and Me 110 were additionally ordered by three spare motors for each car. In addition, it was planned to obtain from Germany two Jumo 207 diesel engines, two Jumo 211 engines, two 1400-liter Daimler-Benz boosted engines. pp., samples of pumps and injectors for a direct fuel injection system into the engine, 1500 Bosch spark plugs, 10 thousand piston rings, more than 1000 flexible gas and oil pipes, 30 propellers, a large number of experimental equipment (including 5 high-altitude installations of the company Brownbury for testing engines in laboratory conditions), air sights, various types of bombs and ammunition for small arms aviation, etc., etc. The delivery time for most products was 12 months, in some cases (for example, an airplane Me 209) - 15 months. The total value of the order was measured in tens of millions of rubles; It is known that only for that part of the property that was delivered to the USSR by the summer of 1940, the Soviet government paid 25 million rubles.
        Specifically by Messerschmitt Bf l09E
        A study of German aircraft also showed that the Luftwaffe aircraft noticeably surpass ours in operational qualities. The report of the Air Force Research Institute noted:

        "1. A characteristic feature of all German aircraft is that when constructing any type of aircraft, the designer pays a lot of attention to maximizing the ease of operation of the aircraft in the field and the convenience of completing combat missions. To this end, the design of the aircraft provides a number of machines that facilitate the work of the pilot ...

        2. The second characteristic feature of German aircraft is the widespread introduction of standard models: weapons, special equipment, units of the propeller-motor group, aircraft parts and materials. These activities lead to a significant simplification of the design of experimental aircraft, their operation, supply of spare parts and training of the flight personnel of the Air Force.

        3. In addition, all German aircraft armed with the Air Force differ sharply from domestic ones in their large stability reserves, which also significantly increases flight safety, survivability of the aircraft and simplifies the technique of piloting and mastering low-skilled combat pilots.

        In addition, the survivability of aircraft in battle is greatly enhanced by the fact that the aircraft is equipped with fiber-tested tanks.

        4. It is also characteristic that all German combat aircraft have a significant number of cast parts made of magnesium alloys, and these alloys are widely used in highly loaded power elements of the aircraft and engine structures ... ”[56]

        The advantages of German aircraft were manifested not only in the convenience of their flight operation, but also in ground maintenance. For example, in order to remove the propeller on a Ju 88 plane, it took 4 minutes, on SB - 1 hour; removing the motor took 1,5 and 4,5 hours, respectively, and its installation took 3 and 10 hours. [57]

        The direct injection of fuel in the DB 601A engine also deserved a positive assessment, which made it possible to achieve a more accurate dosage of the supply of the combustible mixture into each cylinder and eliminated the risk of fire during reverse exhaust, wing mechanization devices, weapon layout, flight and navigation and radio communication equipment.

        On the basis of studies of German aircraft, conducted at the Air Force Research Institute and other research organizations, in 1940, steps were taken to introduce some German technical solutions into the Soviet aircraft industry. The most important ones include:

        - the development of production at the factory No. 213 in Moscow of an automatic machine for input and output of aircraft from a dive installed on Ju 88. These devices were then used on SB, Ar-2 and Pe-2 aircraft;

        - the use of fiber tested gas tanks instead of hard welded tanks. Already in 1940, 100 soft-protected tanks were manufactured for SB, 30 for Su-2 and the same for Yak-1, and in 1941 a decision was made to mass-produce fiber tanks and replace them with metal ones that were previously used;

        - the creation of a two-stage centrifugal supercharger in TsIAM, similar to the one installed on the DB 601 A engine. Unlike the single-stage superchargers used in our country, it provided the engine with high altitude.
        https://military.wikireading.ru/8677
        Where did you get such words "licked", as I understand it, Yakovlev personally walked around the hangar with the "trophy" equipment and drove away the designers to personally "lick" the protected tank or some other high-tech nishtyak under cover of night. And this at a time when "for 3 spikelets" was supposed to be shot on the spot and sent to Siberia to uranium mines (this is sarkzam). I just
        I understand the sense of fear in A. Yakovlev was completely atrophied
        1. -2
          20 May 2019 16: 01
          we are talking about the trophy bf-109f4 (41 years old)
          and in Germany, the delegation bought a pretty outdated bf-109e
          1. +1
            20 May 2019 16: 10
            And directly, did they personally bring Yakovlev to the hangar? Can a source for general development
            1. 0
              20 May 2019 16: 20
              it's about this car
              and why right in the hangar - just tushino next to the plant and the location of okb yakovlev
              On February 22, 1942, the commander of the 8th detachment of the JG51 squadron, Lieutenant A. Nis, lost his course and was fired from a machine gun in the vicinity of the Tushino airfield. Damage to the radiator and a gas tank hole-forced the German officer to make an emergency landing at the location of the Soviet troops.
              The Messer captured by the Red Army was quickly restored by the technical staff of the 47th air division based in Tushino
              1. +4
                20 May 2019 16: 42
                Well, according to the example you provided, the same link that I mentioned above:
                The Messer captured by the Red Army was quickly restored by the technical staff of the 47th air division, based in Tushino, but the very first flight in a captured fighter ended in an accident - the leg of the landing gear and wing tip broke. The car had to undergo another repair (this time it was carried out by the TsAGI team), after which Bf 109F No. 9209 was transferred to the balance of the Air Force Research Institute for comprehensive tests. The car was received by engineer-captain A. S. Rozanov, who was one of the largest specialists in German cars at the institute.

                From the very first days he faced serious problems. An experienced engineer noted that the car was seriously repaired at least four times and was very worn out. Unstable spring weather and frequent prohibitions of the air defense service on flights also slowed down the progress of work. On April 5, 1942, Rozanov wrote to his immediate superior A. N. Frolov: “Panama arose during the construction of the altitude characteristic. The pressure of the supercharger slightly decreases to a height limit of 2900 m, and then drops sharply. It is possible that the supercharger clutch is very worn out and becomes “powerless” with height. I report to the command regularly, and it, of course, scolds for the delay in testing. We will have to “resume” the high-speed characteristic by science ... ”{203}

                A few more days passed and the Bf 109F test report was completed. Rozanov’s conclusions did not differ much from those made by Frolov before the tests, but they were more detailed. It was noted that the Bf 109F flew 70 km / h faster than the Bf 109E near the ground, with approximately half the speed increase due to the more powerful DB 60IN engine, and the other due to better aerodynamics. {204} Operational space occupied an important place in the report fighter rating. Our experts noted good approaches to engine assemblies, especially spark plugs, convenient engine bonding, significant piloting facilitation through various automatic devices, including those that regulate the temperature of water and oil in the engine. Etc...
                The plane was sent to the Research Institute for a comprehensive study, no one washed it up, the times were not the same. I do not diminish the merits of N.N. Polikarpov, but I consider it unacceptable to hang all the dogs on A.S. Yakovlev. It seems to me at that time people thought in slightly different categories than now. It was possible to leave "for timber harvesting in Siberia" from any post of the People's Commissar.
                1. -3
                  20 May 2019 16: 49
                  I read in a book about Polikarpov that he wanted to get acquainted with this aircraft and he wasn’t alone, but he was refused because he was already studying and providing the results, but in the end, neither Polykarpov nor Lavochkin on time not received, except for general photos. Polikarpov soon died, and then Lavochkin was so mired in solving the problems of remaking lag in la-5 that he could not escape until the middle of 43 years. And by then the information had already become irrelevant.
                  1. +2
                    20 May 2019 17: 03
                    It may have been written in the book, but the documents indicate that the plane was transferred to the Air Force Research Institute, to which Yakovlev has nothing to do. I don't know who was pulling the cat by the tail (if they really delayed the report), but usually nobody canceled sloppiness. And now I really understand what kind of developments Yakovlev "licked" from a captured aircraft that were on the Yak and were not used anywhere else?
                    1. 0
                      20 May 2019 18: 33
                      some of the layout of the engine compartment and its availability
                      oil cooler
                      the shape of the tailpipes, etc.
                      full list i saw 40 lines
                      It was taken from different models of Messer
                      1. 0
                        20 May 2019 19: 56
                        But I've read that Ferrari licked the layout from the Zaporozhets. Well, there are more wheels, a steering wheel. This is not argumentation. Give a source where it is indicated that the Yak was "licked" with the Bf109F and that it was not used on other Soviet aircraft. Otherwise, it's just OBS
                      2. -1
                        21 May 2019 09: 25
                        are you so trolling?
                        can you be asked to give a source where the need to indicate the sources is indicated?
                        maybe we’ll talk on equal terms, and not at one gate — prove to the last comma, then maybe I will read and believe.
                        Well, for example, about copied pipes, Yakovlev himself said that this gave a speed increase of 5-8 km / h. Of course, he reluctantly acknowledged borrowing,
                        but there are 2 facts that are hard to argue with - 5 models very similar in layout to the bf-109, including the Y-26 Yakovlev, came out for the fighter contest at the same time.
                        The 2nd fact, Yakovlev carefully studied the bf-109b and bf-109e before the war, but he did not see other modern monoplane fighters with a low wing and a narrow engine (I-16 was not quite in the subject because of the engine), when Yakovlev had no other experience in the construction of fighters.
                        At the same time, Yakovlev was on knives with patriarchs who actively shared ideas with other designers and did not have luggage of other knowledge (Polikartov, Bartini, etc.) Therefore, it is quite obvious that he followed the path of active copying and this is normal. It is not normal to hush up and deny that this was the case.
                        From France, the commission brought materials on devautins, and they say that the wings of a twinkle are a copy from devatin. But Yakovlev did not use these data. And the engine there for new liquid-cooled fighters, which Yakovlev was waiting for, did not buy.
                      3. 0
                        21 May 2019 13: 56
                        I do not spread rumors. All your arguments have not been confirmed, you yourself write that
                        Quote: yehat
                        I saw a complete list of 40 lines, it was taken from different models of Messer

                        not from one trophy, but several. The question immediately arises for him to order that they drove something? Just the same from all the designers he drove away? Of course not, but it turns out that you say so. Studying the enemy’s aircraft and borrowing technical solutions from them is normal.
                        So you write again
                        Quote: yehat
                        5 models, very similar in layout to the bf-109, including the Y-26 Yakovlev, also entered the fighter contest.

                        And what does it mean? Absolutely nothing, Spitfire, Mustang and other aircraft with water-cooled engines are similar, because the laws of aerodynamics are the same for everyone.
                        Quote: yehat
                        however, Yakovlev had no other experience in building fighters.

                        but there was experience building sports planes, as with Reginald Mitchell. Before Spitfire, designer Reginald Mitchell was engaged in the creation of racing hydroplanes - the latest Supermarine S.6B model won the Schneider Cup and became the first aircraft to exceed the speed threshold of 650 km / h.
                        7 years later, in February 1934, Reginald Mitchell finished work on his first project of the Type 224 Supermarine fighter. The aircraft was to take part in a competition for a new British Royal Air Force fighter.
                        And this did not stop him from creating one of the best fighters of World War II.
                        Quote: yehat
                        Therefore, it is quite obvious that he was following the path of active copying, and this is normal. It is not normal to hush up and deny that this was the case.

                        Copying and borrowing is fine. It’s not normal to pour mud on the designer and write:
                        Quote: yehat
                        Yakovlev was brought to study the captured BF-109 (from where he regularly licked the latest developments and successful solutions, and then described it as an equal "battle of designers"). So, he was asked to see Polikarpov and Lavochkin. Both were refused.

                        Absolutely unproven.
                        I sincerely do not understand, why are you writing this?
                        Quote: yehat
                        The 2nd fact, Yakovlev carefully studied the bf-109b and bf-109e before the war, but he did not see other modern monoplane fighters with a low wing and a narrow engine

                        From 1933 to 1940, as part of various delegations, A. Yakovlev traveled to leading aviation countries in Italy, France, England, Germany. As I understand it, did he go there for clothes? And these are his memories:
                        “Italy has never been an advanced aviation country, although the Mussolini government is taking all measures to convene the impression it needs. To this end, the government of Mussolini, who combines the post of head of government with the post of Minister of Aviation, generously encourages all kinds of record and sport flights, releases large funds individual designers and pilots for the organization of transatlantic flights, does not spare money for the creation of "demonstration" institutes and airfields
                        Italian pilot Donati on a Kaproni plane manages to set a world altitude record of about 14 thousand meters, and pilot Agello on a Mackey 72 racing plane a world speed record of 710 km per hour. However, most of the cars we saw in Montechelio, including the latest innovations, were not original in their design. It is one thing to build single record aircraft, another thing is to create a powerful air fleet. And even a cursory acquaintance with the aviation industry of Italy showed a discrepancy between the imaginary and reality. [c.12]
                        In France, we visited the factories of the most famous French designers - Bleriot, Renault, Potez and Messier. We saw nothing new, modern in the aircraft manufacturing technology. Every time, inspecting the aircraft factories in France, I involuntarily compared them with ours. And each time with deep satisfaction I came to the conclusion that in terms of scale, quality of equipment, none of the French enterprises I have seen can be compared with any of our ordinary aviation plants. "
                      4. -1
                        21 May 2019 14: 16
                        you should not believe everything that Yakovlev wrote - it is full of distortions.
                        he wrote about Italy both true and false - it was full of very exotic cars.
                        Perhaps he did not see them. There was a plane in the form of a barrel and with a lying pilot, and much more. The same goes for America.
                        in France, he describes production, but compares not with "any" Soviet plant, but with the newest, built by the Germans in Moscow time, which, by the way, has been crushed by yak production. But the state of other factories was far from rosy.
                        In addition, as far as I know, the French were somewhat paranoid about the Soviet delegation and showed far from everything.
                        For example, the tank ftsm 36, which inspired the creation of the t34, they found by chance, stalled on the sidelines - no one was going to show it.

                        and generally, stop quoting people to quote like quotes from the bible.
                        it is a source, but not truth in a single instance.
                        Yes, Yakovlev wrote something and said something, but far from all of this is true.
                        Further, about the planes of the messer scheme. Yakovlev personally took part in strangling several projects with other schemes, for example, the SAM-13 project, which solved the problem of a mass fighter with a weak engine no less effectively, and maybe even more. You can scoff as much as you want at the fact that "they did not succeed," but when resources are cut off, they are forced to waste time in vain, nothing ever works.
                        I do not throw mud at this person, I just remind that in addition to the halo above his head, he had other "parts". And you are sculpting some kind of idol that a priori did not exist.
                      5. 0
                        21 May 2019 16: 06
                        Can you clarify in which comment I "mold an idol out of him"? I am pointing out to you the blatant lie that you are relaying. I ask you to confirm the facts, and you went to the pediment. You wrote that Yakovlev did not see other planes, I bring his memories, again not that, I somehow argue my words, unlike you. You know, if I don’t know something, I’m not ashamed to say "Sorry, I am not competent." Here you are again writing about a plant in Moscow built by the Germans. The Internet gives out two aircraft factories built by the Germans before the war, one in Kazan, the second in Perm, and not one in Moscow.
                      6. 0
                        21 May 2019 14: 20
                        Yehat
                        Sorry to enter into your dispute.
                        But the truth is on the side of your opponent.
                        And now you are verbatim reproducing the dispute with me, which took place six months ago. Everything is the same on your part about A.S. Yakovlev: "licked", "did not allow others / drowned", mythically stolen by the NKVD drawing of the "Dewuatin" wing, from which Yakovlev allegedly borrowed the wing ...
                        You yourself are not tired of pouring the same thing from empty to empty?
                        I remember giving you a whole list of literature, sources, so that you are educated as a specialist in the field of aviation. Everything was in vain!
                        You have a cart and "now there"!
                        Now others are telling you in the second round, what I already told you about six months ago ... Well, maybe this time it will finally reach you that you need to argue your words and update your knowledge.
                        Although no, our last conversation with you did not pass without a trace, because you no longer say that "Yakovlev is a dropout who did not even graduate from college." Something I still managed to convey to you. There is a result. and that's not bad ...
                      7. -1
                        21 May 2019 14: 25
                        I never spoke of Yakovlev as a dropout.
                        he was a competent engineer and there is no doubt in that, but that's far
                        not the best. to polykarpov, tank or messerschmidt he did not mature
                        I don’t see any outstanding achievements in aviation behind him,
                        but in the cabinet struggle, in the approach to the leadership of the guys he was very successful.
                      8. 0
                        21 May 2019 14: 44
                        Here you are lying now, and in an impudent way!
                        I can dig up our correspondence with you and refresh your memory!
                        Regarding A.S. Yakovlev, he allegedly "did not grow up" to Willie, Kurt, etc.
                        Let's remember what was outstanding in aviation after 1945, both one and the second?
                        Nothing from the word at all!
                        And how many things did Yakovlev Design Bureau do after 1945 ...
                        So, Yakovlev not only "did not grow up to the level", but he outgrew them all and plugged them into the belt!
                      9. -1
                        21 May 2019 15: 02
                        Quote: fighter angel
                        And how much did Yakovlev Design Bureau do

                        you somehow forgot it.
                        not Yakovlev, but his design bureau, where for 10 years he had pulled many of the best engineers to the detriment of other design bureaus, including Polikarpovsky.
                        The design bureau has done quite a lot, and Yakovlev has done a lot in the design bureau
                        but this has nothing to do with the connection Yakovlev and the construction of LTA
                        I’m trying to tell you that the administrator, politician Yakovlev and engineer Yakovlev
                        different quantities. And the third is the smallest.
                      10. 0
                        21 May 2019 15: 09
                        Examples in the studio!
                        Whom, what "many of the best" designers and engineers Yakovlev did exactly "pull" at the expense of other design bureaus?
                        LISTING LIST, Be so kind!
                        Otherwise, "give it a ride for balabola" ...
                      11. -1
                        21 May 2019 15: 11
                        Quote: fighter angel
                        LISTING LIST, Be so kind!
                        Otherwise, "give it a ride for balabol".

