Combat aircraft. About aircraft engines, their own and not so. Necessary continuation

Having written an article about domestic piston aircraft engines in early summer, I was somewhat surprised by the reaction of readers. To my deepest regret, more readers are more interested in evaluating stories aircraft engines, and AvtoVAZ.


Combat aircraft. About aircraft engines, their own and not very.

But for those who have not deviated from the topic and raised very interesting questions, I devote the second part. The study of which took me a lot of time.

So, in the beginning I’ll say that I’m somewhat sorry that the majority of readers did not understand the message of the first article.



The fact that our motors basically had foreign-made engines, there is nothing shameful. That is why I cited the example of Fiat-124 and VAZ-2101. The whole problem is how to interpret it.

I interpret it simply. In a country that did not produce aircraft engines at all until 1917 (dozens of licensed Gnom-Ron do not count at all), it was more than problematic to independently invent and put engines on stream.

So there’s absolutely nothing wrong with the fact that representatives of the USSR bought everything they could from the world. And they bought a lot. Including the specified by me Hispano-Suiza 12YB, which was sold to us with the right to issue under license.



The engine was not only good in itself (otherwise the Devwin D520 would not be a competitor to the Messerschmitt Bf.109), but it also had a modernization potential. What our designers have used.

So, in fact, the evolution of Klimov’s engines began.

Combat aircraft. About aircraft engines, their own and not so. Necessary continuation

Vladimir Yakovlevich Klimov


Actually, by the turn of the 30-ies in the USSR there was already a design school. How can this be seen? Everything is simple. If there is no school, then there is exclusively licensed production without any frills there. But if there are designers ...

Then the line will look like this:

The first stage: licensed production and study of the base.
Second stage: modernization of the base motor. In our case, this is M-100.
The third stage: creating your own engine, different from the base model.

In general, this is the M-103.



And if the M-100 is in fact the "Spanish-Suiza", then the M-103 ... Another piston diameter. Moreover, less than on the original (148 instead of 150 mm), a different stroke and valve size, in general, very much changed the timing mechanism. Under domestic gasoline, which, as everyone knows, was with us, to put it mildly, not very.

Accordingly, the speed and power have changed. Moreover, pretty much so, because if the M-100 gave out the same 860 hp as the original, then the M-103 already produced almost 1000 hp

In general, if the modernization, then well, very deep. Well, I’m not an engine driver, but we have some thinking, let them say that it was actually a modernization or actually another engine.

Go ahead. Next was the M-104, which would not have been better. Therefore, I will immediately go to the M-105.



How was the M-105 different from the M-103?

Two-speed supercharger, two exhaust valves instead of one, and even increased their diameter by 15%. A new floatless carburetor that allowed you to fly with negative overload and perform maneuvers in an inverted state. This is M-105A.

With regards to power. M-105 gave out up to 1050 hp When they were able to increase the boost, the power of the M-105PF was 1150 hp, the next modification of the M-105 PF2 had 1310 hp

Next was the M-107.



Another cylinder block. Completely different. 4 valves per cylinder, not 3 like the M-105 and not 2 like the original. That is - a completely different gas distribution system. Drill a hole under the valve just do not drill, a different approach.

Actually, another block spawned other crankshaft, connecting rods, pistons. Even the principle of creating the mixture was somewhat different (and in my opinion perverted): part of the air went through the carburetor, and the output turned out to be highly enriched, and part went directly from the supercharger and diluted the enriched mixture. In general, somehow two-stage and not entirely clear, to be honest.

But the output was already 1650 hp against 860 at the Spanish-Suiza. Yes, and the weight has increased. The original weighed 500 kg, and the M-107 weighed 870 kg.

If you do not pay attention to the conditionality of the suitability of the M-107 for use (constant overheating and scanty motor resources), we can say that the similarity with the original is minimal.

Farther. Next we have the work of Mikulin.


Alexander Alexandrovich Mikulin


Everything is about the same as Klimov’s. At first it was a matter, and the matter was the M-17 engine, which is a BMW VI.



In the 20 years, we bought motors from a Bavarian company with pleasure, since the Germans sold them without any problems. And with the 1925 of the year, the BMW VI has become our main engine. Then came the M-17, everything is canonical. And then ...

M-17 became the base for two engines at once. AM-35 and AM-38 (forgive those who are knowledgeable. I will immediately jump to the "new" marking). Mi-35 flew on AM-3, Il-38 on AM-2. Point. Fatty like that.


AM-35



AM-38


By the way, contrary to logic, unlike Klimov’s engines, disputes over whose engines the IL-2 flew on do not subside even today. On the one hand, it’s clear how not to poke these “patriots” with the fact that their attack aircraft flew a German engine?

We go on the other side and hit from all the trunks. Many thanks to Dmitry Alekseevich Sobolev and Dmitry Borisovich Khazanov, the creators of the book “The German Trail in Soviet History aviation". Very informative and useful, I recommend.

Yes, the BMW VI engine was indeed acquired with a license, and its production was deployed in the USSR under the name M-17. Exactly the same as previous BMW versions of the 6 and 8 cylinders were bought before. And they were produced in the same way, they tried to improve, that is, they gained experience for designers.

And then everything - the second step. That is, not M-17, but M-17F. How exactly it was boosted is not really explained anywhere, but in numbers it looks like 800 hp. instead of 600 in the M-17 / BMW VI. Yes, the motor has become heavier, but there is such an interpretation: unlike the Germans, we could afford not to save on metal and “weak” places were immediately reinforced.

By the way, the engine completely “stopped”, and regularly carried not only planes (TB-1, TB-3, R-5, MBR-2) on itself until the end of the war Tanks (BT-7, T-28, T-35 and even at the beginning of production, when there were not enough diesels, V-2, KV and T-34).

Why not move on?

And let's go. And here miracles begin. Especially if you look at the M-17 and M-34, hypothetically placing them side by side.

These are completely different motors. On the M-17 / BMW VI, each cylinder is made separately, each has its own cooling jacket, the supply of lubricant and coolant to each cylinder is also made separately.

On the M-34 - a single, cast block of cylinders, with all fuel and oil lines, with all the nuances coming in and out of here. And then went modifications, of which it was pretty pretty, and with each something something was introduced into the motor.

Yes, the M-34P is the very engine that (again in different versions, with and without gear) transferred the crews of Chkalov and Gromov to North America.

And the version of AM-34FRNV (other crankshaft, gearbox, lubrication system, gas distribution mechanism, 4 carburetor instead of 1) is, in fact, what went into the series under the name AM-35 ...

Actually, AM-38 differed from AM-35 in that it was its low-altitude version. By reducing the altitude, it was possible to raise the rated power to 1500 hp, and take-off - to 1600 hp That is, the alteration of a centrifugal supercharger.

In fact, all Mikulin motors are Mikulin motors. AM-34, 35, 37, 38 and appeared at the end of the war, AM-39 and 42, it’s hard for me personally to call the modernization of the BMW VI, which was bought in the year 1925. The full cycle of the BMW VI - M-17 - AM-34 is available.

But move on. Let's look at the "airmen". Naturally, to Shvetsov, because there, too, disputes have not subsided over the past 20 years. And not in vain.


Arkady Dmitrievich Shvetsov


Everything is as usual, I wrote that at first there was Wright R-1820, which was bought and started to be produced under the name M-25.



Then the modernization began, and the M-25A appeared. Next were the M-62 and M-63, the crown of the line was M-71.

Everything is simple with the M-62: the Cyclone, it is the M-25 plus a centrifugal supercharger. Increased compression ratio - here you have the M-63. Both (62 and 63) regularly dragged all Polykarpov fighters across the sky, the 63 was even more preferable, "went after the gas," as the pilots said about him. ASH-62 on An-2 still flies, where the "corn" is still there. A peculiar record of longevity, yes.