                        after your roll-call list not jerked.
                        stop turning the discussion into hysteria
                      12. -1
                        21 May 2019 16: 31
                        Needless to say, besides the baseless accusations of hysteria?
                        You stated above that Yakovlev "pulled himself engineers for 10 years",
                        here are the cards in your hands- LIST OF "STRONG" IN THE STUDIO!
                        If not, then "merge", especially since we will most likely not wait and see any arguments from you.
                        There will be no discussion, Yehat, without reasoned arguments on your part.
                        I hope you understand that?
                      13. 0
                        21 May 2019 15: 16
                        And after you
                        What did Willy and Kurt work alone?
                        Did you build all your planes "in one person"?
                        Didn't they have their own design bureaus or their "best design engineers"?
                      14. 0
                        21 May 2019 16: 40
                        Messerschmidt himself did a lot, the tank too
                        finally, I pulled the Messerschmidt not because he blinded 109, but because he had not measured besides 109 projects, even a heavy multi-engine transporter
                        and most were mass-produced.
                        But Yakovlev, in addition to modernizing the Yak-1 and not very intelligible attempts to do something else alas, did not succeed
                        finally, I would like to say a few words about cars after leaving the factory.
                        Yakovlev's design bureau, to put it mildly, did not differ in love for the consumer.
                        he was far from the service of Lavochkin or the same Messerschmidt.
                        And the pilots in the tests died no less than the criticized Polikarpov.
                        and everywhere it turns out that something was being done, but it could be better
                        therefore, I have a relation to Yakovlev as a mediocre aircraft designer,
                        who for the sake of his ambitions did a lot of things not good.
                      15. 0
                        21 May 2019 16: 45
                        Arguments, Yehat, provide!
                        There will be no discussion without them, but I warned you above ...
                        Support your statements with facts.
                      16. -1
                        21 May 2019 17: 26
                        ok, here are the arguments for you.
                        period 37-45 years launched in a series of projects Willy vs Alex
                        I will list only directions without modifications and evolutions.
                        1) 109,110 (410), 163, 262,1101, 329. Not all the wheelies sawed themselves with a file, but at least he supervised all structures directly. the first 4 were mass-produced. Some of the projects "me" I did not indicate, because either not finished or unsuccessful, or Willie was not there. 1101 generally turned out to be a far-reaching project, which, after revision, flew in the 60s.
                        And what do we see in Alex?
                        Yak-1, Yak-7, Yak-9, Yak-3 - this is all the development of the same project, only the details have changed
                        and there was nothing more sane enough.
                        In fact, the Yak-1, presented at the competition, before the war, was brought to combat effectiveness only in 42m, to an adequate level - in 43m. you can attribute something to the fact that there was no metal, engines, and the aircraft mechanics were blue-legged, but the difference is simply obvious.

                        Yakovlev had the only normal project that worked only in the last 3 years of the war plus, and Messerschmidt had 4, with completely different themes.
                        I will not speculate comparing me-262 and yak-3, just specify the number of projects.

                        Polikarpov’s projects are just a cloud - from i-15 and i-16, to projects i200, i-180 and 185, project ivans (su-2).
                      17. +1
                        22 May 2019 10: 36
                        The answer is Yehat.
                        Firstly, what kind of obscure familiarity?
                        What else is Alex? Please, express yourself more correctly.
                        Second.
                        Let's go over your arguments:
                        Willy Messerschmidt, projects:
                        Vf-109- personally designed, modernized, etc.
                        Vf-110 - similarly.
                        Me-210 (Me-410) - personally designed. Unsuccessful. A failed project, "to mind" has not been brought to fruition.
                        Me-321- Cargo glider, Me-323- he, with only 6 engines, his project.
                        Me-163 is a project of Alexander Lippish, Willy had nothing to do with it.
                        Me-262 - a project of Voldemar Voight, Willy from the very beginning was skeptical of him and had nothing to do.
                        R.1101 - a project without the participation of Willy.
                        To summarize: Willy has 4 successful projects, 2 failures, and most importantly, Willy has NO RELATIONSHIP to the first-born jet aircraft !!!
                        Conclusion: rumors about Willy's genius turned out to be greatly exaggerated!
                        As for Yakovlev, the man and his design bureau during the war years were engaged in their direct business - they designed and introduced into production fighters that opposed the German ones. Yakovlev and his design bureau were not sprayed, but worked harmoniously and concentratedly, as a single organism, led to one goal. Therefore, in the end, the victory remained with him and his design bureau. And from the point of view of the design features introduced in the production process, production technology, materials and assemblies used, your statement that all the Yaks of the war years are "one project" is very, very controversial ...
                        I leave this statement on your conscience.
                        Compare Me-262 and Yak-3 ???
                        Are you out of your mind?
                        Well, then let's compare the MiG-21 and Skyrider ... But what, they flew in Vietnam at the same time ??? Do not engage in absurdity!
                        About "projects" - after 45, Willie has not just one, but Yakovlev and his design bureau - "just a cloud", as you say!
                        The fact that Polikarpov had a "cloud" of projects, so what's the point of that?
                        Sprayed, lost and not a single one brought to the series! Overstrained ...
                        This is not a virtue or a reason for pride ...
                      18. -1
                        22 May 2019 16: 34
                        Quote: fighter angel
                        Therefore, in the end, the victory remained with him and his design bureau

                        here I strongly disagree
                        Yakovlev used the fact that due to the number and leveling of technical characteristics by the year 43, the Germans began to actively evade air battles, but this is a consequence of equality, not victory.
                        Quote: fighter angel
                        Compare Me-262 and Yak-3

                        I wrote that I’m not going to do this
                        Quote: fighter angel
                        The fact that Polikarpov had a "cloud" of projects, so what's the point of that? Sprayed

                        not sprayed, but all taken away. and i-200, and the base for the development of 180 + 185, and the Ivanes were transferred to Sukhoi, and very strange things happened to the engines.
                        You must admit that it is very strange that a person who successfully worked with the I-16 ruler suddenly became "sprayed". This does not happen, he was greatly "helped".
                        And Yakovlev, with his political company about the young designers replacing the old, is definitely involved here. To his death, Tupolev somehow did not stop to actively work on modern projects, and Polikarpov suddenly "could not."
                        I am enraged by the cynicism that is visible in what Yakovlev says and you repeat.
                      19. 0
                        23 May 2019 09: 44
                        "... here I strongly disagree."
                        Do not agree with what?
                        So that the sky remained behind our cars in the end?
                        So that we won?
                        Want to review / challenge the outcome of World War II?
                        It is without me!

                        "... by 43, the Germans began to actively evade air battles"

                        Do you realize what you are writing?
                        Kursk Bulge, the Liberation of Donbass, Ukraine, Belarus, and everywhere the Germans evaded ???
                        Absurd!

                        "... not sprayed but took everything."
                        This is a panicky nagging and howling. Give the arguments that SPECIFICALLY TAKE THE POLIKARPOV? What kind of projects?
                        As you bring, so continue the conversation.

                        "... Yakovlev is definitely involved here."
                        Are you an investigator for critical matters?
                        Conducted an investigation?
                        FACTS SOUND!
                      20. +1
                        24 May 2019 15: 33
                        Quote: fighter angel
                        What did Willy and Kurt work alone?
                        Did you build all your planes "in one person"?
                        Didn't they have their own design bureaus or their "best design engineers"?

                        In terms of the number of engineering personnel, the Messerschmitt Design Bureau (Messerschmitt AG) exceeded all the design bureaus of the USSR taken together at the time of the visit of the delegation to Germany, which included Polikarpov.
                        The engineering staff was at that time several thousand people. The number of workers in factories> 40000.
                        When the independent design bureaus of Yakovlev, Mikoyan, Lavochkin, Petlyakov and others were singled out, the design team of some did not even reach 40 people. This explains the slow development, and the small range of development and testing of additional devices. The quality of the engineering staff can be discussed separately. Engine drivers and manufacturers were almost absent from the design bureau, when compared with the Germans.
                        This fact explains many problems in the design and development of aircraft (monitoring stations, fuel equipment, pressurized cabins, weapons, instruments, ergonomics, radio communications, electronics, servomechanisms, electrics, sights, etc.). Many promising designs were ruined by the slow pace of development of both the design of the aircraft and the slow preparation of documentation (design and technological).
                        In fairness, if the USSR wanted to compete with Germany in this area, he should have combined designers in 1-3 powerful design bureaus.
                        For example, Polikarpov + Tupolev. With pair competition.
                        I consider it a mistake to create on the eve of the war a large number of working groups on various topics under the guidance of various designers who worked in different places and had a difficult exchange of experience and a different production base.
                        Maybe it made sense to create one large aviation corporation, the idea of ​​which was promoted by Shakhurin, like the American ones. A positive moment was TsAGI and uniform test benches.
    3. 0
      20 May 2019 20: 49
      Thank. Read.
  19. +5
    18 May 2019 09: 23
    In general, it is very difficult for me to assess the human qualities of Polikarpov. When you are beaten in the back like that every day and spit in your face, when your plane is not allowed to fly by all means, an understanding of the deepest spirituality and love for your Motherland of this person arises.

    He is just a real Russian person.
    And that says it all.
  20. +13
    18 May 2019 10: 15
    What I would like to say about Roman's article. Probably, comrade Yakovlev was a difficult and difficult person, but it is hardly fair to hang "all the dogs" on him for Polikarpov. Nikolai Nikolaevich Polikarpov himself bears considerable responsibility for everything that happened. It is known that Polikarpov was an adherent of air-cooled engines, not in the least because of this, the theme of the I-17 fighter did not receive proper development, moreover, the Hispano-Suiza engine (V-shaped 12-cylinder Hispano-Suiza 12Ybrs takeoff power of 860 liters) with a purchased production license from the French.

    With a motor-cannon, which was also already developed for this engine, the I-17 could become a worthy rival to the German Bf 109, initially replacing the entire topic on Yakovlev's aircraft. But this did not happen, although the French themselves on their Dewoatin D.520 fighters, with the same Hispano-Suiza engine, offered the Germans worthy resistance in the sky. Also, the I-185 was ready for the summer of 1940, but Nikolai Nikolayevich did not want to hear about any other engine, with the priority of M-71. New engines were waiting for a long seven months, which appeared only at the beginning of 1941. Again, the emphasis on the M-71, delayed time and effort, although the car showed itself excellently with the M-82A. As a result, time was lost, and the propeller group that had been worked out by Polikarpov's design bureau was ordered to be given for its use on other fighters, where it took root in the best possible way with Lavochkin. So, thanks to Polikarpov, La-3 appeared on the basis of LaGG-5. Nevertheless, no one accuses Lavochkin of "robbing" Polikarpov.

    Still, with all due respect, Roman, it is not worth "rolling barrels" to the Soviet school of aircraft designers, it was really created, thanks to it we still have some of the best aircraft. Without the Soviet Union, and, again, without the creation of the Soviet school of cosmonautics and rocketry, our current gentlemen bourgeois would also suck their paws, having nothing for their souls. What is the defense capability now, when the departing Soviet quality and quantity is in question, the same question.
    1. +2
      18 May 2019 13: 16
      Excuse me, where and when did the French pilots fight back the German ???? Normandy Neman, we don’t think so.
      1. +1
        18 May 2019 16: 45
        Quote: Andrey VOV
        Excuse me, where and when did the pilots of France fight off the German ????
        You distort the meaning by focusing on "German resistance". in my context, -"offered the Germans decent resistance in the sky". If you are really interested in using the Dewoitine D.520 fighter, then here you are.
        Deliveries of D.520C1 to the front-line units began at the end of January 1940. The GC I / 3 group received them first, but it reached alert only on May 7. By May 10, it remained the only combat-ready part of the French Air Force with D.520C1 (by the time the customer had received only 76 machines). By the end of the month, two groups fought on the front against D.520C1, and in June they were joined by three more. By the time of surrender, two more Air Force and 4 AE naval aviation groups were undergoing rearmament. During the May-June fights of 1940, the D.520 pilots scored 108 confirmed air victories. In fights with the “Messerschmitts”, the new “devouatin” proved to be quite worthy - a little inferior to the Bf 109 in speed and climb to the ground, he surpassed it in maneuverability and climb at high altitudes. The ratio of victories and losses in air battles was 7,7: 1 - better than any other French fighter. However, taking into account the aircraft destroyed on the ground, broken in accidents abandoned during the retreat, the French lost 106 D.520. Source and details: http://www.airaces.ru/plane/devuatin-d-520.html
      2. -1
        20 May 2019 14: 56
        devuatins were worthy opponents for bf-109E
        but bf-109f4 or bf109g2 would roll them out effortlessly.
        by the way, the opponents of the devuatins were far from only the "messers"
        there were he-51s, and postal aircraft before-17 and other air junk.
        1. 0
          22 May 2019 16: 08
          Dreamer you however, Yehat!
          When do you think the D-520 could meet in battles with the "Fredericks" and even more so with the "Gustavs"?
          France capitulated in June 1940.
          And Vf-109F began to be produced only in November - December 1940.
          And "Gustav" is generally the second half of the 42nd!
          At this time, "Dewuatins-520" were already flying with the Bulgarian medical facilities, or were transferred to training units.
          1. 0
            22 May 2019 16: 36
            In Africa, devuatins served allies when Fredericks arrived
            where is the fantasy here?
            1. +1
              23 May 2019 09: 47
              Let it be known to you that in Africa, the Devouins have already flown with orange-red stripes!
              All of them were in Vichy aviation. Consequently, the Germans were allies.
              There could not be a priori air battles between them!
    2. +3
      18 May 2019 13: 35
      Quote: Per se.
      As a result, time was wasted, and the rotor-engine group worked out by Polikarpov Design Bureau was ordered to be given for use on other fighters, where it took root in the best way with Lavochkin.

      Gu-82. the first attempt to remake LaGG-3 under the M-82 in August 1941. Under the leadership of Gudkov, the nose of the Su-3 was docked to the laGG-2 glider. We read - P.O. Sukhoi was obliged to transfer the drawings of the Su-2 motor installation ... Actually, when the deputy S.A. Lavochkina, S.M. Alekseev asked A.D. Shvetsov to send a mock-up M-82 (why was the mock-up when Polikarpov was ordered to give the propeller group to other design bureaus), then A.D. Shvets is not enough that provided 2 (two) new engines along with mechanics.
      1. +3
        18 May 2019 17: 02
        Quote: Fitter65
        Gu-xnumx. first attempt to rework LaGG-82 under M-3 in August 82
        Alexander, now it is difficult to find the "ends" of what was before, what was better, what was used when installing (reinstalling) motors. There is information about the transfer, and it has not yet been refuted.
        aviation historian VB Shavrov in his fundamental work “The History of Aircraft Designs in the USSR. 1938-1950 years. ”Wrote:“ In the summer of 1941 of the year, at the direction of the NKAP, the drawings of the propeller group and the rifle installation of the ShVAK synchronous cannons of the I-185 aircraft with M-82 were transferred to N.N. Polikarpov in OKB A.I. Mikoyan, S.A. Lavochkin and A.S. Yakovlev for familiarization in the usual exchange of experience. "
        Believe it or not, your personal business.
        1. +5
          18 May 2019 21: 46
          If only I could find a document in which Yakovlev was ordered to pass on his work to Polikarpov ...
          Funny, is not it?
          But then it continued and continued ... In the 1980s. we, on Sukhoi, knew perfectly well that TsAGI was showing our materials to the MiG, but no one showed us the purges of the "partners" ("Well, what are you, this is a state secret!").
        2. +3
          19 May 2019 01: 03
          Quote: Per se.
          Believe it or not, your personal business.