M-71 - these are two according to ASH-62.



That is, the motor is already more advanced layout "double star" and the maximum that could be squeezed out of the "Cyclone". It’s a paradox, but the engine came out very so-so, even if in fact the American was doubled.

Foolishness and nonsense begins in disputes over Shvetsov’s motors when AS-82 appears on the scene. I, too, in the first article, let's say, did not quite figure it out. It happens. That is, I could not correctly assess the degree of processing done by the engineers of Mikulin Design Bureau.

Corrected.

That is, now the words will be the same as the first article, but the meaning behind them will be somewhat different.

So, ASH-82 and ASH-62.


ASH-62



ASH-82


“Double stars”, but the 82 has a smaller cylinder on the 4. 14 and 18 (2х9), respectively. These figures indicate that in fact the ASH-82 is a completely different engine. Just take it and throw out the 4 cylinder - no, it's not just that.

ASH-82 really was "created using elements of ASH-62", but here it’s for sure that it’s not "based". A different number of cylinders entailed a different gas distribution and lubrication scheme, the piston stroke decreased, which reduced the diameter of the motor, and therefore improved aerodynamics.

Well, when the ASH-82FN received (the first, by the way) direct fuel injection ... And, yes, the injection was copied from the German BMW-801 engine, which was mounted on the PV-190. You must admit that the idea itself was copied, and the fact that Shvetsov’s design bureau adapted the German injection to a seemingly copy of the American engine is already evidence of quite good engineering work.

And here we get very strange things: M-71, which is two on M-25, which is Wright "Cyclone", does not go, even remelt, and ASH-82, which of the elements (some) ASH-62, but with changed to unrecognizable configuration - a very motor. Considering how much he plowed after the war, one of our best piston engines.

And here it is definitely not the source matter. And in their own minds and hands.

Let me quote myself in the first article:

"But, alas, it is hard to deny that virtually ALL Soviet aircraft engines were copies of imported developments."


I agree, not entirely correct. Now this phrase should sound like this:

“But, alas, it is hard to deny that virtually ALL Soviet aircraft engines were based on imported engines.”


The key word is “at the core”.

And, actually, there is nothing of the kind in this. Normal practice. Take the best that the neighbor has and use for his own good. And they copied everything: BMW, Rolls-Royce, and Spanish-Suiza. It turns out, as with the gene pool. At the source stood some motor Adam and Eve, everything else ...

So let me give you another quote. From there.

“The purpose of this article is not at all to set aside some humiliation of our industry or the labor of Soviet designers, rather, on the contrary. This is a demonstration in figures and facts of how everything came out of nothing. ”


Yes, indeed, at the beginning of the 20's we had nowhere to get aircraft engines. There were none of them, and this is a well-known fact. They took strangers, yes. Where they could, they mined there.

However, over time, namely by the middle of the 30-s, we had a real design school, and Soviet designers could already afford to switch from simple copying not only to modernizations that were significantly ahead of the base, but also to creating completely new engines. ASH-82FN is the best example of this.

Just what I said in the first article. From nothing came what was required.

At the turn of the 1920 year, we had nothing in terms of aircraft engines. After 20 years, we already had our own engines, which, if they were inferior to the engines of allies and enemies, were very weak.

Today, many say that our designers were not able to afterburner. Good. There is one. Neither MW-50, nor GM-1 in our analogues could be created. Did you have to? The same ASH-82F quite normally could work in the so-called “take-off” mode as much as needed. What is not a substitute for afterburner?

And in the end? As a result, not the Red Army Air Force was reduced to the root, but the Luftwaffe.

However, so much has already been written on this topic that one can only summarize: after the 1940 year in the Soviet Union there were aircraft engines developed by the Soviet school of designers, which have foreign-made engines as the basis, but are so different from the basis that it can safely be concluded that these were proprietary engines.

Sources:
Sobolev D. A., Khazanov D. B. German footprint in the history of domestic aviation.
Kotelnikov V.R. Domestic aircraft piston engines.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

130 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. AU Ivanov. 4 September 2019 18: 18 New
    • 9
    • 2
    +7
    ASH-82 and BMW-801 had one ancestor - Wright - Cyclone. In general, there is a magnificent book by Augustinovich on this subject. "The battle for speed. The Great War of aircraft engines"
    1. Undecim 4 September 2019 18: 37 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      ASH-82 and BMW-801 had one ancestor - Wright - Cyclone.
      The BMW-801 ancestor had the Pratt & Whitney R-1690 Hornet.
    2. svp67 4 September 2019 20: 17 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: AU Ivanov.
      ASH-82 and BMW-801 had one ancestor - Wright - Cyclone

      Nevertheless, our ASH-82 were able to strongly Russify and bring to some perfection, and to the point that his descendants still dragged AN-2 on it
      1. lucul 4 September 2019 20: 53 New
        • 2
        • 3
        -1
        Nevertheless, our ASh-82 was able to strongly Russify and bring to some perfection

        Only after the war - there, in my opinion, some kind of constructive "cant" was in the cylinder head. It was after eliminating it that the engine took a deep breath .....
        1. svp67 4 September 2019 20: 59 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: lucul
          about my kind of constructive "cant" was in the cylinder head

          Everything maybe I won’t argue.
          But I would like to note that the author somehow omitted another interesting topic: the creation of aviation diesel engines in the USSR, the work of A. D. Charomsky and K.F. Chelpan, the result of the latter was our famous B-2 engine, so to speak, they lowered the diesel from heaven to earth
          1. lucul 4 September 2019 21: 05 New
            • 12
            • 4
            +8
            so to speak, they lowered diesel from heaven to earth

            And all this for twenty years, with a cash-free economy. And we have not created a single motor under capitalism in 20 years ....
            1. Ezekiel 25-17 5 September 2019 08: 11 New
              • 0
              • 2
              -2
              Quote: lucul
              so to speak, they lowered diesel from heaven to earth

              And all this for twenty years, with a cash-free economy. And we have not created a single motor under capitalism in 20 years ....

              For political reasons, they could.
            2. sh3roman 28 September 2019 20: 50 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Why almost, not one was done, and one of the troubles of small aviation is no engines, not planes, UAVs, helicopters.
          2. REZMovec 4 September 2019 22: 25 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            Quote: svp67
            Quote: lucul
            about my kind of constructive "cant" was in the cylinder head

            Everything maybe I won’t argue.
            But I would like to note that the author somehow omitted another interesting topic: the creation of aviation diesel engines in the USSR, the work of A. D. Charomsky and K.F. Chelpan, the result of the latter was our famous B-2 engine, so to speak, they lowered the diesel from heaven to earth

            Charomsky’s aviation diesel engine also descended from heaven and became a tank 5TD (and modifications) on the T-64, and on the T-80UD.
            1. irontom 4 September 2019 23: 06 New
              • 5
              • 0
              +5
              and here there is no M-30 M-40 V-shaped 12 cylinders, 5TD is a tricky opponent with oncoming cylinders and opposite crankshafts, the roots of Jumo 205
              1. Vikxnumx 5 September 2019 14: 07 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                and not at all an oppositionist!
                1. svp67 5 September 2019 16: 46 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  Quote: VIK1711
                  and not at all an oppositionist!

                  If about 5TD, then you are wrong. This is a boxer engine
                  1. Vikxnumx 5 September 2019 16: 55 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    And Rab-Man on Ikarus?
                    1. svp67 5 September 2019 17: 04 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Quote: VIK1711
                      And Rab-Man on Ikarus?