          You know, Sergei, I believe in documents more. Usually, if there was some indication, there is always its written confirmation. After all, they had already passed, the military demanded that Ilyushin make the attack aircraft one-seater. And this legend went for more than one year from one publication to another, but the truth turned out to be from a completely different side. V.B. Shavrov, of course, is an authoritative person, there is no dispute, but this general phrase "In the summer of 1941, at the direction of the NKAP ..." There was no date, no date, no number of the resolution. S. Yakovlev, but a piece of paper. They also say that P.O. Sukhoi was instructed to transfer the drawings of the motor installation with the M-2 to the Ilyushin Design Bureau and to stop the production of the Su-82

          They also put the M-82 on the Pe-2, and reduced the production of the Tu-2, an indication to Tupolev? ... Everyone believes that he likes ...
          1. +1
            19 May 2019 10: 40
            Quote: Fitter65
            You know, Sergey, I believe in documents more.
            Of course, this is correct, however, not everything turned out to be documented, not all "clumsy notes" could be saved. In the mid-80s, I read Rabkin's book "Time, People, Airplanes", from the genre of memoirs. There, in the chapter dedicated to Polikarpov with the topic on I-180 and I-185, there are such lines.
            At the end of 1942, N.N. Polikarpov handed over to SA Lavochkin’s drawings of the M-82 engine unit in the hope that they might be useful to Semyon Alekseevich in his work on the improvement of the La-5 production aircraft. As is known, this aircraft, on which the M-82 engine stood, was launched into serial production in the early summer of 1942, and was successfully used at Stalingrad in the autumn of the same year.
            In Soviet times, especially in the hard times of war, it could well be, these are not the selfish interests of capitalism. Also, any engineer and designer is interested in the question of technical solutions for analyzing, comparing and using the best. So, I do not see anything reprehensible if the developments of Polikarpov Design Bureau on the engine helped Lavochkin with the refinement and further improvement of his fighter, on which Polikarpov’s favorite air-cooled motor got accustomed. Otherwise, what happened, happened, in the wartime, what was done was optimal. It was necessary to create new design bureaus, reducing the load on the design bureau of Polikarpov, not just before the war, but earlier, at the beginning of 30's. Perhaps, at the same time, the Soviet aviation school would form more quickly, and there would be more benefit from healthy competition and the distribution of specialization in types of combat aircraft.
            1. +1
              19 May 2019 11: 05
              Quote: Per se.
              At the end of 1942 N.N. Polikarpov handed S.A. Lavochkin drawings of the M-82 engine

              Let's ask a question. What is meant by the concept of a motor installation is a motor, but an ordinary motor in our case, the M-82, but again, probably better drawings, with all descriptions and other related documentation, were made by OKB making this motor. But here are drawings of engine mounts, hoods and so on. similar is a slightly different question. It is quite possible that the sharing of information was. But something, I doubt that it was as it was written above, in an orderly order I was obliged to give the work to different design bureaus, and to turn off my work ...
              1. +1
                19 May 2019 15: 43
                Quote: Fitter65
                But something I doubt that it was as it was written above, in an orderly manner they were obliged to give the groundwork to different design offices, and to curtail my work ..
                I also doubt it, although it could have been "asked" from above. No matter how wonderful the I-185 turned out to be late, no one would change the La-5 (especially the La-5FN and La-7) or even Yakovlev's fighters during that period of the war. This, as in the case of the Il-2 (later with the Il-10) and the Su-6 ...

                If Polikarpov had time to occupy the assembly line in production, at the very beginning, another matter. But, that was the problem, that the rate was only on a powerful air-cooled motor, and with this there was a problem in itself. Polikarpov had a chance before the war to create a cool water-cooled fighter, he did not. Who knows, but the I-17 could have received another engine afterwards, both Klimov's modifications, instead of the original "Hispano-Suiza", and air cooling. Remember here the Japanese fighter of the Kawasaki company, Ki-61 and Ki-100. There was also the opposite, for the same Kurt Tank, who installed a water-cooled engine (FW-190D190) on his FW-9 instead of an air one, and created a Ta-152 for the final of the war.

                In general, for me personally in history, the main thing is not empty "rustle of nuts", not conversations, but conclusions from its lessons to the present. What's better or worse now? God forbid war, will there be at least such a "Yakovlev" that will plug the hole in the production of combat aircraft? For the rest, the USSR won, albeit at a high price, but whether the current bad boys are ready not to win, but in general to seriously fight with their bourgeois, where Russia is heading, is already a much more significant question.
              2. +1
                20 May 2019 15: 03
                Polikarpov, like Bartini, actively shared their best practices and lessons learned (they were aware of the latest world developments)
                without orders - they were just happy for the job.
                But they know Yakovlev and Lavochkin, and not these two
                1. 0
                  22 May 2019 16: 22
                  Do not you understand yet?
                  There are two main categories of people creating aviation and everything related to it.
                  The first one is "dreamers", divorced from reality, running around with crazy ideas and demanding their speedy implementation. And they don't care that there is no technology, that neither production nor personnel are ready for this. They rush forward and pull others with them. And sooner or later, they come to exactly what they proposed.
                  And the second category is "realists". Who do what is required of them right here and now. It is they who do what is really needed and can be done based on what is available.
                  They (both categories) exist together. There are conflicts. The second reach for the first. The second often pull the first, lowering them from heaven to earth. And the first point the second to the RIGHT DIRECTION! And they go TOGETHER IN ONE DIRECTION.
                  I think you yourself will guess who belongs to which category ...
                  Sometimes in one person both categories can be combined, but this is rather an exception ...
                  1. -1
                    22 May 2019 16: 39
                    totally agree, except for the word "together". There was definitely a fatal disunity of the society of designers, which had a very negative impact on the development and implementation of aviation and much more. For example, Bartini's planes were so actively silent that our fighter pilots mistook them for the enemy and attacked.
                    That's what conflicts in the team lead to.
                    and I am inclined to blame Yakovlev as the loudest violin.
                    1. -1
                      23 May 2019 09: 49
                      I am glad that at least something reasonable is agreed.
                      Are these some Bartini planes attacked by our fighters?
                      "... and I am inclined to blame Yakovlev for this, as the loudest violin."

                      On what basis?
                      To blame, the facts are needed!
                      You do not have them!
                      Therefore, all this zilch and balabolstvo!
                      1. -1
                        23 May 2019 09: 54
                        db-240 (ер-2) it was launched in a series of Yermolaev after the arrest of Bartini.
                        that's who Yakovlev had to learn to lick aerodynamics and do oil coolers
                        until the end of the war, this was a sore subject on the Yak-ahs, and Bartini in the 30s showed how they can be debugged on the ground using a stand (Mendelstamm?).
                      2. +1
                        23 May 2019 10: 56
                        Stop stop!
                        Stop, dear!
                        Put everything in a heap again. It’s also impossible ...
                        First: Bartini created the Stal-7 passenger plane, a wonderful, high-speed aircraft that was planned as the main passenger plane. The launch of the series was prevented by the arrest of Robert Ludwigovich and the decision taken at the very top - to buy a license for the DC-3 and expand its production.
                        Second: Ermolaev made an ABSOLUTELY NEW AIRCRAFT! All that remained of the Steel-7 was the “reverse gull” wing pattern. By all design, technological features, and LTH - Er-2 (DB-240) - a completely different aircraft, not similar to the "Steel-7".
                        Third: With all due respect to Bartini, he could not take part in the work on Er-2.
                        This machine was completely created by Vladimir Ermolaev, from "scratch", and the launch into a series, difficulties with choosing an engine - all this was decided by Ermolaev.
                        Therefore, the conclusion: No matter how you would like it, BUT IT WASN’T A BARTINI DESIGN MACHINE IN THE MILITARY SKY. This is a fact and it must be recognized!
                        Well, the fourth:
                        "... that's who Yakovlev had to learn to lick the aerodynamics and make oil coolers ..."
                        Another unsubstantiated unsubstantiated balabolstvo on your part.
                        You cannot prove it.
                        One thing is not clear: you are here with someone competing, who will throw a larger piece of feces at A.S. Yakovlev? As the ancient sages said: "Kicking a dead lion is the most disgusting and unworthy occupation."
                      3. -2
                        23 May 2019 11: 02
                        Yakovlev threw himself at himself and kicked himself, I only find historical references and list them. You can dig up a whole bunch of quotes, which I can not name otherwise than vile and cynical. And as for the lion ... you have successfully noticed this - for the lion, lionesses do everything, but he only commands.
                      4. 0
                        23 May 2019 11: 08
                        "... I just find historical references and list them. You can dig up a whole bunch of quotes from him, which I cannot call other than vile and cynical."

                        So be kind-PUBLISH THEM FINALLY ALREADY!
                        PUT THEM HERE!
                        How long can you, sorry, "fart in puddles" ???
                      5. -1
                        23 May 2019 11: 24
                        if you want sources - please
                        Yakovlev "The Purpose of Life" (1987) we read:
                        ... I-180 was built in the number of three copies. On the first of them, at the very beginning of flight tests ... Valery Chkalov died. On the second, after a short time, the military test pilot Susi crashed. Later on the third I-180, the well-known test engineer Stepanchenok, making an emergency landing due to engine stop, did not reach the airfield, crashed into the hangar and burned down. "

                        Will you find a lie or enumerate yourself?
                        Just kidding, I won’t give you room.
                        here are the questions people ask about it
                        I would also add that at the meetings on the fate of I-180 and I-185 there was no Polikarpov, there was only Yakovlev, who gave assessments in the spirit that is described here
                        And after all, this is only what officially came up, and what he really did - one can only guess, but there is no doubt, it was even worse.

                        It is hard to believe that by 1966 the former deputy commissar had completely forgotten how the I-180 differed from the I-185, that, besides the experimental I-180s, there were serial ones, that there were several options for a completely new I-185 fighter, on one of which during the preparation of range tests Stepanchenok died. Moreover, the decision to conduct these tests was made at the very meeting in the Kremlin, about which Yakovlev writes several pages later.

                        Why, one wonders, Yakovlev needed to pull out two I-180s and one I-185 from all the I-180s and I-185s built, pass them off as 3 experienced I-180s, on each of which a test pilot died? Obviously, to set the tone for the coverage of the topic he needs. "Stalin read aloud the letter of designer N.N. Polikarpov, in which he reported on a new high-speed fighter, undergoing factory tests and showing great speed." Yakovlev does not say what the aircraft was called and what speed it showed, but writes that the aircraft passed only part of the factory flight tests: "... Shakhurin and I tried to objectively evaluate the aircraft and give it a more comprehensive description. But since the aircraft only part of the factory tests passed, it was impossible to give a final conclusion.

                        But Polikarpov wrote about three state tests at the Air Force Research Institute, the acts of which Malenkov had, with the attached reviews of front-line pilots who, unlike the deputy commissar, were able to give the car a final conclusion.

                        It is easy to assume that the attempt to “objectively evaluate the car” was as “objective” as the story of this to readers many years later ...
                      6. +1
                        23 May 2019 13: 16
                        "Purpose of Life" is Fictional Literature!
                        A priori, she CANNOT BE CONSIDERED THE FIRST SOURCE!
                        All that you wrote above is alas, EVERYTHING IS EMPTY!
                        See SPECIAL LITERATURE, STUDY!
                        Ideally, of course, ARCHIVAL DOCUMENTS, but they are not all open yet.
                        In our correspondence with you six months ago, I gave you a list of all the sources on this topic.
                        Take and study.
                        I have not the slightest desire and time to explain to you the elementary truths, and to arrange an "educational program".
                        Sorry, but somehow ...
                      7. -1
                        23 May 2019 13: 21
                        and at what level did Stalin's meetings take place?
                        just fiction. It was enough for Yakovlev to keep silent about 3
                        successful test complexes, about the responses of experienced pilots, to confuse something, distort and the I-185 became a raw machine that had to be flushed down the toilet, like the Yak-1 in 41, although the I-185 was actually much better prepared. And no technical literature is needed. This is how it happened, without "high" matters.
                        This is called information manipulation.
                      8. 0
                        23 May 2019 15: 39
                        Here it is, it turns out!
                        Not only have I never seen any facts, references, or arguments from you,
                        so now also your emotions are not included in the case!
                        Someone in the toilet, and someone in the sky, it was decided without you, AND DECIDED ABSOLUTELY CORRECT !!! In that prevailing setting.
                        You know that, dear Yehat- with such your level of knowledge, with all your empty speculations, sucked from some finger, with all your emotions and the lack of elementary argumentation of what you said, with all your jumps from topic to topic, communicate with whoever you want. .. Do not need me.
                        Until the level of your knowledge is raised.
      2. 0
        20 May 2019 20: 52
        Everyone was waiting for someone to write about it. There were other intrigues.
    3. +1
      19 May 2019 06: 38
      That's it. Allocate money, work is ongoing, but there is no result. What are the findings? Even now they would ask. And in those days, even more so.
    4. 0
      24 May 2019 16: 28
      Quote: Per se.
      Also, I-185 was ready for the summer of 1940, but Nikolai Nikolaevich did not want to hear about any other engine, with priority M-71. Long seven months were waiting for new engines, which appeared only at the beginning of 1941. Again, the emphasis was on the M-71, delayed the time and effort, although the machine proved to be excellent with the M-82A. As a result, time was wasted, and the rotor-engine group worked out by Polikarpov Design Bureau was ordered to be given for use on other fighters, where it took root in the best way with Lavochkin.

      If you carefully read the above articles and materials on the development of Shvetsov engines, then in fact:
      Polikarpov made I-185 for the dimension and power of M-90:
      The closest to it was M-71, M-82 and M-88 were motors of the wrong dimension, putting them on the I-185, he would have failed the project. Let me remind you that the M-82A gave out 1400 hp on the passport, but because of the fuel equipment and candles only 1200 hp, and this is on the best gasoline.
      M-82FN with injection appeared only in 1943, and in 1941 it was only put into production and the designers did not have it. New carburetors also appeared only at the end of 1941, and embarked on real engines in 1942, and only then it became possible to squeeze the passport parameters from serial engines.
      In this case, the list of defects M-71 (and this was for everyone - M63, M88, AM-35, M-82, VK-103, VK-105, M-90, M-89, M-90) was actually one of the shortest, the problem was only in the technology of shaft production, which was relatively quickly resolved in 7 months. Highlights on cooling and kinematics worked on the M63. Along the way, we tested 2 new carburetors and an injection, all of them gave acceptable reliability, and at the end of the 40th year the engine passed bench tests.
      Thus, of the new engines, it was the M-71 that was the most combat-ready, and besides, it gave out great power. It should also be noted that this engine (and M-82) digested the work on low-quality gasoline better than all of the above, which was important before the war, as high octane fuel problems were permanent.
      The factory manufacturer, like Shvetsov himself, didn’t care which one to bring, because technologically, the motors were close. We settled on the 14-cylinder, as a simpler and cheaper.
      Due to various reasons (as well as due to repressions), the work on all other air carriers was inhibited, the Beria Commission until 1943 caught engineers from various places of detention and returned to KB.
  21. +8
    18 May 2019 11: 08
    In an article dated May 1, Yakovlev is good, in this bad. Strange fluctuations of the author ..
    1. +4
      18 May 2019 13: 52
      Quote: smaug78
      In an article dated May 1, Yakovlev is good, in this bad. Strange fluctuations of the author ..

      Nothing strange. The main thing is to crow, and there at least do not dawn. Nothing strange, considering that in one of his articles the author wrote that the Mi-8s that perform the MSS functions at the BBO airfields do not have winches, as a result of which the pilots died. It’s not just an article, but an alarm. But when the real reasons became known, he didn’t write an article according to the analysis. The main task of the author is to scream like a Banshee in the night, and there what and how was actually not really worrying him.
    2. -2
      18 May 2019 19: 53
      Yakovlev and Tupolev are good designers, but there were big nits ... That was said by those who had to work with them. Watch how Tupolev ate Myasishchev - with giblets !!! Weaving is the plane of the future for those years. Tupolev couldn’t even reach her, but they ate ... And what about the Tu-22m? read how to push the elbows of others. Yakovlev has no forgiveness for Polikarpov. The war in the sky could have passed in another scenario at 41m.
      1. 0
        18 May 2019 19: 54
        And in general, read papyri - a lot is written in them ...
      2. sdk
        0
        19 May 2019 01: 57
        Again, by the way, "" Yakovlev strove for the repressed. For example, Balandin, Ryabchikov's correspondent, and the name of the repressed and defeated Artseulov was printed in 1944 on the first page of the first edition of his book, as the author of illustrations.
        Everyone who knew him said that he knew how to make enemies well because of his integrity.
        Here, many copies are broken about Yovlev’s hyper-ambition - money, fame, rewards. You must admit that it’s a little strange that in the lists of design bureaus drawn up at different times, the name Yakovlev was always placed at their end - alphabetically. Doesn't fit in somehow.
      3. 0
        20 May 2019 15: 08
        I could not. fighting not only aircraft, but organizational structures.
        41 happened not because the Yak-1 was bad, but because the airfields and ground services were poorly prepared. Because the industry did not provide a good connection. Because the tactics of using air groups were backward. Because 90% of the pilots did not master the new technique. And the charter often simply forbade an adequate response in the sky.
        The pilots could bring down the Germans on the I-16 and did it, but not everything depends on them.
  22. 0
    18 May 2019 11: 23
    It is unlikely that everything is as simple as the author presented. Anyway, everyone, probably, in his life has encountered competition of varying degrees of severity. And for someone tougher too.
    Polikarpov is undoubtedly a talented designer. Perhaps, in his upbringing and temperament, he did not differ in the ability to shove with his elbows, talk to the strong, walk over their heads, and build useful connections. However, I think, if Spain, Khalkhin-gol did not show what they did, and Polikarpov did modify the I17 or got a working engine for the I180 / 185, it would be warmer and Chkalov would have remained alive, then perhaps he would have stayed " king. " Of course, it is unlikely, it is not enough to be talented (perhaps quite a genius), you must be able to bite a competitor well in order to slow down the pace. So Polikarpov lost in the competition.
  23. +7
    18 May 2019 11: 52
    We can say that Polikarpov Design Bureau finished it with good results. In fact, the Ivanov project was developed, which later became the Su-2

    In the previous article, in the comments you were already pointed out that Polikarpov has nothing to do with Su-2
    When, after the death of Mikhail Iosifovich Gurevich, his name was instantly excluded from the name of the company, I think it is true even from some side.

    How to understand it? can anyone explain?
    In general, some kind of hysterical article turned out ....
    1. +3
      18 May 2019 13: 55
      Quote: KERMET
      In the previous article, in the comments you were already pointed out that Polikarpov has nothing to do with Su-2

      Could not indicate, this author does not respond to criticism from the word - Yaluchevas
      I know.
      1. 0
        18 May 2019 20: 08
        In fairness, I must say that this article appeared earlier than I wrote my comment about the Su-2.
        But for now, everything remains as it was ...
    2. 0
      18 May 2019 20: 16
      I heard, quite the opposite, that Mikoyan always insisted that the company be called MiG, not MiG.
      I suspect that it was Gurevich who was the "brain" of this design bureau. (May the Mikoyans correct me!)
      1. 0
        18 May 2019 22: 29
        And what, the company was ever called "Mig"?
        1. 0
          18 May 2019 22: 34
          Here I am about it!
      2. +2
        20 May 2019 01: 05
        It is written by Arlazorov that when Gurevich retired, Mikoyan said that the planes would still be called MiG.
  24. +2
    18 May 2019 11: 57
    In my opinion, the author measures the motivation of Lavochkin, Yakovlev, Mikoyan by today's standards when money is the common measure. And he doesn’t allow the version that everyone stood behind his plane because he sincerely believed that his approach was the only true one. It happens even now, although rarely.
    From examples of Soviet times, one can cite the story of the T-64/72/80. Of course there someone received prizes, cars, cottages. But the main motivation for pushing his car was precisely in the sincere confidence of his approach.
    And Tupolev’s plenty of such stories.
    1. -1
      19 May 2019 01: 39
      Quote: Servisinzhener
      But the main motivation for pushing his car was precisely in the sincere confidence of his approach.
      And Tupolev’s plenty of such stories.

      For some reason, no one recalls the conversation between Stalin and Yakovlev, when Yakovlev explained the IVS that in the absence of orders or their shortage, design bureaus and pilot plants eradicate a beggarly fate, or even closure. There are no orders for promising developments, there are no orders for modernization, this is the lack of funding, the loss of serial plants and a bunch of other problems. Soon, after WWII, dozens of design bureaus were closed only due to the lack of orders. A striking example of this is the closure of Sukhoi and Myasishchev after the Second World War. So under the USSR there was strong competition. Most likely, for this reason, Polikarpov lost.
    2. +3
      20 May 2019 15: 11
      here the situation is more complicated - in the USSR in important areas often duplicated design bureaus for competition.
      and with tanks that way.
  25. +1
    18 May 2019 12: 35
    An incomprehensible article was a good plane, but there is no motor, and how to fight without a motor? From an airplane And 180 did the motor go into mass production? Or did you need other planes? And 185 with the M 71 motor, but was this motor brought to mass production? And read how much you suffered with the M 82 while you finished it and put it into mass production, and in which year? Yakovlev didn’t take anything from Polikarpov either the engine or the plane. How did La 5 come about? They put the M 3 on serial Lugg 82, so during the war it was faster than launching a new car. And the motor plants that produced M 105 would be taken and transferred to the production of M 82 engines and a single motor and solid La 5 would turn out, and maybe in this case And 185 would be launched into a series. But you didn’t do it? it means they couldn’t mean it was impossible at that time to do so
    1. 0
      18 May 2019 13: 07
      With the I-180, the M-88 engine was in serial production, in the plans of 40 it was planned to release it only at one plant, the backup plant was transferred to the production of a water-cooled motor, i.e. the choice was made for the "new" fighters (it is also justified by the fact that there were big problems with the M-88 in the 40th)
      The choice in favor of the M-82 was made not for technical reasons, but administratively (at the time of the choice, both motors were equally flawed), but in favor of the M-82 there was a smaller diameter - it is easier to install it on ready-made aircraft. Moreover, some helluva lot of clever aviation specialist established in one of the government's decisions "The overall diameter of air-cooled motors for combat aviation is not more than 1300mm ..."
      Well, at that time, they could produce I-185 only in a small series with unclear prospects for the NKAP (if the series doesn’t work, get by the head, go and get a problem with the organization of a larger production, and it’s breaking already launched), it’s easier to lower the brakes which was done
  26. The comment was deleted.
  27. 0
    18 May 2019 14: 51
    Mark Solonin also wrote about "bad conscience and ratishness" by A. Yakovleva in his book "On Peacefully Sleeping Airfields ..." And let's see what is happening now? The country needs a "regional plane". "Tupolevtsy" offer Tu-334, which has been tested, shown on showrooms and so on ... But (!!!!) someone, "very smart from aviation" decides that "the plane is outdated", and a new model needs to be developed. And instead of bringing the flying specimen to the required characteristics, they give the task of the Sukhoi Design Bureau, which has never (!!!!) designed passenger aircraft !!! But "the little box is opened simply": it would take millions of dollars to fine-tune the Tu-334, and tens of billions to develop the SSS !!! Where is it easier to steal?
    1. -1
      21 May 2019 13: 02
      Yah! Marcello himself wrote ?!
      "Father of the Great Truth" !!!
      Well, that’s the way it was!
      Believe him more, Marcelle ...
  28. -2
    18 May 2019 15: 00
    I don't understand where this stamp came from among ardent admirers of Polikarpov - "the king of fighters"?
    After all, the most successful and the most widespread plane he did not turn out to be a fighter, but a "flying desk" U-2. And what about fighters? I-5 did not fight. I-15, I-153 - anachronism (biplanes). The I-16 is a maneuverable, but not a high-speed aircraft, difficult to control, restive during takeoff and landing, even the landing gear of a pilot wounded in the arm could not be released, since it was necessary to turn the exhaust wheel manually (where is the hydraulics?). The peak of glory for the I-16 is only about a year - Spain. Then the Bf-109 appeared and that was all ... On Khalkhin-Gol, the Japanese I-96s surpassed the I-16s in speed and maneuverability, despite the protruding non-retractable sandals chassis. In 1941, on the I-16, it was difficult to catch up with the German Ju-88 bomber going with a slight excess, I will not say anything about the Bf-109 fighter at all.
    Fighter - from the word "exterminate". But if you are on the I-16, standing in a circle in a defensive battle, fighting off the advancing Messers on bends - you are not a fighter, you are a victim.
    It is worth remembering that since 1917, the most severe class struggle was waged in the USSR. Polikarpov was the son of a priest, that is, the class enemy of the "proletarian masses." And after a series of disasters with the I-180 and the death of Chkalov, the "proletarian masses" had a latent question about the possibility of sabotage and sabotage by the former class enemy, Comrade Polikarpov. And although the guilt of Comrade Polikarpov was not proven, the trust was undermined, hence the "blurring" of the I-185.
    In my personal opinion, which I do not impose on anyone, Comrade Polikarpov is not the "king of fighters". No matter how they sew a transparent dress for the king on VO, there will always be an unbiased boy and exclaim - and the king is naked.
    1. +6
      18 May 2019 18: 37
      Quote: pro100y.belarus
      I don't understand where this stamp came from among ardent admirers of Polikarpov - "the king of fighters"?

      Quote: pro100y.belarus
      In my personal opinion, which I do not impose on anyone, Comrade Polikarpov is not "the king of fighters

      You should read more normal literature and then you would know that:
      In aviation circles, NN Polikarpov was called "the king of fighters": for almost 10 years, our fighter aviation was armed exclusively with his machines

      if that is the words of Yakovlev, here he is "an ardent admirer of Polikarpov" winked
    2. +4
      19 May 2019 13: 01
      At Khalkhin Gol, the Japanese I-96 surpassed the I-16 in speed and maneuverability, despite the protruding fixed gear bast shoes

      And why did the Japanese gain dominion in the sky over Khalkhin Gol? )))
      The Japanese had just excellent training for the pilots, so they showed the result. As soon as trained pilots were pulled from central Russia, all the superiority was immediately blown away. And after our knocked out the backbone of the Japanese aces (who got their hand in the war with China), the young yuppa pilots generally sank very much.
    3. +2
      20 May 2019 20: 06
      before becoming an effective Me-109 had to grow to the "Emil" to the same, its first modifications did not have superiority over the I-16
  29. -5
    18 May 2019 15: 52
    Great job, Roman! Thank! This is the basis for the script. Clever, biting, and, most importantly, emotionally and very figuratively. I read it in one go. As if I saw everything with my own eyes. That would be a movie to make according to your scenario ...
    1. The comment was deleted.
  30. +2
    18 May 2019 16: 07
    And a little offtopic.
    The ZIS 2 cannon has a thin long barrel, which promises serious technological problems, and leads to higher production costs. Again, a small caliber, a smaller mass of explosives in the shell, the gun is less versatile. ZIS 3 obtained by re-grinding ZIS 2, that is, the imposition of a barrel of 76 mm on the carriage ZIS 2. And for 1941, the release of the simpler to manufacture ZIS 3 was the right decision.
  31. +2
    18 May 2019 16: 53
    Let's look at everything through the eyes of Shakhurin and Yakovlev. Every day it is required to report on the release of aircraft. Every plant counts and every aircraft they produce. What is at stake is not some kind of victory, but the very existence of the country. And comrade. Stalin before, as well as comrade. Beria stands behind and asks: "How much? When? What is needed for this?"
    And here it is necessary to give at least one plant to a sick Polikarpov with a defeated design bureau and launch a new plane during the war (!). Now, the mother of Japan, the Yak-152 really can not run. Not a plane, but a pot-bellied little thing!
    You must also understand what was necessary for the production of this aircraft other than engines. Maybe some materials, etc. Not all decisions in the war were correct from today's point of view, but it is not up to us to decide. There would be an opportunity, m. and would run. And behind all, as it were, the vilenesses of Shakhurin and Yakovlev there was a simple and cruel managerial decision. Now you can produce as many aircraft. And then sharply less. And your destiny will become unenviable. The decisions of the then leaders were tough and may be wrong. But we won. Compare those times and today. Everything in the world is done by bad people.
    A similar situation was with LaGG-3.
    1. +3
      18 May 2019 21: 53
      Let's look at everything through the eyes of Shakhurin and Yakovlev.

      That's it, that Yakovleva ...
      The situation when one of the designersgets the right to make decisions, which of these designers is better - unacceptable! If you want to be deputy commissar - leave the KB! But "Himself" allowed ...
      1. sdk
        0
        19 May 2019 02: 17
        Itself did not allow, but made an offer which it was impossible to refuse.
        And who could be entrusted with this position in a difficult situation in the then aviation industry? Answer: To anyone, but not Yakovlev, sorry, it does not work. Stalin clearly knew before the appointment who was worth what. Why waste time on trifles, he could have put his supposedly "favorite" and the people's commissar. No, in the interests of the cause put Shakhurin and gave him Yakovlev to help him.
        Who, if not the designer, very successful at that, should judge the merits and demerits of other MACHINES regardless of the personalities who represented them (the plane is a collective product, not just one Main one). Yakovlev deputy commissar / deputy minister was only 6 years old with a tail, and they watered him as if he had ruined the entire Soviet aircraft industry once and for all. And who is watering? Those who hate Stalin. To whom are the achievements of the Soviet era, socialism, across the throat? The campaign of lies and slander has been unleashed for a long time and continues to this day, although the truth nevertheless breaks out.
      2. 0
        19 May 2019 06: 26
        It was not Yakovlev who decided. And at least Shakhurin, maximum Stalin. Under Yakovlev, all the designers remained where they were and with their own. I even consider his accusations that he did not give something to Lavochkin to be unfounded. Lavochkin finally made his plane and it was released. A lot was produced. Well, so Yakovlev got it! In general, I consider that story to be an example of Yakovlev’s objectivity. And what kind of person is he in this case has nothing to do with the matter.
        Only Polikarpov remained. But at the beginning of the war he had NOTHING. You see - nothing. And then it was too late.
        Leaving the deputy commissar at that time could be regarded as avoiding responsibility. The followers would blame all the miscalculations (and whoever doesn’t have them). And that’s all. Times were not those, times were different (s).
        In general, people who make important decisions do not think like ordinary people. The categories are good / bad. The category is different - did / did not, you can / cannot. There are no saints there and is not foreseen.
    2. 0
      20 May 2019 01: 35
      And where is LaGGi? Do you even distract yourself on the MiG, at least to what ... What is Polykarpov in 30-40, that Myasishchev in 50-60 is unreachable stars for everyone else? Measuring these two geniuses for anything is, in principle, meaningless. All the other cars were then ... After ... You said the management decisions correctly. But they, too, were after. Roman, a huge thank you to him for this, took upon himself the courage and great responsibility in trying to understand and try to explain how, in principle, an even place, such horrible things could and can happen. One creates, the other uses, one tears the veins and still creates, and the other uses ... It uses ...
      Why, I don’t know, no one noticed that the last plant of Polikarpov together with the design bureau, and after a while the plant of Myasishchev, together with the design bureau, was received by Vladimir Nikolaevich Chelomei. Results - speed, quality, victory!
  32. -1
    18 May 2019 17: 42
    For all! We raise Google, not in Google’s plan, but in the author’s plan. And enlighten. In this article, the author gave both Old and general subjects. In fact, the M-71 was in the small series, and was back in early 1942. Yakovlev buried it, for it was possible both in the nightingales and even in the firing hole. Not a single Soviet fighter before the la-9/11 had parameters similar to 185m !. If you talk about luminium? This is not even funny. Just look at the luminium consumption on the block of the 105th motor and on the star. Then we look at everything else. Glider wings, etc. The loss of every second aircraft after the first departure would be compensated at times.
    P.S. Although if you read the reviews of veterans flying? Duc there interesting drawing is drawn! The best fighter escort IL-2 was the same mid-range Yak-1/7/9. And at low altitudes, he still worshiped! BUT purely in terms of bullying and not let down the attack aircraft. If God forbid fights above 5000 meters? Count the loss. The same German commander of the Wehrmacht fighter aircraft, in his memoirs, worthy words were preserved, both about the army, (I-16 rat) and about the SB bombers and about many Union aircraft. The losses that the alliance had during World War II were outrageous for any warring country. And they were explained by a complex of problems of both airborne and ground-based components. Heroes who shot down 20+ planes died because they didn’t take off due to the weather, and you can’t leave the plane. There were a lot of things. What was not the 108th and 185th on time? yes it is a lot of blood. Crushed by the number. But it was not for us to decide in those days!
    1. 0
      24 May 2019 17: 10
      Quote: dgonni
      Crushed by the number. But it was not for us to decide in those days!