                      This regular, in-line, just laid on its side
                      1. Vikxnumx 5 September 2019 20: 16 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Can you give a definition of an oppositionist?
                      2. svp67 28 October 2019 14: 26 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: VIK1711
                        Can you give a definition of an oppositionist?

                        Please:
                        "The boxer engine is a reciprocating internal combustion engine in which the angle between the rows of cylinders is 180 degrees and the opposing pistons move in a mirror-like manner with respect to each other."
                        This is a general definition. I’ll add on my own that the pistons move ONE PLANE to meet each other in a single cylinder, these are 5TDF or English L60Mkb engines, and in the opposite direction, in individual cylinders, as is done in the same engines of Subaru and Porsche automobile concerns
        2. Amurets 5 September 2019 00: 22 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: svp67
          the creation of aviation diesel engines in the USSR, the work of A. D. Charomsky and K.F. Chelpan, the result of the latter was our famous V-2 engine, so to speak, they lowered the diesel from heaven to earth

          Ach-30 and M-40 aviation diesels with different cylinder diameters and piston odors were created according to the same scheme. B-2 D / S 15/180; Ach30 / M-40 D / S 180/200. Their ground versions of the M-50 and M-400, which were used in the Navy and in the national economy.
        3. grave 27 October 2019 16: 19 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Nothing there was "lowered" B2, too, is basically not our engine. After the war, diesel engines could not be made normal for a rare ...
      2. Grossvater 4 September 2019 21: 46 New
        • 7
        • 0
        +7
        I'm sorry, but the M82 is still a star. He does not have a “block head” in view of the absence of the block itself.
        1. svp67 4 September 2019 21: 55 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: lucul
          And we

          Quote: Grossvater
          but M82 is still a star.

          And listen to how they sound ... I will rephrase the words of one of the movie heroes, "this is the sound of our VICTORY"
          1. PilotS37 5 September 2019 10: 15 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Good! I would still listen to him in the air ...
      3. not main 4 September 2019 23: 44 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: lucul
        Nevertheless, our ASh-82 was able to strongly Russify and bring to some perfection

        Only after the war - there, in my opinion, some kind of constructive "cant" was in the cylinder head. It was after eliminating it that the engine took a deep breath .....

        I have no words! Do you happen to tell in which particular block head? This is a STAR!
        1. svp67 5 September 2019 12: 38 New
          • 2
          • 2
          0
          Quote: non-primary
          I have no words! Do you happen to tell in which particular block head? This is a STAR!

          Not just a "Star", but a double. And in the second "star" problems were
          For some time they could not regulate its airflow under the hood of the aircraft, as a result of which the cylinder heads overheated. It is well told in the history of the creation of La Xnumx
          1. not main 5 September 2019 20: 58 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: svp67
            Quote: non-primary
            I have no words! Do you happen to tell in which particular block head? This is a STAR!

            Not just a "Star", but a double. And in the second "star" problems were
            For some time they could not regulate its airflow under the hood of the aircraft, as a result of which the cylinder heads overheated. It is well told in the history of the creation of La Xnumx

            Now I agree! Cylinder heads, by no means a block head.
    3. Dooplet11 5 September 2019 14: 50 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Nevertheless, our ASH-82 were able to strongly Russify and bring to some perfection, and to the point that his descendants still dragged AN-2 on it
      Reply
      An-2 carries AL-62IR, i.e. M-62. ASH-82 is a completely different song.
  • paul3390 4 September 2019 18: 25 New
    • 17
    • 1
    +16
    Well - what is it about in copies? The best Amer fighter P-51 on what flew? Is it not British Merlin? And what - does it bother someone? And there are enough such examples. So - to the bourgeoisie it means not shameful, but the USSR had to invent everything and do it from scratch on its own?
    1. Nycomed 4 September 2019 18: 38 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Since the Americans never hid it, the Packard bought a license from Rolls-Royce and all businesses, there, of course, there were difficulties, but this is beyond the scope of today's discussion.
      1. paul3390 4 September 2019 18: 52 New
        • 5
        • 2
        +3
        So we didn’t seem to hide too much. They did not advertise - yes, but they did not hide it either. For amers, by the way, Merlin was also produced under the drive of Packard for some reason ..
      2. Grossvater 4 September 2019 21: 48 New
        • 3
        • 3
        0
        As a tower on the cake. Bought a license, started to do. Does not work. Invited Naglitz engineers. One hell does not work. I had to carry hard workers from England. Then it turned out.
        1. Nycomed 4 September 2019 23: 38 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quite right, not only engineers, but also locksmiths and machine tools were seconded to the United States to establish production of Merlin engines there.
        2. Amurets 6 September 2019 15: 08 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Grossvater
          I had to bring hard workers from England. Then it turned out.

          A similar story was in Izhevsk, when during the Second World War they were able to establish the production of Maxim machine gun, but to debug machine guns and set up production of cloth tape, workers from Tula had to be sent. See: V.N. Novikov. "On the eve and days of testing"
    2. 210ox 4 September 2019 20: 25 New
      • 3
      • 3
      0
      Yes, what do the engines have to do with it. If possible, they took everything they needed and copied it. From engines and cars, to the atomic bomb and microcircuits.
    3. grave 27 October 2019 16: 22 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      He flew in British. The Americans tried to do Merlin at home, but it didn’t work. He drove on a Rolls-Royce motor.
  • yehat 4 September 2019 18: 28 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    chic review for dummies good
  • Nycomed 4 September 2019 18: 34 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Thank you for the article! That's right, that's exactly how it was. good
  • yehat 4 September 2019 18: 42 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: paul3390
    do from scratch yes on your own?

    Americans and the British relied on strategic partnership.
    so the exchange between them is OK
    and the USSR, which could be cut off at any time, simply could not rely on cap. country.
    The situation improved only with the creation of CMEA, when industrial orders went to the Czech Republic and Poland, Yugoslavia and the GDR. For example, the Poles produced 80% of all AN-2.
  • Personalrec 4 September 2019 18: 44 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    They copied how the Chinese could reach everything, then it all spilled over into their own school. I wonder what it will result in in China. Will the Russian Federation buy engines from China (built on the basis of engines from the Russian Federation) for its fighters in 20 years? Because everyone remembers what Chinese phones looked like in the late 2000s, these ugly copies of Nokia with antennas, and now they have long been no worse than the top world models, which, by the way, almost all are made in China.
    1. voyaka uh 5 September 2019 10: 32 New
      • 6
      • 1
      +5
      “Will Russia buy engines from China in 20 years” ///
      -----
      Will be. And not only the Russian Federation. They always establish mass production - for export.
      And their airliners will be replaced by Boeing and Airbus. And Chinese cars will squeeze Toyota and Volkswagen. China is a new industrial heavyweight, and everyone will have to get used to it.
      1. DimerVladimer 5 September 2019 13: 41 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Quote: voyaka uh
        And Chinese cars will squeeze Toyota and Volkswagen. China is a new industrial heavyweight, and everyone will have to get used to it.


        I doubt that I’ve been working with machine-building factories in China for 11 years, introducing an elementary change in the design according to our recommendation is not easy, unlike the Europeans who respond to the order faster and more thoughtfully.
        The level of quality of Chinese products has not been growing for years - either average or below average.
        Good or excellent quality is what licensed or joint production with foreign enterprises is established.
        Although various new designs and developments are appearing all the time - but basically these are not cardinal improvements or the creation of foreign analogues, due to copying with some deterioration in quality.

        Chinese, terrible gouging in nature. They work a lot but not thoughtfully, and if somewhere you can do it without control, then the Chinese hard worker will not miss it. Therefore, the selection of personnel is a huge problem, with good qualifications - only to lure them to a higher salary.