      Nevertheless, in fact, the USSR suffered the smallest losses in the air of all the large participants in the war, which speaks largely about the objectivity of statistics.
      And after the loss of Ukraine, the USSR did not have an advantage over Germany in the mobilization resource, and at the beginning of 1942 Germany had more tanks than the USSR, and the production of ammunition in Germany was always 2-3 times greater than in the USSR, i.e. e. it was already impossible to fill up with blood, they were defeated by something else.
  33. -2
    18 May 2019 19: 11
    The author wrote a very nasty article. The decision to launch the series was made not by Shakhurin and Yakovlev, but by the State Defense Committee in the person of its chairman. By what criteria the author determined that this is the best fighter of the Great Patriotic War is not clear. There is a war and the launch of a new aircraft in a series of very difficult questions. The aircraft is all-metal, we need new equipment, machines, equipment, skilled workers, and finally we need a duralumin. For some reason, the reports do not show the number of air battles and the number of downed planes. High speed is not the most important criterion, air battles at maximum speeds are not conducted, it is needed to catch the enemy. Yakovlev’s design bureau is a very special design bureau; it gave planes when Adler, Sinelschikov, Wigant and Antonov were in charge. With the departure of this cohort, the KB died out. The return of Adler allowed the creation of the Yak-40 and Yak-42. The rest of the planes are aerodynamic. Yak-28 was not officially adopted. But Chkalov died because of his own sloppiness. He was a star by then. By the way, Yakovlev held the post of Deputy People's Commissar for Experimental Aircraft Engineering and the directors of serial plants did not have a decree. By the way, while Polikarpov endlessly improved the I-16 and I-153, starting in 1935, Messerschmit, Spitfire and Hurricanes fighter planes were flying in Europe. Does this mean anything? So the young people had to roll up their sleeves to catch up with the probable enemy in the shortest possible time, with inevitable miscalculations and errors, and significant financial and material costs.
  34. +1
    18 May 2019 20: 24
    In general, the plane was stolen (in general, two, “Ivanov” also “flew away”) ...

    Until the author himself erased this pearl of his own, I repeat once again: Polikarpov's design bureau introduced for the competition "Ivanov" (by the way, this was one of Stalin's pseudonyms) his own project, which lost to the TsAGI project.
    At the beginning of the competition, TsAGI Design Bureau was led by the notorious ANT, but by the end of the competition it had already been seated, and the real developer of the aircraft, Pavel Osipovich Sukhoi, was declared the winner with the Su-2 aircraft.
    I have nothing against Tupolev, I respect Polikarpov very much, but this is the story.
    1. +1
      18 May 2019 22: 35
      Let's just say that in the "Ivanov" competition, Polikarpov's design bureau was a bit late - the Sukhoi plane was already flying when Polikarpovsky was just preparing for tests, so the Su-2 became the winner (although it was designed all-metal)
      1. +1
        18 May 2019 22: 42
        The main thing here is that no one took away the Su-2 from Polikarpov.
  35. +1
    18 May 2019 20: 35
    But on the part of Alexander Sergeyevich it was simply blasphemous to reproach Polikarpov, who had already died by then, that he had not provided the proper fighter

    This one from such an assessment will not cry! The fabulist is not Pushkin ...
    Pay attention, except for him from the "General" memoirs, only Novozhilov bothered to write. But that, as they say, was "a completely different story" ...
  36. +4
    18 May 2019 21: 11
    A little emotional, but overall very correct ...
    I remember reading somewhere that P.O. Sukhoi, after the closure of his design bureau, was sent to Tupolev. There was no job for Sukhoi (Andrei Nikolayevich explained this this way: "I did not know what to do with such an outstanding designer" (he was still a "goose"!)). So, once, allegedly, Pal-Osich sadly said to one of his Tu-colleagues: “I always thought that the main thing was to create a good plane, but NOW I realized that the MAIN thing is to be able to sell it later .. . ".
    Sukhoi was a genius, "a ray of light in the dark kingdom" (I think everyone who worked under his leadership or just in the design bureau created by him will subscribe to these words), and he learned not only to make "good planes", but also to "sell" them ... Polikarpov, unfortunately, turned out a little differently: he did not learn to "sell" (or did not have time, or did not want to ...).
    And I don’t like that the author de facto opposed Sukhoi to Polikarpov (like the first squeezed out of the second Su-2): the relations of these people were completely different!
    By the way, the author told us a lot about the "enemies" of the King of Fighters, but nothing about his friends.
    And there was also a lot of interesting things: in the early 1930s. came together three blocks of domestic aviation, which were able behave very dignified in relation to each other: we are talking about Ilyushin, Sukhoi and Polikarpov ...
  37. +1
    18 May 2019 21: 21
    With great interest and pleasure I read your articles on the history of aviation.
    Thank you for the objective investigation of difficult 30-40-s.
    Sincerely, KAA.
  38. +1
    18 May 2019 22: 10
    Is Poghosyan not a student of Yakovlev? Someone for a long time I read about Yakovlev, about the same review
  39. +2
    18 May 2019 22: 21
    Quote: PilotS37
    dmmyak40 Wrote:
    Yak-40 is one of the most numerous and reliable machines of Aeroflot, 1011 airplanes are released! The workhorse of the civilian fleet, the world's first jet aircraft for local airlines with the comfort of linear aircraft.

    dmmyak40, and have you ever flown on it?

    Well, since 1972 it was on it and flew after the An-2.
  40. -7
    18 May 2019 22: 27
    Quote: KERMET
    You should read more normal literature and then you would know that:

    Believe it or not, I have been fond of books about aviation since school. In the city library they knew me as flaky. And I read Yakovlev's Purpose of Life when I was young. The information came from books, not from the Internet, without any "Wikipedia" there. None of the authors accentuated Polikarpov as "the king of fighters". It was only later, in the age of the Internet, this so-called "title" was elevated into a fetish.
    I am absolutely not a fan of the fascist German aircraft industry, but I must pay tribute to Willy Messerschmidt for the Bf-109 and Me-262 he created - breakthroughs in the aircraft industry.
    Polikarpov had mediocre cars, except for the U-2. By the way, only this plane was named after the death of the designer - Po-2. Quite a strange situation when the "king of fighters" does not have ANY fighter with his name.
    1. 0
      18 May 2019 22: 55
      It’s even somehow surprising to hear about Polikarpov’s mediocre aircraft (short, like, U-2). That is, Nikolai Nikolaevich fighter jets that were armed and successfully used in all armed conflicts were an empty phrase? Fetish? Well, you know better that his I-15, I-152, I-153, as well as I-16 and I-17 were rude imitations of outstanding German, English, French, Italian and other Japanese aircraft.
      Innovator!!! The world's first high-speed monoplane with outstanding performance. Can you recall what the Luftwaffe flew then? On biplanes? Or a half-plane?
      Have you heard anything about TIS?
      And about the "strange situation" with the name of the fighter not by his last name is even somehow strange to read: especially for you, I explain that until a certain period the aircraft received names for their intended purpose: fighter - I, bomber: TB, SB, DB, reconnaissance - R.
      Some were named in 1940 - Su-2, Pe-8 after the death of Petlyakov in 1942, Er-2 in 1942.
      And one last piece of advice: in addition to the book "The Purpose of Life", read something more academic, for example, books by Vadim Borisovich Shavrov
    2. +3
      19 May 2019 21: 05
      Quote: pro100y.belarus
      By the way, only this plane was named after the death of the designer - Po-2. Quite a strange situation when the "king of fighters" does not have ANY fighter with his name.

      According to the decree of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR “On renaming combat aircraft” December 6, 1940 d. combat aircraft received designations by the names (first letters of surnames) of the chief designers.
      Name at least one Polikarpov plane that would be launched into production after this date? U-2 was renamed Po-2 in 1944, just out of respect and as a tribute to the great designer
    3. 0
      24 May 2019 17: 15
      Quote: pro100y.belarus
      I am absolutely not a fan of the fascist German aircraft industry, but I must pay tribute to Willy Messerschmidt for the Bf-109 and Me-262 he created - breakthroughs in the aircraft industry.

      The Germans themselves did not consider Bf109 a breakthrough, Heinkel looked more interesting, but Messerschmitt was cheaper !!!
  41. +2
    18 May 2019 22: 41
    unfortunately for our designers and scientists often behaved like spiders in a bank
  42. -1
    18 May 2019 23: 38
    Well, according to the author, Polikarpov himself made no mistakes. And he, the author, did not try to figure out how many total projects NN had in work? After all, Polikarpov did not design heavy bombers and flying boats, but noted in other topics. Here are I-17 (with a completely in-line engine) and I-190 (yeah, a biplane in 39-40) and TIS, St. Petersburg, the same VITi, Ivanov (to which the Sukhov machine is not sideways). Probably, 180 should not have been created either (and immediately turned to 185) - in fact it was the same ass with all its generic flaws, but with a double star. Of course, we now understand this, but for this there is such a thing as design foresight. By the way, there was another interesting machine - the I-28 Yatsenko, which, for all its shortcomings, was much more promising, and in terms of dimensions it was more consistent with the I-185.
    In 190, by the way, there were 2 synchronous (i.e., with a lower rate of fire) and 2 non-synchronous guns.
    1. +2
      19 May 2019 21: 13
      Quote: sivuch
      After all, Polikarpov did not design heavy bombers and flying boats, but he noted in other topics

      You won’t believe it, but his kb even designed the first stars on the Kremlin - do you think I also wanted to be noted? No, just at that time it was simply not anyone to calculate their design, and this was assigned to him by the design bureau. With one of the largest design bureaus, and the demand was large, they were not allowed to rest
    2. +1
      20 May 2019 01: 20
      Bombers also designed - NB (night bomber)
      1. 0
        20 May 2019 08: 30
        Quote: Alex
        NB (night bomber)

        And TB-2 long before.
    3. 0
      20 May 2019 22: 49
      The I-28 was a very interesting machine, but to be honest, I like Pashinin's I-21 better. What aerodynamic shapes! Only Joseph Neman (R-10) had such ones with his motto: "Not a single protruding part in the stream!"
      1. 0
        24 May 2019 17: 34
        In fairness, more beautiful MiG-1 (3) and Su-1 probably did not exist, very clean form.
  43. 0
    19 May 2019 00: 06
    Alas, the author, but this is another, quickly concocted article.
    Vile. As a matter of fact, the article doesn’t even turn into an article to name it.
    Articles for example, writes Andrei from Chelyabinsk ...
    And their author also once wrote, but now he has rolled down.
    I decided to take the amount apparently.
    His right.
    I will not parse literally, there will be a lot of honor for the author.
    If he considers it normal to lay out such feuilleton here, then let their conscience be dismantled.
    I note only two things.
    First, not so long ago the author had an article about Yakovlev, in which he came to the conclusion: "Yakovlev did everything right in that situation." Now he "pereobulsya", and all of the above relates to Polikarpov ... Well, well, let's see how the "card will fall" further.
    Second: To understand such a complex issue, normal aviation historians shoveled a LOT OF ARCHIVAL DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS! And they did not come to an unambiguous conclusion !!! And our author has limited himself to ONLY THREE SOURCES, one of which belongs to the ARTISTIC LITERATURE. That's right, you DO NOT HAVE TO Bother yourself! On a quick run and READY STATE! He brought everyone to "clean water" and branded them with shame !!! And let the historians poke around there for months or years. Moreover, having unearthed the information in the archives, FEED IT THOUGHTLY, CAREFULLY, OPERATING FACTS AND AVOID HANDLING LABELS to anyone ...
    Well and extreme.
    There is a suggestion to VO: why not introduce "minus" articles? Maybe at least the ratings will show some "the right way"?
  44. -1
    19 May 2019 00: 12
    Quote: dmmyak40
    And about the "strange situation" with the name of the fighter not by his last name is even somehow strange to read: especially for you, I explain that until a certain period the aircraft received names for their intended purpose: fighter - I, bomber: TB, SB, DB, reconnaissance - R.
    Some were named in 1940 - Su-2, Pe-8 after the death of Petlyakov in 1942, Er-2 in 1942.

    I understand your indignation and patriotism, I even share it. Only your arguments are inappropriate against the background of the names of other Soviet FIGHTERS - Yak (Yakovlev during his lifetime), MiG (Mikoyan and Gurevich during his lifetime), LaGG (Lavochkin, Gorbunov, Gudkov during his lifetime). Moreover, ALL cars originally had the index "I" (fighter). But the "king of fighters" Polikarpov did not have a Po-16. Isn't it weird?
  45. sdk
    +3
    19 May 2019 00: 52
    Quote: PilotS37
    But a series of accidents with the Yak-42, for example, is memorable to me.

    Disaster catastrophe strife. It’s one thing when they fight because of a car, and another thing is when the crew got in or drove the car into those conditions for which it wasn’t ready. Why do not you remember in this case a series of disasters with Tupolevsky cars. There were a lot more of them, firstly, than the Yak-42, and it was precisely due to constructive flaws, secondly.
    1. 0
      19 May 2019 19: 29
      Do not forget that the Tu of all modifications was released more than 900 units, while the Yak was only about 190. Alas, the Tu-154 did not fall from a height like the Leningrad Yak-42 due to the stabilizer leaving for a dive without options for an exit.
      1. sdk
        0
        20 May 2019 13: 54
        And about such a feature of the 154th that it does not have enough rudders to get out of decline at pre-landing speeds, if the crew allowed a vertical speed of more than 5 m / s, do you really not know? The defect was eliminated on the Yak-42, and the 154th flew like that ... In front of Pulkovo, by the way, there is such a mini-cemetery behind a piece of iron. Still in memory for this reason Irkutsk.
        Do you also know about the Tu-104 catastrophes due to the features of its design?
        Agree, it’s more important for us not to raid on one incident or the number of incidents on one released car, but, alas, simply and irrespective of the number of victims carried out by this or that type. There are fewer on the Yaks.
        1. 0
          20 May 2019 22: 05
          Well, about the Tu-154, I try not to say so confidently, after all, the plane of my life is the Yak-40. I know about the inefficiency of the carcass elevator in certain modes, not as good as the neighbors from Rostov and MinVod, this is a feature of airplanes with a T-plumage and rear engine layout.
          (By the way, the Yak-42 after that catastrophe near Narovlya did not fly for 2 years: after all, the wear on the threads of the stabilizer drive is not a joke. Was it like that for the Carcass?)
          You write that he does not have enough elevator to get out of decline at pre-landing speeds with a vertical of more than 5 m / s, but it sounds somehow strange. He looked into the Tu-154M RLE 4.7.1. :
          When approaching on a non-standard glide path (with an inclination angle of more than 3 degrees and a vertical descent speed of more than 4 m / s) at a height of 20-15 m, reduce the vertical descent speed to 3-4 m / s, while maintaining the recommended approach speed.
          In the glide path, the vertical velocity fluctuations can be more than 5 m / s, the main thing is to bring it back to normal, preferably to the DPRM, in the worst case, to the VLR, otherwise - going to the second round.
          By the way, something I just can’t remember, where was such a cemetery? I myself lived for 4 years in an air town near the Academy, but I don’t remember the cemetery: between the town and Pulkovsky highway An-12 stood behind the fence, I remember ...
          What case do you mean by Irkutsk? Judging by the mention of RV - in 2001? But, pardon me, what does the effectiveness of the RV have to do with it, if in the third turn the speed is lost below the minimum? !!!! There is a saying: it is better to lose your wife than speed in the third turn. Loss of speed - the AP increases the pitch - the crew gives the mode + the control wheel away from itself - an increase in speed - the trigger of the PB - the co-pilot of the control wheel "to the navel" - stall into a spin. Where is the design flaw of RV?
          In Krasnovodsk, the co-pilot also went below the glide path with a large vertical approach to the end ... and the RV must pull such a carcass upwards in a second ???
          Naturally, I know about the Tu-104 catastrophes.
      2. 0
        20 May 2019 21: 11
        Remember the disaster with TU 104.
  46. +2
    19 May 2019 00: 56
    Quote: pro100y.belarus
    I understand your indignation and patriotism, I even share it. Only your arguments are inappropriate against the background of the names of other Soviet FIGHTERS - Yak (Yakovlev during his lifetime), MiG (Mikoyan and Gurevich during his lifetime), LaGG (Lavochkin, Gorbunov, Gudkov during his lifetime). Moreover, ALL cars originally had the index "I" (fighter). But the "king of fighters" Polikarpov did not have a Po-16. Isn't it weird?