        The same applies to Chinese engineers - a strange engineering school - picked up from different schools and not having an idea of ​​the basic rules of design. It seems that having plucked up in automatic design and copying programs, they don’t think with their heads at all.
        For example, where 20 standard M20x25 hardware can be dispensed with, in the Chinese design 10 M20x30 bolts, 6 M20x25 bolts 3 M18x20 and 1 M16x20 bolts will be acceptable, that is, instead of being creative in designing and reducing the range of parts, the Chinese designer will inject four different hardware, and just think about the lubrication of the unit and its future maintenance (access for maintenance) - this is extremely rare and usually extremely unsuccessful :))

        So far so.
  • Alf
    Alf 4 September 2019 19: 19 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    If you do not pay attention to the conventionality of suitability of M-107 for use (constant overheating and scanty motor resources),

    Yak-9 in Korea flew beautifully with the M-107, did not cause any particular complaints. Maybe the whole point is that they began to refuel what should be and the qualifications of minders have improved?
    And on the resource of the 107th, infa has already come across several times that the real resource of DB-605 was 35 hours, which is not much more.
    1. rubin6286 5 September 2019 09: 36 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      My father in Korea flew first on the Yak-9P, and then on the MiG-15. The Y-9 was M-105PF2, M-107 was small, they had a small resource and were capricious in operation. At every opportunity, these engines were replaced with more reliable front-line engines.
      1. Slava333 5 September 2019 11: 29 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Father fought in Korea - very interesting, what did he tell? Is it true that in aerial combat Sabra significantly exceeded the MiG-15?
        1. rubin6286 5 September 2019 13: 11 New
          • 6
          • 0
          +6
          Father told about something that E. Pepelyaev and Saylov wrote in memoirs. According to his father, the cars were the same. Saber was better at bends. because had slats and air brakes, and the MiG was on the verticals. Our car had a more powerful engine and weapons. At the end of the Korean War, the MiG received a radar sight, an indicator of exposure to the enemy, air brakes, and a height-compensating suit. Saber - 4 20mm guns instead of 6 12,7mm machine guns. The Americans had a numerical superiority in the air and the air battles were fierce. The Americans tried to watch over our pilots when landing or on takeoff. Both sides shot in the air pilots who left, downed cars. War is war .. Saber was good. As for the other American and British jet engines (and there were many), most of them were all inferior to the MiG-15
          1. Slava333 5 September 2019 13: 24 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Thanks for the information, otherwise the Americans in the documentaries boast that on other days they shot down dozens of MIGs without loss, of course I did not believe it, just go through Wikipedia and find out that the American aces basically died.
            1. rubin6286 5 September 2019 20: 45 New
              • 6
              • 0
              +6
              Unfortunately, there is some truth in this. The fact is that in addition to our pilots, the MiG15bis and the MiG-15 also included Chinese “volunteer” pilots. They lacked combat experience, ingenuity and sometimes physical endurance., Which led to losses. The literature speaks about this in sufficient detail. Among them, over time, many good air fighters also appeared, who had 8-10 or more victories in their account.
  • paul3390 4 September 2019 19: 20 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Quote: PersonalRec
    They copied how the Chinese could reach everything, then it all spilled over into their own school.

    Yes, everyone bought and stole everything that was interesting .. The same English jet Nin, on which the MiG-15 flew, was bought and mastered with pleasure by the Americans and their service jackets .. I am silent about rocketry ...
    1. AUL
      AUL 4 September 2019 22: 23 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      And the IL-28 on Derwent, also English!
  • Alexey RA 4 September 2019 19: 25 New
    • 9
    • 0
    +9
    If you do not pay attention to the conditionality of the suitability of the M-107 for use (constant overheating and scanty motor resources), we can say that the similarity with the original is minimal.

    As shown by the military operation of the VK-107, the motor life of the engine was directly proportional to the commitment of mechanics to comply with the instructions of the plant. In one of the aviation regiments in 1945, they managed to cut off the factory resource by 25% - at the cost of training mechanics with factory specialists and strict adherence to all instructions and regulations when servicing the motor in the field.
    1. rubin6286 5 September 2019 09: 47 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Military operation just showed that in the field, and even more so in wartime, it was impossible for the M-107 to comply with the requirements of instructions and regulations. not to mention the technical qualification requirements. It is possible, of course, by the efforts of the whole country, having liberated one aviation regiment from military operations, to bring its materiel to an exemplary state, but as soon as it again takes part in the battles, all the "flaws" of the structure will emerge again. so it was more than once and not only with the M-107. Ask those veterans from among the mechanics and technicians who are still alive.
      1. Alexey RA 5 September 2019 11: 26 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: rubin6286
        It is possible, of course, by the efforts of the whole country, having liberated one aviation regiment from military operations, to bring its materiel to an exemplary state, but as soon as it again takes part in the battles, all the "flaws" of the structure will emerge again.

        In fact of the matter. that this air regiment fought at the front. And all the incredible efforts came down to the fact that the mechanics were trained by factory specialists and forced to comply with all the regulations in the field. And do not serve cars in the style of 1942.
        1. rubin6286 5 September 2019 13: 23 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          I’ll answer you simply: when a commission comes from Moscow to the unit and checks the operating conditions of equipment and combat readiness - this is one thing. Spare parts and tools were delivered to the unit in advance. When the commission leaves, all this will gradually be spent. If there is fighting, there are always losses in personnel and equipment. Maintaining combat readiness by all available means comes to the fore. So they put instead of VK-107 front-line VK-105PF2. Pilots and cars often died, having made no more than three sorties.
  • Pavel57 4 September 2019 20: 40 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Superficially, but interesting. During the rapprochement, they could also buy a license for DB 600. Somewhere there is still the unsuccessful M-81. And the M-107 had several options. But the article is curious.
    1. KERMET 4 September 2019 21: 31 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Pavel57
      there is still an unsuccessful M-81