    Oh-ho ... Still, you can feel the reading of Yakovlev’s book. Question: in what year and under what name was the future I-16 adopted for service? Do not bother looking: in 1933, TsKB-12. The question regarding the Yak is the same. Answer: I-26, in 1940. MiG - 1940, LaGG - 1940.
    More than 8000 I-16s were produced in total. I hope there are no questions about renaming "ass"? If they arise, then here I am already powerless. "Read, read and read again."
  47. Eug
    -3
    19 May 2019 09: 43
    Yakovlev has a lot of interesting moments in his biography - his sports aircrafts were called AIR - after the initials of his father-in-law, the repressed Andrei Ivanovich Rykov. So Yakovlev, after the execution of his father-in-law, went up the hill ... And what of his planes in his entire biography can be called successful? Yak-3 and Yak-40? The La-5,7 never got rid of the overheating of the cabin and the love of "setting" on the bow when taxiing on soft soils .. And well-trained pilots trampled the Luftwaffe on the I-16, Valentin Golubev shot down more than a dozen on it ...
    1. +1
      19 May 2019 12: 25
      Quote: Eug
      Yakovlev has a lot of interesting moments in his biography - his sports airplanes were called AIR - based on the initials of his father-in-law, repressed Andrei Ivanovich Rykov.

      Dear colleague Eug (Eugene), I have to minus you. It's time to stop using this fake as an argument in the discussion. Yakovlev A.S. NEVER was related to Rykov Alexei Ivanovich (but not Andrey Ivanovich). Rykov A.I., was a member of the Government of the USSR, was a member of the Politburo. Cities and villages, streets in cities, enterprises and cultural institutions, a destroyer, a cargo-passenger sea vessel and much more were named after him. Even vodka was named after him. It was produced in check bottles. As a child, I still heard how in stores, buying vodka in chekushki, they asked - to serve a rykovka (that is, a check). It was such a practice then. In addition, Rykov A.AND. was the chairman of the ODVF and his successor Aviakhim. It was this organization that gave money for the construction of the first aircraft of A.I. Yakovlev. This plane was called "AI Rykov". And all the subsequent ones were called - AIR. They were built with the money of Aviakhim.
      U Rykova A.I. there was one daughter - Natalya Rykova (August 22, 1916 - January 9, 2010). She was married to Estonian Perley V.
      Yakovlev’s first wife was the adopted daughter of Politburo member Rudzutak Yan Ernestovich, but she had a different surname. Some time after the divorce, she married again, gave birth and raised two children. At the beginning of this century, she was still alive. A documentary was even shot about her (shown on the first channel).
      1. sdk
        0
        20 May 2019 14: 06
        Everything is correct. When the first AIR appeared, Rykov's daughter was only 11 years old))) By the way, the name AIR, like A. I. Rykov, appears for the first time only in newspaper publications about the Moscow-Sevastopol-Moscow flight. In no small measure, probably because of the registration plate R-RAIR. Prior to that, the car was called VVA-3 named after Zernov (the head of the flight unit of the Air Force named after Zhukovsky, who died in a glider competition). Unlike the car of Rafaelyants, for example, on board the AIR-1 the name of A.I. Rykov was absent. There is an assumption that this name is an initiative of the management of Osoaviakhim, to which A.S. Yakovlev transferred his copyright for the aircraft. But E.G. Adler's version may be true, according to which Yakovlev liked that AIR in English and French (AIR) means "air" ...
  48. +8
    19 May 2019 09: 56
    "Serpentarium, which was called the" Soviet school of aircraft designers "
    Funny twisted. The USSR is to blame for the nature of people. Where there was no USSR, people were honest and correct. They helped each other and shared their experiences. It's funny.)))))
  49. -1
    19 May 2019 09: 58
    The article is very informative, but with a liberal conclusion, "they threw corpses" ...
  50. +1
    19 May 2019 10: 00
    Yes, so many revelations on the topic. Since childhood, I read the book "The Purpose of Life" by Yakovlev (first edition) and always considered him his hero. By the way, about N.N. Polikarpov, for me he was always an incompletely appreciated genius and the founder of fighter aircraft, and this feeling remained from childhood. This childhood feeling about the great pioneer aviators remained from childhood and was formed from the book of Yakovlev. I liked the article very much with one more fact of the struggle for a place in the sun. It turns out that Stalin knew only what he needed to know, to which not everything reached, and therefore he could not influence in this situation. Thanks to the author for the article, I read it with pleasure and in one breath!
  51. +1
    19 May 2019 11: 01
    There was once a discussion on the VIF about the notorious military tests of the I-185 (the thread, unfortunately, disappeared, but the quote remained).
    When Mikhail Bykov published only his first book about Soviet aces, I naturally looked at it very carefully. Including in relation to the pilots of the 728th IAP. In general, at the next meeting, I drove up to Mikhail with a question about the military tests of I-185.
    Of course, it’s a long time ago and I won’t be able to accurately reproduce the conversation. But I remember very well how, to my question, "How many did they fly?" Mikhail answered in a frankly sad voice, “Why could they fly on non-serial cars with non-serial engines?! ..". Then he called the number of flight hours per month. Either 6, or 7 ... I remember that the number was unique. But then I still asked him: "Is this for every fighter? ..". The answer simply killed me: "Only within a month ...".
    And what series can there be? ..
    1. +1
      19 May 2019 21: 35
      The first combat flight of the I-185 took place on December 9, 1942, the last on January 12, 1943.
      In total, each pilot completed 10-11 combat missions. For reasons of secrecy, they were recorded in the flight log book primarily as training in the airfield area. In addition to Kupin, Ignatiev, Borovykh, Tomilchenko, I-185s were flown on actual training flights by regimental commander Vasilyaka and Kustov.
  52. +1
    19 May 2019 12: 16
    Strange, strange and incomprehensible - either the author is a little “off topic” or does not want to remember what does not fit into the “saint named Polikarpov”... The question is - when did the service life of the serial M82 approach the planned one? A? There is no need to delve into the archives for a long time - in the fall of 1945. Before this, according to data from the fronts on the La5/La7, the engine did not provide even a third of the planned resource. For the war, this was barely tolerable; in the spring of 1945, enormous work began to bring the engine to its nameplate values. Second - “less is better” - golden words, this is exactly what the Japanese did, producing few pilots, but highly qualified ones. The result is that instead of the “knocked out” aces, they were replaced by “yellow mouths” for whom the only thing left was one flight as a kamikaze. In Germany the approach was largely similar, and with the same result. By the way... About the Soviet "yellow mouths"... We need to find a link to a long interview with a Yak9 pilot - four were shot down, once he himself was shot down. From the memorable details - he was drafted in 1941, released from aviation school to the front in 1943... The problem for the most part is not that they did not know how to fly, but that they were not deeply trained in combat tactics, because these tactics are both there simply wasn’t one. Most of what was gained in the theory and practice of air combat on the I16 after Spain and the battles in the Far East could be written off as history; there was practically nothing new. The Germans found themselves in an essentially similar situation, who were never able to develop tactics to combat the massive Allied air raids. And the cherry is technology. Just look at the YAK1 in the Zadorozhny Museum and you begin to understand the technological perfection of this aircraft, especially after leafing through a book on technology from 1945. There, among other things, there is a machine for conveyor assembly of wing ribs - one working one and a drum for six assembly templates. While the sixth rib is being assembled, the first one has already dried and is ready to move on to assembly. At the same time, there are minimum requirements for the quality of raw materials and the same minimum of waste, which, again, is simply used for heating the workshop. Several simple machines and a set of wings are... Compare with sheet rolling mills, presses and preforms. Compare energy consumption and foundation requirements, etc. What was amazing about Yakovlev’s team during the war years was the ability to establish mass production.
  53. +1
    19 May 2019 13: 35
    Quote: sdk
    To select the canopy canopy for the I-180, we make several experienced ones, and check them in the air to see which one is better.

    Do you know another way to develop this node?
    1. -1
      19 May 2019 14: 34
      Wind tunnels T101 and T104 were launched at TsAGI in 1939...
      1. +2
        19 May 2019 19: 00
        But we also need to take into account the workload of wind tunnels. I can assume that the queue was scheduled for a long time. And in such conditions, the fastest way was testing and fitting on a real aircraft.
        1. +3
          19 May 2019 21: 25
          In order to end the stupid debate about testing visors in the air:
          Several options were considered for the I-180; Of these, four were worked out in detail: May 13, August 2, October 11, October 19. All these visor options were installed on the layout and were evaluated by invited pilots. The visor was approved on October 19 - it was installed on all prototypes.
          1. sdk
            -4
            20 May 2019 14: 13
            Laughter and nothing more: Yakovlev made a fighter in half a year, and Polikarpov with his most powerful design bureau only tried on the visor for half a year...
            1. +2
              20 May 2019 18: 38
              It’s only in your illusory world that Polikarpov’s design bureau spent six months only trying on visors, but Yakovlev’s praised speed led to the adoption of a crude fighter - in six months, 7460 changes in the drawings of an aircraft already in the series is something
  54. +3
    19 May 2019 14: 18
    Quote: Eug
    And which of his planes in his entire biography can be called successful? Yak-3 and Yak-40? The La-5,7 never got rid of cabin overheating and the love of “positioning” on the nose when taxiing on soft soils.. And well-trained pilots even trampled the Luftwaffe on the I-16, Valentin Golubev shot down more than a dozen on it...

    Wow! Is the released Yak-40 series of 1011 units not enough for you?! Have you forgotten about the Yak-42? I’ll give you a little more hint: UT-1 (UTS for the Air Force, until the 50s the best aerobatic acrobat, series 1200); UT-2 (until 1948 the main training device of the Air Force, series - 7243 units); transport Yak-6.
    But I don’t understand at all what Lavochkin-5 and 7 have to do with it. Minus, the materiel will help.
    1. 0
      21 May 2019 10: 05
      And I’ll add: “the eighteenth family” - Yak-18, Yak-18A, Yak-18T, Yak-18U, Yak-18P, Yak-18PM, Yak-18PS - open it on the Internet and read how many gold and silver medals were won with them USSR national aerobatic team! And remember the Yak-50, Yak-52, Yak-54 and Yak-55 - the road to heaven began with the “fifty-second” for 90% of current pilots!
      As for helicopters, in fact, the “step-throttle” stick first appeared on the Yak-100, and by the way, we should recognize the fact that A.S. Yakovlev gave up his Yak-100 to the young start-up design bureau M.L. Mil. And in a humane, noble way, seeing how much Mil “burns” to deal with helicopters!
      Although, according to many test pilots, the Yak-100 was better in performance than the “one” Mil. But Yakovlev stepped aside and gave way to Mil, why isn’t this an example of a noble deed?
      And take the situation with the departure of O.K. Antonov-Yakovlev not only let go of his direct deputy, but in every possible way looked after and supported him at the stage of organizing and establishing his design bureau. What is not an example of a normal, human approach to a common cause?
  55. +2
    19 May 2019 14: 39
    The best lies are made from the truth. That's what this article is about. A vinaigrette of banalities, well-known facts, seasoned with gossip and speculation. The author refers, in particular, to Shavrov’s book, but it is clear that he does not know it, piling up absurdities, in particular, about the Ivanov, Su-2, I-180, Su-6, etc. The Air Force Research Institute also casually smears why - That. It nods out of place towards the T-34, ZIS-2, etc.
    Each case should be dealt with strictly specifically, without self-confident superficiality. People are sinners, people make mistakes. And their mistakes also need to be dealt with specifically and impartially.
    Unfortunately, there is no time to analyze the mistakes of the author of the article. But some of them are already indicated in the comments.
    I will only say that it has become fashionable to demonize A.S. Yakovlev. But not a single publication contains real facts that clearly indicate that he committed the acts attributed to him. When the authors of such publications accuse him and others of base, selfish motives for making disastrous management decisions during the war years, when the Germans stood at the walls of Moscow and on the Volga, then it is much more natural to assume that it is these authors who are driven by similar motives: to appear on the Internet once again, maybe and make a pretty penny.
    1. +1
      19 May 2019 18: 10
      Upvoted. Nice, calm comment. To what has been said I would like to add the following: yes, it is human nature to make mistakes, especially in situations when time, technology and the law of meanness are against you. BUT, there are still certain trends that simply cannot be ignored. In our case, it is a fact that after Yakovlev entered the upper echelons of power, not ONE of Polikarpov’s projects went into production. And, if there are no questions about some aircraft (VIT, NB(T), ITP), then the situation with TIS and I-185 makes us think about a lot.
      You can, of course, say that there are no facts pointing to his actions, but sometimes the totality of indirect information is enough to understand one thing: something is unclean there. Sapient sat.
      Do not forget about Polikarpov’s exceptional decency: in none of the memoirs of many pilots and aircraft designers have I come across words about his self-interest, love of fame, or meanness. A deeply religious person who was not afraid to defend his position no matter what.
      Remember the history of the appearance of the Yak-6: why did Yakovlev begin to convince the IVS that it was his design bureau that would create a new transport aircraft in a short time? Not Tupolev, not Ilyushin, not Polikarpov? Was it possible to consider proposals from other designers? Were there not enough design bureaus that created good transport and passenger aircraft? Although, by the way, most of them had already been destroyed.
      The saddest thing in the story of Yakovlev’s Yak-6 is that a lot of the equipment for it was taken from the UT-2 belay propeller group, flight and navigation equipment...
      I have a double feeling: Yakovlev created good, good and simply excellent cars (these are not words, he flew on the Yak-40 for more than 20 years), but there is an unpleasant odor in their relationship with Polikarpov.
      1. +2
        20 May 2019 03: 16
        In the commentary "... the situation with TIS and I-185 makes us think about a lot of things." You forgot to mention the I-180, fully debugged and ready for production, and most importantly, the only fighter superior to the Me-109E in all respects, of which there were about 60% of all fighters at the beginning of the war. And then yes, only I-185.
      2. sdk
        0
        21 May 2019 16: 54
        Polikarpov and Yakovlev did not have any “relations with the darling.” Yes, there were no particularly friendly ones, like with Ilyushin. However, Yakovlev was the only one from the leadership of the NKAP who came to visit the sick Polikarpov. Incl. and as neighbors, since he lived with the latter in the same house and they had apartments one above the other.
  56. -5
    19 May 2019 19: 18
    Yakovlev said to Polikarpov before the war: I will never forget this! Polikarpov approached Stalin twice, bypassing Yakovlev. And this bastard was able to take revenge... How many pilots died because of Yakovlev’s shit-dealer... And there was also Kulik in the artillery, Mehlis in the political department, Voroshilov and Budyonny, Timoshenko and Zhukov, Khrushchev... Oktyabrsky...
    1. 0
      19 May 2019 20: 25
      Some kind of chaotic and inarticulate comment in the style of “everything in 30 seconds.” Let's be more specific about Polikarpov-Yakovlev.
      1. -1
        22 May 2019 13: 05
        Come on, colleague, why do you need any specifics, some, God forbid, facts? The point of this comment is to throw crap at the fan, as they say.
    2. +1
      20 May 2019 01: 59
      Dzafdet (Sergey), what didn’t you like about Voroshilov and Budyonny? Budyonny’s defeats in the Patriotic War lie entirely with Mehlis and Tymoshenko.
      1. 0
        22 May 2019 16: 45
        I used to respond negatively to Budyonny because I was broadcasting other people’s slogans and words.
        Having figured it out, I realized that he was a very smart and modern commander.
        I don’t know how big he is, but he’s definitely well trained and competent.
        Tymoshenko... unfortunately, his activities are very closely intertwined with politics and I cannot correctly analyze his history, because... I don’t know much about the situation at the top.
        But he was definitely much more literate than Mehlis or the well-known creator of the Finnish “miracle” Meretskov.
  57. +3
    20 May 2019 00: 33
    Howling and outright nonsense. And with self-contradictions.
    "The I-180 met the requirements of the time and even exceeded them." - did he exceed them at altitudes of less than 2 km at the I-16 level? Or is the speed 0-6 km 30-50 km less than that of the I-26 and I-301, not to mention the Bf-109?

    “The main performance qualities of the future aircraft were vertical and horizontal maneuver, high speed and rate of climb, and armament.” - and how does this statement relate to the “high-speed” I-180?

    “Ivanov, which later became Su-2” I wonder why people from Sukhoi’s team complained that the “saint” Polikarpov was squeezing them and pushing through administrative methods his version of Ivanov?

    “Iosif Vissarionovich realized that Shakhurin and Yakovlev were doing obvious idiocy” - what sources talk about Yakovlev’s role in the proposal to transfer plant 19 to liquid liquids? I could be wrong, but it looks like they wanted to transfer the 19th plant to the AM series, and what is the profit for Yakovlev then?

    “There was an attempt to buy several BMW-801s from “friends” from Germany, but they openly delayed the question” - does the author know in what year the FV-1190 with this engine was brought into production? This is even if we do not consider the issue of general delusion in buying and copying a BMW from scratch.

    “This, if we compare, is the FW-190. But the 190th is, excuse me, 1943.”
    Actually, the FV-190 is from 1942. But the author turns out to be aware (well, almost) when the BMW-801 flew.

    “In October 1941, work at the OKB was stopped due to evacuation. The Polikarpov OKB was evacuated to Novosibirsk, but not to the aircraft plant. The Yakovlev OKB moved to aircraft plant No. 153!” i.e. Should the advantage have been given not to the design bureau supporting the serial aircraft, but to Polikarpov with the non-serial one? Interesting "logic".

    “A lot of reasons have survived to this day why the I-185 did not go into production. And the plant was not available, and it took a long time to rebuild production, the unfinished M-71 engine...” are these reasons not enough?

    “But Malenkov still had the certificates of THREE state tests at the Air Force Research Institute, and the reports were accompanied by reviews from test pilots and front-line pilots who, unlike Yakovlev, appreciated the car.” - Actually, de Loginov rated the improved Yak-1 highly, and noticeably higher than the La-5.
    And so - the pilots were given experienced, polished aircraft, some with non-serial engines. Is it surprising that they liked them compared to the serial ones?

    “Problems with the engine are a reason that affected all designers. Let’s just say, this is a black line stretching through the entire history of our aviation. But there was an engine!” - where was it?

    “Meanwhile, already in the skies of Stalingrad, the Bf-109G-2 showed its complete superiority over all Yakovlev fighters (Yak-1, Yak-7, Yak-9) in speed, climb rate and armament. And even the La-5 that appeared there the advantage in speed was minimal, only near the ground in afterburner." - at Stalingrad there were literally one-piece Yak-9s and a small number of Yak-1s and Yak-7s with M=105PF. The bulk were still with the M-105PA. Naturally, they were noticeably inferior to the newest Bf-109G/
    La-5 at that time had the worst statistics of losses per number of sorties. Even worse than LaGG.

    “The I-185 with the M-71 engine was superior to the Bf-109G-2 at the ground by 75-95 km/h, at an altitude of 3-5 km - by 65-70 mm/h, at 6000 m - by 55 km/h, and only at altitudes of 7,5 - 8 km did the advantage in speed pass to the Messerschmitt.
    Which I185, what year, in comparison with which Bf-109G. The figures are frankly fantastic even for the later I-185.

    “We have to admit that in that war we fought in numbers. But not in quality.” - The USSR had a gasoline shortage, so the number of planes in the air didn’t work out very well.

    “In general, about Yakovlev’s turns” I still didn’t understand from this article what Yakovlev did that was so bad, well, besides the fact that he is, by definition, a “bad person”?

    "Based on materials:
    Ivanov V.P. Unknown Polikarpov.
    Yakovlev A. S. The purpose of life.
    Shavrov V. B. History of aircraft designs in the USSR 1938-1950 - “Impressive” list of sources.

    In general, against the backdrop of a fairly decent article about the Yak-1, this one was an unpleasant surprise. It's as if different people wrote it.
    1. 0
      20 May 2019 09: 26
      Dmitry, I completely agree with you.
      I just didn’t consider it necessary to spell it out.
      If the author believes that articles of this level can be posted on VO, then this level has dropped significantly,
      and let this “feuilleton” remain on his conscience.
      1. 0
        20 May 2019 14: 00
        100500+
        It is a pity that many people take this feuilleton as truth.
  58. -2
    20 May 2019 01: 53
    I have long been waiting for an honest and competent presentation on I-185. For which a big sincere THANK YOU to the author!
    But it was not Yakovlev alone who worked against Polikarpov, but also the huge 5th column.
    Here I would like to point out the author’s gap, the “main reason” for the failure in production has not been disclosed: the death of test pilot Stepanchenko on the I-185-M71 fighter, the engine stopping while climbing almost immediately after takeoff, associated not with the engine itself, but with the carburetor. Immediately after the disaster, the carburetor was disassembled, the main jet of which was clogged with dirt. Explanations such as: a) dust got into the carburetor when the engine throttle sector was set to maximum at the moment of start - others take off the same way, no one canceled the air filter and that it is full of dust is not noted anywhere; b) dirty gasoline was poured in - again, there is no mention of a dirty gas filter, nor is there a record of its absence. And then strange things follow: the report to the top states that the culprit for stopping the engine is a certain “safety wire”, who knows how, clogged up in that same unfortunate jet. And here, the NKAP immediately curtails the production of the military series of the fighter as it did not pass the main range test.
    You only briefly mentioned Shakhurin here. And this young people's commissar is not as harmless as it might seem at first glance. This vengeful jackal hated Stepanchenko, who first wrote about the I-180, and later the I-185, as the best fighters of the USSR. Today you can find on the Internet how Stepanchenko’s family was treated after his death.
  59. -2
    20 May 2019 01: 53
    No matter what anyone says, this is probably my favorite plane. The purity of the form alone is worth it and everything is in moderation in size. How many things were ruined by hangers-on in the USSR. Yes, the USSR itself too. It's a shame...
    I read Yakovlev as a child and even then did not like his epistolary work. And now it has become more clear what’s what.
  60. -3
    20 May 2019 07: 55
    Quote: Alexander Ivanov_4
    Dzafdet (Sergey), what didn’t you like about Voroshilov and Budyonny? Budyonny’s defeats in the Patriotic War lie entirely with Mehlis and Tymoshenko.



    Budyonny lost Crimea, although Mehlis was mainly to blame there; Voroshilov almost surrendered Leningrad, only Zhukov’s intervention stopped the collapse and surrender of the city. Budyonny was partially rehabilitated through the rear services for the cavalry, and Voroshilov sat in the rear... All standing commanders were either expelled from the army, or imprisoned, or repressed...
    1. +2
      20 May 2019 19: 55
      being woken up has nothing to do with losing the battle for Crimea
  61. +2
    20 May 2019 10: 20
    The theme of the “dishonest” designer A.S. Yakovlev, his closeness to Stalin, the fact that he “sank” other designers to please himself, his beloved, that the Yaks were mediocre fighters, etc. are again being discussed.
    Usual speculation...Facts become overgrown and overgrown with fables. The truth about that time in general is becoming less and less, I repeat: less and less!!! And not more and more!!!
    There is a good (I would say brilliant) dialogue on this topic, which indirectly explains why there was more truth under socialism than in our days:
    - “This is not my life! It is smoothed, combed, powdered and castrated!
    -Ordinary editorial edits
    -Dear Jacobina, you know: when they cut me, I endure, but when they complement it, it becomes unbearable".("The same Munchausen")
    As for combat pilots, here is the opinion of one of them:
    Here is the opinion of one of the famous military pilots:
    You constantly say that the main Soviet fighters "Yak" and "LA" were equal to the German ones in speed, although according to reference data, German aircraft always have superiority in speed. How do you explain this difference between reference and practical data?

    - You know, in battle you don’t really look at the instruments, you can see even without it whether your car is inferior in speed or not. That is why I claim that the Cobras, Yaks and La were not inferior to German planes in speed.

    You see, you are making a mistake common to all people who are far from combat aviation. You are confusing two concepts: maximum speed and combat speed. The maximum speed is measured under ideal conditions: horizontal flight, a strictly specified altitude, calculated engine speed, etc.

    Combat speed is the range of maximum possible speeds that an aircraft can develop to conduct active maneuverable air combat, with all types of combat maneuvers accompanying such a combat.

    When I tell you about speed, I mean combat speed, I fight with it, and the maximum speed to me is “to the extent”.

    If you need to catch up? Well, I caught up, and then what? If you accelerate too much, then you still need to slow down, otherwise you will overshoot. And when shooting at very high speeds, it is problematic to hit. More precisely, I will hit, but whether the number of hits will be sufficient is the question. Here it is: caught up - increased the speed - shot - gas and picked up speed again. And the ability of the engine to accelerate and decelerate the aircraft in the shortest possible time is called throttle response.

    Many people believe that if an aircraft has a high maximum speed, then its combat speed will be as high as possible, but this is not so. It happens that when comparing two types of fighters, one of them has a higher maximum speed, while the other has a higher combat speed. Combat speed is significantly influenced by factors such as engine response and thrust-to-weight ratio. These are the factors that provide maximum acceleration dynamics.



    - Now there is a popular opinion that the Yak was produced only because Yakovlev was close to Stalin, was his main consultant in matters of aircraft construction, which he used, and his fighter was mediocre in itself. How do you think?

    — It’s not true, the Yaks were wonderful cars. I myself flew on them, and I knew many excellent pilots who fought on “yaks”; they spoke very highly of them.

    You see, the Yaks are unique in this respect - they are fighters with a very high combat speed. Yakovlev initially made a fighter not just with a high maximum speed (as aircraft designers strived to do then), but with a high combat speed. I don’t know if it was intentionally planned this way or if it happened by accident, but the “yak” turned out exactly like that. And throughout the war, the “yak” was improved primarily in the direction of increasing combat speed.

    You see, if you take German vehicles, such as Messers or Fokkers, their combat speed was 80 to 100 km/h below the maximum. As far as I know, then the difference in speed between British and American aircraft was similar. And this speed ratio of Western cars remained throughout the war. For the Yaks, this difference was 60-70 kilometers, and in the second half of the war it was less. The Yaks were the most dynamic and lightest fighters of the Soviet Air Force, and therefore very good in the vertical. Throughout the war, an ordinary, average, well-trained pilot on a “Yak” fought with the “Messers” on equal terms. And at the beginning of the war, the “yak” was the dream of every pilot.

    I'm not even talking about the Yak-1944, which appeared in 3, which in terms of the dynamics of acceleration and thrust-to-weight ratio, and therefore in terms of combat speed, was generally a unique fighter. Its difference between combat and maximum speeds was 40 - 50 kilometers. Probably, at that time, no country in the world had a fighter that could compete with it in combat speed. The Yak-3's acceleration was amazing, and its maximum speed was not low, although it was not the fastest fighter in the world. Not the fastest, but in battle he caught up with any enemy in almost any type of maneuver.

    In addition, the Yaks were simple and cheap to produce, which made it possible to produce them in very large quantities. You see, if there is a good fighter, but it cannot be produced in the quantities required in a war, then it is no longer a very good fighter. The simplicity and low cost of production of a combat aircraft is a quality almost as important for a warrior as its speed or maneuverability.

    Are the weapons weak? If you know how to shoot, then two points is quite enough (I know, I myself got by with two heavy machine guns on the P-40), but if you don’t know how to shoot, you’ll miss with five, like the Messer. And adding extra weapons will make the car heavier. Again, there are extra costs in production.
    .

    This is an excerpt from a conversation between A. Drabkin (author of the book “I Fought on a Fighter”) and fighter pilot N. Golodnikov. https://e-libra.ru/read/111629-ya-dralsya-na-istrebitele-prinyavshie-pervyy -udar-1941-1942.html

    Leave the analysis of WWII aviation to the specialists. And refer more to the memories of real participants in air battles. I apologize in advance for possible spelling errors.
    1. 0
      20 May 2019 12: 32
      Dmitry, your words would be reasonable, but they would be deafening to some people here!
  62. 0
    20 May 2019 12: 08
    Personal assessments indicate the author’s intention to write himself into aviation history and begin the trial of the winners. Who needs this? There is no other competition, it has not yet been invented. Especially in wartime. A.S. won Yakovlev. S.A. made his contribution. Lavochkin. N.N. made his enormous contribution. Polikarpov. As a result, in our fighter aviation all the niches necessary for Victory were filled: on the first floor - yaks are accompanied by attack aircraft; on the second floor there are benches covering them; and on the third - ... it’s clear who, from another story. Who personally came up with this and ordered these planes for the aviation industry? Life itself has put everything and EVERYONE in its place. Each of these wonderful people did everything in their power, using the methods and costs that they considered acceptable. Honor and glory to them!
    I consider it necessary in articles on the topic of aviation history to provide ONLY quotes from heroes and contemporaries from both competing sides and, contrary to temptation, to refrain from personal assessments and subjective characteristics. “Judge not and you will not be judged.” The task of a historian is to be invisible in the description of historical events where he was not personally present. Otherwise, it will turn out, as A.I. once said. Pokryshkin, though on a different occasion, that: “Everything was not like that at all...”.
    Also, a way to repel the aggression of the best army in the world with the best air force in the world, perfectly organized and sharpened for blitzkrieg when they attack first, has not yet been invented. The enemy was experienced, superbly armed and organized, he inflicted huge losses on us...
    All the more our fame.
    Happy Victory Day!.
  63. 0
    20 May 2019 13: 35
    Ugh, I'm tired of whining about this I-185. The entire Internet has been trashed. Did he fight? The Yaks fought, but this one didn’t even enter the battle on Kalininsky. And what kind of superiority are we talking about?! Who said? Its engine was needed for the READY La-5. And this one was damp, like the diapers of those writing these articles. It stinks of 90's from a mile away. What, it was necessary to create a new production for an unfinished aircraft?! Or is La-5 better, with minimal changes to the finished LaGG-3? Have you heard about economics?
  64. +2
    20 May 2019 14: 15
    The topic is interesting, but the presentation of the facts is simply a disaster. One gets the impression that the author sets his goal to denigrate everyone and everything in the USSR. When presenting facts, there is no need to manipulate or outright lie. There are so many mistakes, inaccuracies and lies that it would be a separate article to sort it all out. Let's start from the beginning of the article:
    "While Polikarpov was studying Messerschmitts and Heinkels in Germany, his design bureau was destroyed."
    - so far everything seems to be correct and this really was the case, but then “At plant No. 1, director Artem Mikoyan created his own development department headed by himself and Mikhail Gurevich.” excuse me, but why did Artem Mikoyan become the director of plant No. 1 (he was a designer at the Polikarpov Design Bureau, and the director of the plant was Pavel Andreevich Voronin (who was soon replaced by Pyotr Vasilyevich Dementyev) and it was he who signed the order to create a new Experimental Design Bureau.
    “The new structure grabbed everything it could get its hands on from Polikarpov Design Bureau. From ordinary employees to leading engineers.” - an interesting form of presenting information, okay, that’s all, one thing is not clear: Why create a new design bureau if all the employees of the old design bureau will transfer to it? “True, not everyone voluntarily ran over to Mikoyan, like Gurevich. There were people who had to be convinced, and there were those who were even intimidated. But in the end, Mikoyan and Gurevich took about 80 designers from the Polikarpov Design Bureau...” - and here I would like to clarify how many employees there were in Polikarpov’s design bureau, and who and in what specialty were taken to the new design bureau. "... and promising projects." - again an interesting wording (very reminiscent of the scene from the film "Striped Ray", when the waitress opens a pan with one sausage and the senior mate asks her: "Why are you talking about it in the plural?") - only one project of the I-200 aircraft was taken away, which the management of the new design bureau created in the preliminary design...
    And so in almost every paragraph there are either omissions, manipulation of facts or outright untruths.
  65. +2
    20 May 2019 15: 17
    Quote: pro100y.belarus
    I-15, I-153 - anachronism (biplanes). The I-16 is a maneuverable, but not a high-speed aircraft, difficult to control, restive on takeoff and landing, even a pilot wounded in the arm could not release the landing gear, since the release wheel had to be manually turned (where are the hydraulics?). The peak of I-16 fame is only about a year old - Spain. Then the Bf-109 appeared and that’s it... At Khalkhin Gol, the Japanese I-96s were superior to the I-16s in speed and maneuverability