      unsuccessful in terms of perspective - they did not see any sense in its development, because he gave out about the same power as the M-89 with a larger diameter
    2. Nycomed 4 September 2019 23: 44 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Probably M-71.
    3. rubin6286 5 September 2019 09: 50 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      In 1940, when purchasing several samples of military aircraft in Germany, the question arose of acquiring a license for the production of Daimler-Benz engines, which were based on the ME-109, but the Germans flatly refused to do so.
      1. Tamek 6 September 2019 19: 08 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Probably after the capture of France, in early spring they would have sold
  • Arthur 85 4 September 2019 20: 44 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    I wanted here about modern airplanes, which cost, as if they were sawed out of a single piece of gold by the rasp personally by Madonna and Maradonna.
    I understand why during the Second World War the aircraft needed speed, thrust-weight ratio, rate of climb, etc. But now, nobody is planning to conduct maneuvering battles. The winner is the one who first finds the enemy, and who has faster / longer-range missiles.
    So why cruising supersonic, deflected thrust vector, etc.? Why not build a really mass series, thousands of pieces, planes a la Mosquito from plywood and balsa? Is the piston engine good, how is it that in the article, our industry will master, despite effective managers?
    To put on it an AFAR, how many long-range missiles it can lift, an MSA, a catapult, a walkie-talkie and ... That's all. No guns, oxygen equipment, fire extinguishers, afterburners, armor ... The pilot can be dressed in “armor” from the striking elements of missiles (by the way, why are they not dressed?) By “stealth” such a miracle, I think, will not yield to the F-35, it can be based anywhere, an hour of flight - many times cheaper. Just in case, every seventh to tenth aircraft there should be done with missiles deployed backward and with AFAR behind, and included in squadrons if any Eurofighter, according to European habit, creeps up behind. Another one can be commander’s, without missiles, but with a particularly powerful grille. And with ten of them they stomp on any F-35.
    They will say that the most expensive thing on the plane is avionics (I don’t quite understand why, why is there something that doesn’t exist on the desktop computer? What “task of thirty-three bodies” does it calculate there?) But well, I believe. Secrecy, there, protection against EMP, low / high temperatures, accelerations ... I believe.
    Then, so as not to get up twice, we take TU 154, put six radars, so that it shines in all directions (forward is especially powerful). In the wings - ten missiles with an additional step, looking back. In the “passenger compartment” there are 80-90 long-range (and anti-radar) missiles with the ability to shoot them in volleys of 15-30 pieces, and some kind of short-range self-defense missiles. To give such a “battleship” 1-2 MIG 29, as intelligence, if you need to see what is ahead: F-35 or a quadrocopter of Kolya’s boy from Urengoy ...
    Better yet, bring them to the "horde". “Battleships” - as control centers, perhaps some even with plates, a la Hokai. A dozen or two modern-type fighters — like a high-speed wing and “cavalry” —to drive a running enemy. A bunch of Mosquito is like a workhorse / rocket launcher. Armed with air-to-ground missiles to a certain extent, so that when the NATO troops drape at their airfields for refueling, beat them there too ... And it is possible to lure the Nimitse’s air wing into such a horde and drive them all over for Lisbon.
    Something like that. Again, please clarify where I am wrong.
    1. Pavel57 4 September 2019 20: 59 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      "And you boy are right."
      1. Vlad.by 8 September 2019 22: 25 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Yeah, in 1966–68, the Americans in Vietnam thought the same thing. We, Vietnamese, Chinese, Czechs, flew on the MiG-17 and 19 with guns, and their F-4 was already carried by Sidewinder.
        However, problems began with the MiGs. And the gun on Phantoms still had to be set. Together with upgrades to improve maneuverability.
        Actually, like ours, we had to solve the issue of “receiving” and copying GOS missiles.
        Oh, I would not renounce the "dog dump" Raptor and Su-57.
        1. Arthur 85 12 September 2019 22: 48 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Yes, that the Americans once hastily returned guns to airplanes, I know, but since the 60s, progress in the rocket industry (one of the few) has stepped forward very much ... Of course, it’s impossible to renounce a “dog dump”. But its probability, I think, is no more than the artillery battle of two destroyers. Or a bayonet - two foot soldiers.
    2. lucul 4 September 2019 21: 00 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      But now, nobody seems to be going to wage maneuvering battles. The winner is the one who first finds the enemy, and who has faster / longer-range missiles.
      So why cruising supersonic, deflected thrust vector, etc.?

      And you listen less .....
      All that is described is a one-on-one battle, approximately like a knightly tournament.
      Now imagine a situation where a lot of planes came together at once, say 100 pieces. And in this chaos of fired missiles, you can always hide behind another plane, or 3-4 missiles will hit one plane. In short, after the mass launch of missiles, someone will survive. And what should he do in this case without rockets? Fly to the airfield? Or still try to finish off the survivors?
      1. Arthur 85 4 September 2019 21: 06 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Well yes, fly back. And what should he, unarmed, do in battle? You don’t even have to go to ram, there’s no speed. In order to build them in thousands, so that in any battle for one Efka there was a volley of missiles at 20 ... But Efka also has not so many missiles.
        1. lucul 4 September 2019 21: 14 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Well yes, fly back. And what should he, unarmed, do in battle?

          For this, there is an air gun on every airplane. And here, right away, speed and maneuverability are needed right away .....
          Because on the F-22 a second flight is possible only after 72 !!!! hours)))
          1. Arthur 85 4 September 2019 21: 21 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            ABOUT! And ours will fly to the forest glade, there are two carts. One with a pair of rockets and an adjustable driver’s wrench to fasten them. The second with aluminum cans with kerosene! This I exaggerate, of course. But the meaning is this. Maintaining such a maize is much easier and cheaper.
        2. NN52 4 September 2019 22: 12 New
          • 4
          • 2
          +2
          And let me ask? Do you smoke today?
          1. Arthur 85 4 September 2019 22: 15 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            I do not smoke. Health shore laughing And I have not drunk for a month and a half. Well, I'll go on vacation soon, and then wassat
    3. mark1 4 September 2019 21: 19 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Arthur 85
      Again, please clarify where I am wrong.

      In short, everywhere.
      Quote: Arthur 85
      They say the most expensive on the plane - avionics

      Far from it - the most expensive thing on the plane is the pilot, and you want to organize a massacre.
      1. Arthur 85 4 September 2019 21: 35 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        It’s somehow not constructive, but okay. I'll try to clarify. It should be the cheapest flying carrier for missiles, and nothing more. Preparing a pilot for this will be much cheaper. The task is the mass launch of missiles before the enemy launches his own. And yes, probably at the first stage, while the NATO still has something flying, the losses will be higher. For that, the pilot has a “cuirass" (by the way, but really, why isn’t she?) And he has a catapult.
        1. mark1 4 September 2019 21: 42 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          I propose to go further, to exclude from the scheme the poor fellow pilot in the cuirass and actually under-plane itself, to leave only the mass launch of missiles.
          1. Arthur 85 4 September 2019 21: 49 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Yes, it would be nice to make them UAVs, but will it work? And will the insidious enemy take control? Or exclude aviation from the air defense scheme as such, focusing on ground-based systems? But on the ground behind enemy squadrons they are unlikely to steal; the enemy will find a breach in defense. The entire thousand-kilometer border cannot be covered by them, even if all resources are thrown at them.
          2. Vlad.by 11 September 2019 21: 30 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Why not go further?
            What now limits the range of missiles? That's right - a decent mass is needed for long range. But a fattened rocket is contraindicated in any maneuver, and without it, it would not be possible to reach a maneuvering target. Dead end. It would seem.
            But if you make missiles "multi-stage", then the issue is resolved. The main stage carries several small missiles, for example, medium or short-range aircraft missiles and a powerful seeker. SAM missile has no task to hit the target. Its task is only to deliver combat units to the target area and, if possible, to detect (or accompany) the target. After reaching the line of discharge of warheads, the coordinates of the target are transmitted to their GOS and a reset is made. All the components of such a combined missile have long been in the metal. It is only necessary to change the ideology of combating remote goals.
            Do not try to destroy them with one overgrowth rocket, which does not have enough fuel to fly to the target, respectively, and the energy sector suffers and there is no margin of safety.
            In the case of the development of a combined missile launcher, it is not necessary to conduct it according to the proportional guidance method, to compensate for the guidance errors due to target maneuver. You can bring it to the target area at a high altitude (additional bonuses - less air resistance, greater visibility from a height), and let the “kids” with an allowable overload of 60 g work directly on the target ...
            By the way, the main “body” can be used to combat low-maneuverable targets such as AWACS or heavy bombers. For example, while submunitions hunt for a cover group that has no choice but to try to dodge, the "body" without opposition will "get" the chief in the order. Well, that’s true, fantasy.
            Most importantly, it’s not difficult to implement it now. And both from the ground, and from the same hypothetical "Mosquito" or Tu-160.
            Better yet with the Premiere.
            And he sees far and take away combined long-range missiles can a lot.
            1. Arthur 85 12 September 2019 22: 44 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Um, but what is a modern airplane, if not the first step for a rocket? And in the case of naval aviation - an aircraft carrier - a zero step. Only an airplane is a reusable, returnable stage with a pilot as a decision-making center, therefore the conditional cost of “casting 1 kg of explosives” is cheaper, the radar for tracking / highlighting targets will also return to the base with the aircraft, therefore it can be more expensive and perfect ...
        2. Vlad.by 8 September 2019 22: 41 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Arthur, as I already wrote, based on such views, the best fighter is the Tu-160. Mach 2 speed - the reaction time is small, the carrying capacity is under 40 tons (since you couldn’t worry if you could cram explosive missiles! Pilots would be enough), a powerful radar, the crew, again, is big, there is someone to make decisions on the central missile and shelling targets.
          And, in support, A-50 or even better Premier A-100! Larger and longer-range missiles can be screwed into it, and there will be more BC. A kind of arsenal of the second stage.
          A pair of carcasses and four Prime Ministers is an ideal battle group for long-term control of the direction of, say, Western Europe. Not a single bastard will pass) And the third tier - corncob so cheap and cheerful. They will also take away a couple of tons and hang out in the area for hours.
          And why on Su?
          And here you go - they are building and are building.
          No cut?
          1. Arthur 85 9 September 2019 06: 06 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            We will not immediately think badly about people. Probably not a cut, but simply inertness of thinking. The generals have in their heads that every next plane should be faster / more maneuverable than the previous one (like dinosaurs — each next generation should be bigger and more toothy, and the future is for small mammals).
            Four Prime Ministers on the whole front may not be enough, but these are details. Here it is necessary to consider and evaluate, and the idea itself, I think, is correct.
            By the way, Efka’s chance to win in such a situation is to go from the rear, but with the missile range of 200 km, in order to bypass the compact "flock" he will need to describe a semicircle of 600 km with a combat radius of 1100. And if there are several flocks, if they are supported by ground facilities? In order to return, he may already have enough fuel. But a mosquito can actually be in the air for many hours ...
          2. DimerVladimer 9 September 2019 11: 47 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Vlad.by
            Arthur, as I already wrote, based on such views, the best fighter is the Tu-160. Mach 2 speed - the reaction time is small,


            Do not forget that the cruising regime of the Tu-160 is dosukovaya.
            At supersonic, he is forced to go on fore-cameras with a fair amount of fuel consumption. That is why it is multi-mode.
            1. Vlad.by 11 September 2019 00: 17 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Does this somehow limit his ability to quickly reach the rocket launch point for a rendezvous with an adversary? Reverse or on the barrage can walk on the sound.
              In any case, the supersonic Harley is more suitable for the role of a fighter than a transporter, albeit bristled with missiles.
              1. DimerVladimer 13 September 2019 09: 33 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                Quote: Vlad.by
                Does this somehow limit his ability to quickly reach the rocket launch point for a rendezvous with an adversary? Reverse or on the barrage can walk on the sound.
                In any case, the supersonic Harley is more suitable for the role of a fighter than a transporter, albeit bristled with missiles.


                Well, of course it is possible to hypothetically consider such a situation, but it's like taking an accountant to a bank in Belaz :)
                The T-160 has no chance of performing an anti-ballistic maneuver - the maximum overload is 6, and fighters have 10-12. With the simultaneous launch of missiles by the enemy and the Tu-160, the latter has chances to perform a missile maneuver by diving and evolving with an overload of 10, but the Tu-160 - no.
                There is no point in discussing this topic.
                The Tu-160 airframe was not designed to break through air defense or air combat - it’s just a two-mode platform for delivering a payload to the launch point, but the payload — cruise missiles — is already breaking through the air defense.
                1. Vlad.by 13 September 2019 20: 35 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  What, sorry, missile defense maneuver ??? All the salt in using the Tu-160 as a fighter is in early detection and in long-range missiles. What are we talking about? About long-range missile combat! Those. the platform, as it was, remains - the delivery of missiles to the launch point. And the launch point is determined by the range of the powerful airborne radar. And the more powerful the radar, the greater the launch range.
                  1. DimerVladimer 16 September 2019 15: 42 New
                    • 0
                    • 1
                    -1
                    Quote: Vlad.by
                    What, sorry, missile defense maneuver ??? All the salt in using the Tu-160 as a fighter is in early detection and in long-range missiles. What are we talking about? About long-range missile combat!




                    Those. You do not intend to enter the range of enemy long-range missiles?
                    Use long-range missiles R-33 R-37 and promising KS-172 and not enter the enemy AIM-120D coverage area?
                    - Let's say.
                    Do you have any idea how the use of ultra-long-range V-V missiles is carried out?
                    There are no modern aviation radars (except AWACS-like) capable of detecting targets at a range of 400 km
                    RP-31 N007 “Barrier” The detection range of an air target of the “bomber” type (EPR = 19 m², with a probability of 0,5) in the front hemisphere: 200 km. EPR 5 m² - 180 km.
                    Radar Zaslon-M (MiG-31BM) maximum range of detection of air targets increased to 320 km, damage to 280 km (EPR 19 sq m)
                    The best of the "Beetles" - Zhuk-A (demonstrator) for an EPR of 5 m² - 180-200 km.
                    The parameters of promising MBRLs are not yet clear, but they are unlikely to be more than 300 km.

                    Where will the external target designation come from?
                    That is, external target designation from ground-based radars is required - this immediately imposes a lot of restrictions - with the narrow task of defending a certain area.
                    This is no longer a fighter, since it is not able to withstand other fighters and perform anti-ballistic maneuvers to limit the maximum overload, but a well-forgotten barrage interceptor.
                    That is, it is not intended for air combat - it is a means of delivering long-range V-V missiles to the launch area.
                    I can assume that in your understanding it will be used as a "flying arsenal" - and will target designation be given from aircraft platforms - other fighters or AWACS?
                    The closer the fighters to the enemy - the greater the likelihood of suppressing communications - you can forget about the external target designation from the fighters.
                    Bumblebee-M (A-50M) of course can provide target designation capable of detecting a target with an EPR of 5 square meters, a class of "fighter" flying at a low altitude at a range of 200-400 km, at a high altitude of 300-600 km.
                    And how would a conclusion suggest itself - should these two aircraft platforms complement each other?

                    And what is the tactic of using such a "super-interceptor"?
                    Let's say the mission involves the detection and destruction of targets outside the action of ground-based radars.
                    In total, we have an A-50M outfit (or prospective A-100 up to 650 km), a pair of SU-35 cover (or promising Su-57) and a hypothetical Tu-160 super-interceptor with its own AFAR and a stock of ultra-long-range missiles with a launch range of 400 km.
                    The construction is a Tu-160 super-interceptor at a distance of 200 km from AWACS, and a pair of cover 100 km from Tu-160 is closer to the enemy
                    At the same time, two large aircraft are detected by ground-based radars or AWACS from 600-650 km, Su-35 from 220 km and Su-57 up to 100 km are not detected.

                    The enemy is comparable in technology, so we take a bad scenario: everyone sees each other except stealth - the enemy is aware of our tactics and outfit (well, it’s hard not to detect the AWACS radiation and triangulate its location.

                    There are several scenarios
                    We admit active actions on our part.
                    We found targets with an EPR of 5 square meters such as a fighter at a distance of 400 km in the opposite direction, and irradiation of an enemy aircraft DLO from a distance of 600 km.

                    Tu 160 should reduce the launch distance to 350 km with enemy fighters when using advanced KS-172 or 270-260 km when using the R-37, so that the target does not have time to leave the affected area, turning to the opposite course. The second option is much more dangerous, since the Tu-160’s maneuverability does not allow it to quickly leave the affected area and may itself be in the affected area with enemy missiles with a range of 200-240 km if its attack is thwarted or the enemy is not hit before reaching the launch line.
                    At the same time, fighters with an ESR of 5 square meters on both sides can exchange long-range missile launches from a distance of 180-200 km and get out of impact due to maneuverability and speed.
                    Due to the fact that the Tu-160 is detected at a greater distance, it is exposed to a greater threat of attack.
                    Launched Tu-160 ultra-long-range explosive missiles will be detected at large distances (due to large dimensions), therefore they are more likely to be intercepted by melee missiles, even before arriving in the AGSN inclusion area.