    I-153 is a great car
    she turned out to be the best plane in the Caucasus
    The i16 is both fast and maneuverable for its time, but it has another weakness - unstable aerodynamics.
    As a result, it requires a high level of aerobatics and many pilots could not master it well.
    and these 2 aircraft were conceived as a pair working together.
    Bf-109b in the skies of Spain for the I-16, type 16 did not turn out to be an insoluble problem.
    in China, the I-96s (claudes) were no better, they simply attacked like in a textbook - always with a margin of excess height, and then no one could fight in the verticals. The Japanese won tactically.
  66. -2
    20 May 2019 19: 52
    How much can one explain to the mentally underdeveloped that the creation of an engine and its development is much more technically complex than the creation of a glider? Lavochkin with the Shvetsov engine, which was available, succeeded and the La-5 appeared; the rest did not and no I-185 could be created because that Polikarpov made the wrong technical decision based on a promising engine, which they could not bring to fruition, and no one in their right mind would stop production, especially when there is a crisis situation in a combat situation, the author does not know anything about production, so his imagination These are just fantasies, no one stopped production of the T-34 for fundamental design changes. namely, replacing the suspension and installing the engine across the axis, no one stopped the production of PPSh to replace it with PPS, and that’s right
    1. +1
      21 May 2019 17: 00
      Quote: Michael
      no one stopped the production of PPSh to replace it with PPS, and that’s right

      Well, replacing PPSh with PPS is not so clearly good.
      I recently watched an analysis of an American who shot with them - he is delighted with the PPSh
      says no one had such a level of smg.
    2. +1
      22 May 2019 09: 43
      Quote: Michael
      no one stopped the production of PPSh to replace it with PPS, and that’s right

      Dear colleague Mikael (Mikhail), the story with PPS has a completely different intrigue. The PPSh submachine gun was produced at the factories of the People's Commissariat of Armaments. The People's Commissar was D.F. Ustinov. (from 1976 to 1984 - Minister of Defense of the USSR). At the end of 1942, the competition for a new submachine gun ended. The military decided that the product of the gunsmith A.I. Sudaev. superior in all respects to the PPSh-2 (which was pushed by Ustinov). In response to the decisions of the military, D.F. Ustinov, under the pretext of reducing output during the transition to a new model, refused to produce the PPS submachine gun at the factories of the People's Commissariat of Armaments. Submachine gun A.I. Sudaev It was produced in factories, in workshops (even in training workshops of the FZU), in artels (this was a form of non-state production) of any other departments, except the People's Commissariat of Armaments.
  67. +1
    20 May 2019 22: 28
    Quote: Michael
    how much can be explained to the mentally retarded

    Mikael, cut down the front sight, cut down the front sight...
    If you know (or believe that you know) more than someone, this does not mean that this other person is mentally underdeveloped.
    If you cannot land a jet plane in fog with visibility, for example, 100x200 (if you have a question, I’ll explain wassat ) - I don’t call you I D I O T O M
  68. +2
    21 May 2019 09: 10
    I didn’t like the article; I distorted it. Moreover, the same author published a completely sane article on the same website dated April 10, 2018
    https://topwar.ru/139491-yakovlev-protiv-polikarpova-byl-ili-nebyl.html
    Pluralism of the brain or has some new historical data unknown to us appeared over the past year? So no, nothing new is indicated in the bibliography.

    Blaming Yakovlev for the defeat of the Polikarpov Design Bureau is a blatant lie, as already written above, Yakovlev was in Germany at that time. The launch of the I-185 in 1942, when the Germans were rushing to the Volga to stop the conveyor for several months at one of the largest aircraft factories (the largest, since duralumin wings require the appropriate equipment for their production) - the State Defense Committee and the People's Commissariat of the Aviation Industry will never agree to this, regardless of Yakovlev’s desire or unwillingness. Even the production La-5 received duralumin spars in 1944, and the Pe-2 also received a corrected wing profile.

    In many ways, Polikarpov himself is to blame for the defeat of the Polikarpov Design Bureau. Slow “modernization” of the I-16, modernization in quotes, because The main problems of the I-16 - the difficulty of piloting and the wing covered half with canvas - continued in the series.
    A dozen ongoing projects, nothing new ready for serial production for 1939 (the beginning of WWII, you already have to “jump”) no. And this is from the largest design bureau in the country!
    Series I-153, already direct sabotage! Because build and design biplanes after 1935 - the appearance of the SB, which even at cruising speed these “fighters” (I-15) could not catch up with. Experienced I-170, I-190, I-195 in 1940 (in 1940 Charles!).

    Regarding Polikarpov’s failures with engines. Let me quote:
    On January 14, 1938, Polikarpov sent a response message to Ilyushin, saying that, based on the characteristics of existing and designed engines, the Air Force requirements cannot be fully met. Further, in the attached table (Table 5), some of the required indicators and characteristics were confirmed as actually feasible, some - primarily the maximum speed values ​​- were reduced in accordance with the calculations. In an explanatory note, assessing the capabilities of the aviation industry, Polikarpov suggests that reducing the flight weight of aircraft should be considered one of the priority measures: “The requirements of the Air Force sharply diverge from the technical data of the engines, and in essence, it is the engines that limit further progress in fighter aircraft. To obtain a maneuverable fighter, as calculations and practice show, it is much more important to reduce the weight of the aircraft, and therefore the weight of the engine. This is more important than the slight increase in power we get. The primary task should be to reduce the size and weight of the motors to 400 kg.”

    How can you reduce the weight of a powerful motor to 400 kg? By the turn of the 40s, the weight of aircraft engines, together with the harness, was approaching a ton!
  69. +1
    21 May 2019 16: 14
    I think so much has been written about the I-185 that there is nothing left to add... It is being poured from empty to empty.
    And authors do not always think about what they write.
    "....The situation is not easy. Literally a year ago, the idea of ​​another purchase of imported engines for another copying was in the air. This time it was about American Wrights and Pratt-Whitneys. But the idea was abandoned, since something like if only we had our own..."
    Or maybe they turned out because they understood that the existing production and technological base would not allow the production of copies that fully correspond to the original? And their engines were already tailored to the existing base. This thought does not occur to the author?
    Was there careerism in the USSR? Of course there was. It was all there: meanness and so on and so forth.... But I don’t think it’s worth giving such weight to these phenomena. And the author has a clear thought that because of the activities of Yakovlev, the “scoundrel,” and his Air Force comrades did not receive an excellent aircraft. No motor? It is mentioned that everyone had problems with their engines, to put it mildly. Other unsavory things? There were them too. You shouldn’t forget about them, but there is no benefit from constantly savoring them.
    1. sdk
      -1
      21 May 2019 17: 03
      Yakovlev could have said to himself just like Delon in Cannes: “What can I say? Some people love me, and some don't. But my career is undeniable."
  70. 0
    21 May 2019 16: 55
    Quote: Dooplet11
    What is the difference between a project and a project?

    Isn’t this the same thing, just said with a different accent?
    1. -1
      22 May 2019 15: 40
      Almost the same thing. Both are forecasting, but done with different quality. Liver and tenderloin are also the same thing. Meat. Only the taste is different. wink
  71. 0
    21 May 2019 17: 37
    The author presents the story too one-sidedly. Everyone there is black, but here everyone is white - this only happens in fairy tales. And what’s interesting is how easily people accept one side or another if a skilled speaker advocates for it! For some reason, no one believes that now they can make a hypersonic missile that has no logo, but what they couldn’t do then was that they couldn’t build engines, and suddenly here it is, beating all the world’s achievements with great eagerness.
  72. 0
    22 May 2019 09: 28
    However, how quickly the author moved from praising Yakovlev in one article (about the Yak-1) to denigrating him in another. This is a question for the editors of the portal; there have been too many scientific, technical, adventurous articles here lately. Regarding this article, I would like to add the following.
    1. After Polikarpov left on a business trip to Germany, gossip spread in the Kremlin offices about his arrest after his return, which launched this whole campaign to destroy his design bureau.
    2. Lavochkin was the head of Polikarpov’s department and took with him the drawings of one of the variants of a promising fighter, which became the LaGG, and later the La-5.
    3. I would like to justify Shakhurin. Yakovlev was appointed as his deputy through his head by Stalin himself, and was introduced to him directly in Stalin’s office. It was very difficult for Shakhurin to work with his deputy, who tried to resolve all issues over his head, and to whose opinion Stalin listened more than to the opinion of the minister. Indeed, later Shakhurin admitted his mistakes, since he was the minister at that time.
    I see no excuse for Yakovlev. Nothing grew out of his Yak, while Mikoyan and Lavochkin were still able to have their say in jet aviation.
    1. +1
      23 May 2019 05: 57
      Oddly enough, Yakovlev had a lot of interesting developments on jet aircraft. Another thing is that he was often assigned frankly experimental aircraft to test certain phenomena (see, for example, the appearance of the Yak-1000). Well, where would we be without behind-the-scenes intrigues: “ahhhh, under Stalin he was deputy people’s commissar - here you go, here you go.”
  73. -1
    22 May 2019 09: 34
    Quote: dmmyak40
    Yak-40 is one of the most numerous and reliable aircraft of Aeroflot

    However, she did not fly for long. Serious miscalculations in the strength of the tail unit and the appearance of cracks in it very quickly put the entire series on hold.
    1. sdk
      0
      22 May 2019 15: 37
      It was mass-produced for 10 years. out of 1012 cars, 59 are still flying. You tell tales.
  74. +1
    22 May 2019 09: 49
    Yes, apparently that's exactly the case.
    And if we remember that the same Shakhurin and Lavochkin were married to sisters, then Lavochkin’s success can also be explained.
    Today we see the same thing, lobbying of “our own” - all around! Children, sons-in-law and daughters-in-law, and just relatives.
    And these “people” call us to patriotism....
    Remember: “to whom there is war, and to whom the mother is dear.”
    After many decades, everyone understands that they were deceived, but their relatives and loved ones paid with their lives for this deception, but these - they received State prizes, awards, etc. and so on.
    We can close our eyes to everything, but the number of deaths - as a result of such a gamble, does not give us the right to forget it.
  75. 0
    22 May 2019 13: 00
    The article is not so much “interesting” as it is “evaluative”. Moreover, assessments and priorities are set in the context of the current time. I would like to remind the author that the USSR [from the time of Stalin] was the “Soviet Empire”, and not a corporation with its engineers, managers, economists and inventors.
    Everything that was done was aimed at the benefit of the Country and its citizens.
    There were distortions, there were scoundrels and there were enemies.
    I don’t want to debate, but I want to ask the Author a question: Are you not a relative of Nikolai Mikhailovich Skomorokhov?
  76. 0
    22 May 2019 16: 48
    Quote: Jurkovs
    However, how quickly the author moved from praising Yakovlev in one article (about the Yak-1) to denigrating him in another.

    is that really a bad thing?
    Yakovlev certainly cannot be perceived unambiguously
    I got the opinion that he did a lot of useful work, and at the same time he didn’t give a damn about others.
    And his different assessments can help to understand what he really was like.
  77. +1
    22 May 2019 19: 28
    Quote: Michael
    being woken up has nothing to do with losing the battle for Crimea



    Read his diaries. He was sent to save the situation, but alas, miracles did not happen under Mehlis...
    1. 0
      23 May 2019 09: 56
      I wonder what the temporary detention center was thinking about when directing Semyon Mikhailovich to save the situation in Crimea? How could Budyonny show off against Manstein in the war of armored vehicles, aviation and navy? Of course, horsemen made excellent tankers (my grandfather served in the cavalry), but the commander in the early 20s against German tacticians... We don’t need smart ones, we need loyal ones...
  78. 0
    23 May 2019 09: 49
    Quote: fighter angel
    Kursk Bulge, the Liberation of Donbass, Ukraine, Belarus, and everywhere the Germans evaded ???

    You just throw tons of substance at the fan, blaming me to the heap for everything, even for not recognizing the results of ww2. Maybe you could stop this and talk about specific issues?
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. 0
        23 May 2019 11: 03
        Quote: fighter angel
        Behave like a man!

        I'll figure out how to behave myself, okay? laughing
        1. -1
          23 May 2019 11: 10
          Please be so kind!
          Figure it out, finally!!!
  79. +1
    23 May 2019 10: 20
    if he entered service this 185 at least at 43.....eh, a dream and not a pepelats
  80. -1
    23 May 2019 11: 09
    Quote: fighter angel
    You can't prove it

    question. Yak had problems with oil coolers for a long time. The problem was not solved on the Yak-3 either.
    for example, on the Yak-7, after a couple of minutes of battle, it was necessary to release the radiator so as not to overheat, but it noticeably worsened the aerodynamics. In addition, the radiators themselves worked (I don’t know because of the quality or design), let’s say, with complaints.
    I pointed out how Bartini effectively solved the problem.
    And he pointed out that Yakovlev could not. There are other points, but I’ll focus on this for now.
    what else do you need to prove?
    1. 0
      23 May 2019 12: 51
      You don’t read recommended books, but knowledgeable people write smart things in them!
      According to the following sources: Khazanov/Medved “Yakis vs. Messers”, Yakubovich “Yakovlev the Iron Aircraft Designer”, Prof. Byushgens, TsAGI ed. “Aircraft Manufacturing in the USSR 1939-1945, Volume Two.”
      In the first half of 1942, Yakovlev Design Bureau was able to COMPLETELY SOLVE THE PROBLEMS WITH OIL COOLERS. This applies to the entire range of aircraft engines and combat vehicles used. Accordingly, we are talking about the Yak-1, Yak-7, Yak-7UTI, Yak-7A, Yak-7B vehicles and the M-105, M-105P, M-105PA, M-105PF engines.
      That's it, dear! You need to read, and not spread all sorts of rumors.
      Give reasons for your words! Give a link to at least some source!

      "I pointed out how the problem was effectively solved by Bartini."
      Why are you lying, you DID NOT SPECIFY ANYTHING!
      And if he has already solved problems, it was not Bartini, but Ermolaev!

      “In addition, the radiators themselves worked (I don’t know because of the quality or design), let’s say, with some complaints.”

      Indicate in a technically competent manner at least one claim regarding the radiators themselves, indicating the source.
      If you don’t indicate it, you don’t even have to “puff up” anything else - our discussion will end there.
      1. +1
        24 May 2019 09: 17
        In my youth I was interested in the planes of the Patriotic War, I really liked the article, but what was most striking was how much the guys took the problems and troubles of the country to heart (sorry for the grandiloquence!). And with what knowledge of the matter, sometimes with vehemence, they argue, defend, delve into diagrams, calculations... And this is what they need! In the 80s, I gave up on everything and went to a remote Altai village, raising horses. But now I see that there are young people who care. So everything will be as it should. Just don’t bite each other in the heat of the moment, the country needs you all, even hermits like me. Thank you! Good luck.
  81. +2
    25 May 2019 00: 50
    Quote: Jurkovs
    Quote: dmmyak40
    Yak-40 is one of the most numerous and reliable aircraft of Aeroflot

    However, she did not fly for long. Serious miscalculations in the strength of the tail unit and the appearance of cracks in it very quickly put the entire series on hold.

    Come on, come on! Now about this in more detail, please! What where When?
    It’s interesting, what did I fly then from 1972 to 1995? On a magic carpet?
  82. 0
    27 May 2019 09: 17
    Quote: OlegDL
    The question is: when did the service life of serial M82 approach the planned one?

    Firstly, the life tests of the mass-produced M82 were successful in 1944, when the cylinder capacity was overcome, about which there is a corresponding article. Everything else occurs when the operating rules are violated. If we compare it with the M-71F, then in this case stepwise exhaustion and cylinder scuffing were not immediately observed.
    And it’s more honest to talk about the service life of most engines that were used in fighter aircraft, i.e. when the forced mode was applied normally. You, colleague, may be deliberately keeping silent, but the service life of the VK105PF (even tougher than the PF2 and VK107), which was massively installed on the Yak-9, was only 25 hours. Those. even worse than the M82, which lived for 30-40 hours in fighter units. The few AM38Fs that were installed on the experimental series of the MiG-3 also had their service life sharply reduced to 25-30 hours, when compared with the IL-2, then several times.
    Can you tell us what led to a decrease in the service life of almost all engines in combat units, and what was not directly related to the engines?
  83. The comment was deleted.
  84. 0
    27 May 2019 17: 44
    Under some article I wrote that you cannot trust professionals completely and you need to bring problems to the public. I was downvoted. Here is an article confirming what is needed.

    If there is no result, remove and imprison without looking at credentials and merits.

    With this we will win.

    And in addition to irresponsible bureaucrats, there were also simply agents. And there is.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"