                    When a STELS Su-57 F-22, Tu-160 fighter in the form of a super-interceptor is introduced into the scenario, it becomes an easy target, even AWACS can not be sure of safety - there is too little data on the effective EPR to make any preliminary conclusions .
                    Those. You offer a dubious solution without analyzing the possible threats, pros and cons of such an air platform for weapons.
                    Not excluding the possibility that in some scenarios, excluding the use of stealth fighters, the carrier of a dozen ultra-long-range explosive missiles will be useful, but as a platform itself is too vulnerable to stealth fighters, and therefore unpromising.
    4. Alf
      Alf 4 September 2019 22: 31 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Arthur 85
      Again, please clarify where I am wrong.

      It’s easier to say where you are right. In the first sentence about the cost.
      1. Arthur 85 4 September 2019 22: 36 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        I knew it. smile what is wrong. I dare, however, recall that the insanely expensive battleships, for example, were not “lit up” in WWII. And the cheap, massive cruisers / destroyers fought. And the "Tiger" against a dozen T-34s was somehow insecure.
        1. Alf
          Alf 4 September 2019 22: 42 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Arthur 85
          And the "Tiger" against a dozen T-34s was somehow insecure.

          And you take an interest in how much the Tiger could burn the T-34, for example, how the battle at Prokhorovka began.
          And if you want more precisely, then let's estimate.
          1. What engine would you put on your project, specifically, what is the power-thrust.
          2. What rockets would you add, the same brand, weight and quantity.
          3. The lack of oxygen equipment which will automatically give the maximum flight altitude.
          4. What material is the airplane made of?
          5. Which AFAR to stick, bring its mass.
          6. What will be the maximum speed?
          1. Arthur 85 4 September 2019 22: 48 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Yes to work tomorrow. But the comments here do not close? Nothing will happen - I’ll estimate on Saturday-Sunday. This thought came to me today during training, I didn’t apply it to the hardware, especially not the pilot, but I can try it.
            1. Alf
              Alf 4 September 2019 22: 49 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Arthur 85
              Yes to work tomorrow. But the comments here do not close? Nothing will happen - I’ll estimate on Saturday-Sunday. This thought came to me today during training, I didn’t apply it to the hardware, especially not the pilot, but I can try it.

              Let’s be interesting to wrestle.
              Only, if possible, with numbers.
              1. Arthur 85 6 September 2019 06: 24 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                How was going to, prepared a little analysis on the topic. With numbers. Limited until "Mosquito", "battleship" is not considered. First, a small introduction. I rounded off all LTH to the "bad" side for myself, and took values ​​from really serial cars flying in WWII. And so, with more advanced features that were going to “finish” Mosquito after the war, it might be even better: speed, for example, not 650, but 700; range is higher, etc. (in my concept, speed is not very important, range, bomb load and cheapness are important, but still faster are better). Second, we do not have balsa - special wood, from which the original Mosquito was made. But I hope that the chemical industry will be able to give birth to a plastic case no worse than a wooden one, otherwise all this so-called. “Progress” price is a penny. Likewise, I will not seriously consider the thesis that the stellar piston engine is now irreproducible, since the “great technologies of the ancients” have been lost, only the spinner and iPhone are left ... And the third, about the oxygen equipment, I got excited. Mosquito has a ceiling of 11 km. Without such a mask, it will be dreary at such a height, so it was probably on the original machine, even if it will be with us, since it does not eat up weight compared to the original.
                So let's get started. Let's start with the most important thing, because of which wars are waged - to say the least money (land, resources). Will Mosquito really be cheap? Unfortunately, I did not find its value, but the B-17 “flying fortress” cost 238 thousand dollars. Alas, it’s necessary to take advantage of plus or minus bast shoes, but let’s assume that a 2-motor Mosquito will cost one third of the 4-motor “Fortress”, that is, about 80 thousand. An ounce of gold in the 40s cost $ 35, now 1550; those. the dollar depreciated 44 times, and Moskit will cost $ 3,5 million at current prices (I think it’s actually less, because our workers are not spoiled by the British, but let there be such a figure). F-35, according to various sources, costs from 80 to 120 million on average - 100. That is, about 30 times more expensive. So far it turns out. We are going further.
                AFAR. A lot of rubbish has been piled up in open sources, it feels like it's all some kind of disinformation, but there’s nothing to choose from, so ... AFAR Beetle in one of the modifications has 1064 elements (at a price of $ 1500 / piece - about 1,5 million for one grating) with a power of 5 W / cell, i.e., about 5 kW for the entire antenna (taking into account 45% efficiency, we get 10 kW or about 13-14 hp. With an engine power of 1200-1650 hp x2 this power take-off can be neglected). Such an AFAR target with an EPR of 5 m2 is detected from 130 km. Weight 280 kg. As I understand it, this is the weight of the lattice itself, so we multiply it by two, even if it weighs 500 kg with the LMS.
                In another modification of 680 elements (grille 220 kg., The price is about 1 million). This is according to Wikipedia. But it was written right there that the price of radar stations was 3,5–4 million. But I understood that it was an export price so that the plant would have a good margin from the Indians.
                It is immediately written that behind the hill one element costs no more than $ 1 (which is somehow very small).
                Also, there is an article on VO where the author gives the following data on domestic AFAR: 960 elements (without price), 260 km range for a target with an EPR of 3 m2 ... In general, the devil will break his leg. We will decide that the domestic grate exists, costs $ 1-1,5 million, shines for 150-200 kilometers, doesn’t eat much power, and weighs 500 kg with the LMS.
                It turns out that our Mosquito in the "light" version with a bad lattice costs $ 4,5 million, in the "commander" version - with a good one - 5 million.
                Armament. The original Mosquito was double and took 900 kg of bombs. Modified (with a large bomb gate) - 1 “Cookies” bomb of 1814 kg. We have a fighter, so we remove one pilot, and, remembering that a half-ton was "eaten" by the MSA, we get 1500 kg of combat load. What can we take on this money? Three R-33 long-range missiles (490 kg, range according to various sources from 120 to 300 km). Or 4-6 R-77 missiles (190 kg, range 110 km). Or (in the bomber loading) two X31 air-to-air surfaces for adversary airfields (weight 700 kg). Or two X58 anti-radar for air defense adversary (640 kg).
                So far everything is working out. That is, at the price of the 1st F-35 (ten missiles on the suspension and in the bomb bay), we have at least 20 Mosquitoes each with three long-range missiles - 60 missiles in a salvo. Even if one of them is a commander with a good AFAR, and flies high above the "flock", like the Granite rocket, giving target designation; two for defense of the rear hemisphere, and two bombers - this is still 15 per one, 45 missiles against 10.
                Well, for a snack, check the performance characteristics of Mosquito and F-35. The speed of 650 km / h against cruising 850 km / h. Those. without afterburner there isn’t such a big difference. The combat radius of Mosquito is 2650 km, F-35 (hereinafter - modification A) - 1080 km., Three (!) Times less. Flight time - 8 hours against 2,5 (!). That is, the Mosquito will be able to drive the Penguin at the expense of the “breathing room” and hang somewhere nearby, while the “timid penguin timidly hides the body stealth in the cliffs” - on refueling ... And about stealth the big question is who will sneak closer to whom.
                Fuh. Well, something like this.
                1. Alf
                  Alf 6 September 2019 21: 29 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Arthur 85
                  Well, something like this.

                  Stop, let's dance from the stove. Which plane will you take as a basis, specifically? What engine do you put on it, again, specifically?
                  1. Arthur 85 6 September 2019 22: 52 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Specifically, this Mosquito B Mk XVI. Engine Merlin ”72/73 Power 1700 hp in the amount of two pieces. That is, it’s not Merlin himself, of course, but his domestic replica that has been made now (and I hope that it’s easier / more economical due to advanced technologies), but in order not to multiply entities, we assume that the replica has exactly the same characteristics.
                    1. Alf
                      Alf 6 September 2019 23: 18 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: Arthur 85
                      Specifically, this Mosquito B Mk XVI.

                      All right.
                      This Mossy drags the 4-5 P-77 at a cruising speed of 450-500 km / h against the 850 at the Penguin. It’s the same as being bound to fight a runner.
                      The Mossi-2200 range is km, i.e., the combat radius is 800-900 maximum at 1100 at 35.
                      About the difference in climb I generally keep quiet.
                      It turns out that the attached person with a rifle will fight with a free one with the same rifle.
                      This is not to mention the fact that Mossi has a MAXIMUM in 650, but actually flies on a cruising one, while the 35 850 has only Cruising, and the full throttle is 2000.
                      The crowd will not drive.
                      1. Arthur 85 7 September 2019 05: 58 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        I agree with the speed - I overlooked it, this is really the maximum, but as I wrote above, speed is not very important in my concept. And in range, too, to blame, in a hurry. Range 5000 km. this is with the scout - without bombs. The MK16 has 2750 with a cruising 475 km / h (this is with bombs). However, it’s still 5,5 hours in the air (the MK4 modification has 3780 km., But we won’t count it.) Climbing here doesn’t matter at all - maneuvering battle is still impossible to wage Mosquito against F35, as well as winning a position in height.
                        However, even this is not a problem.
                        Tied to a rifle (hands are not tied) you can even fight with a runner. His breather is not knocked down, it can calmly aim. The sniper is fighting.
                        By "drive the Penguin," I meant the following. Our Mosquitoes, having a twofold advantage in time spent in the air, three times in missiles, and not inferior in detection means, gather in a horde and fly towards the Efkam. The enemy has two options - to go into battle, which is what we actually need from him - he will find us. (Rozhdestvensky tried to implement something similar in Tsushima. He did not succeed, but this is just not an example, because he ruined everything that could be spoiled, and was inconsistent in ships).
                        The second option for the enemy is to spin outside the missile range until fuel is exhausted, and fly to refuel, where we, having noticed the "commander" AFAR, where the adversary escaped, joyfully fly to visit.
                        But we will cut back the sturgeon a bit: 2750 km, this is not enough. We need at least 4000. Therefore, we throw out one heavy R-33, instead of it - fuel a kilogram of 300 - 500. Anyway, there remains a volley of 30 heavy missiles. For bombers, then instead of X-31 we take X-38 2 * 520 kg.
                        Again, if the industry can “give birth” to a more economical engine or a lightweight body (well, isn’t it completely in vain that 70 years have passed?), Then the third missile can be returned.
                      2. Arthur 85 7 September 2019 11: 37 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        By the way, still in defense of his concept. PAK YES will be subsonic. TU-95 is still flying. Guns were removed from the bombers during modernization. So, there is an understanding that with a good rocket, the carrier fleet of the carrier is secondary, and there will be no more gun battles. Just do not go any further. And missiles and AFAR can be screwed onto MI-8. And it will hang 20 km from the airfield (so as not to direct the enemy), spinning a little around its axis, providing an all-round view, giving the TsU to ground-based air defense systems, and if necessary, shooting with its own missiles with ext. step.
                      3. Vlad.by 11 September 2019 22: 11 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        And let's not take Mossy as a carrier. Let it be Tu-204 or Il96?
                        The price is from 30 to 50 million at the price of F-35 in the best case - 80 million.
                        We will not even compare the range, the number of missiles on board, too.
                        Yes, and AFAR "commander" hang pieces 5! With narrow sectors for vigilance)
                        It turns out that at a price of 1, “ours” will be comparable to 1 adversary, and even cheaper (okay, we will attribute the difference to fuel), but in terms of volley power, in “eyes”, in time of barrage, it is a supercompost (and any !! F-15 , 18, 22, 35, not to mention the bombers) loses in all respects!
                        With a commercial load of Tu-204 of 20 tons, this is an arsenal of 50 R-33s or 100-odd R-77s (or their combination for fidelity)
                        And Il96 and even more. Well, let it be the same with powerful radars. Those. the question will only be in “applied mathematics” - how to make the radar more efficient, and the LMS is more multi-channel
                      4. Arthur 85 12 September 2019 22: 54 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        So I wrote like that:
                        “we take TU 154, put six radars so that it shines in all directions (forward is especially powerful). Ten missiles with an additional step looking backward are in the wings. 80-90 long-range (and anti-radar) missiles with the ability to fire into the“ passenger compartment ” in salvos of 15-30 each, and some kind of close-range self-defense missiles.To give such a “battleship” 1-2 MIG 29, as reconnaissance, if you need to see what's ahead: F-35 or a quadcopter of Kolya’s boy from Urengoy ...
                        Better yet, bring them to the "horde". “Battleships” - as control centers, perhaps some even with plates, a la Hokai. A dozen or two modern-type fighters — like a high-speed wing and “cavalry” —to drive a running enemy. A bunch of Mosquito - like a workhorse / rocket launcher "
                        As for TU 154, I do not insist, let it be IL 96 ...
                        So I think, whether to write an article? The fact that they peck at me - God bless him, I do not need this rating. But maybe right now, when the Americans swelled trillions into Penguin, is it time for us to give an “asymmetric answer”? No one will read it in the comments ...
  • rubin6286 5 September 2019 09: 52 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    What do you smoke, son?
  • Alexey RA 5 September 2019 11: 05 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: Arthur 85
    But now, nobody seems to be going to wage maneuvering battles. The winner is the one who first finds the enemy, and who has faster / longer-range missiles.

    Welcome to Vietnam, son. smile
    This I mean that in the 60s of the last century they also believed in the omnipotence of missiles. And then it suddenly became clear that the training ground is one thing, and the real battle is another. And medium-range RVVs do not at all bring down enemy vehicles at every launch. And the closer you come to the enemy - the more chances you have to get. And even better - go to the adversary’s tail ... only this bastard constantly maneuvers. And the fleet had to open pilot training courses, in which these pilots were trained in piloting and BVB.
    A similar situation was repeated in the 80s of the last century: with approximately equal capabilities of the aircraft of the parties involved in the battle, a successful launch of the RVV was possible only at close and extremely short distances. In general, the development of counteraction systems regularly multiplies by zero all the advantages of increasing the range of the RVV - and again the pilots have to climb into the BVB.
  • karabass 11 September 2019 21: 30 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Yes, already thinking about it! there was a project to make a heavy fighter out of that 160, calculations showed that the idea wasn’t so hot
  • lucul 4 September 2019 20: 46 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Next was the M-107. Another cylinder block. Completely different

    The basis of all engine calculations is the cylinder block. It is from him that everything dances. And if the cylinder block is different, then the engine is different.
    1. Dooplet11 5 September 2019 08: 02 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The basis of all engine calculations is the cylinder block. It is from him that everything dances.

      The basis of all motor calculations is the calculation of power balance and heat flow balance. But you are right about this:
      And if the cylinder block is different, then the engine is different.
  • Petrol cutter 4 September 2019 21: 00 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Great. More than agree with the opinion of the author.
  • mark1 4 September 2019 21: 03 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    According to Klimov, it’s not M-103 (it has the same cylinder dimension as the M-100) but M-103A.
    According to Mikulin, the same dimension with the cylinder-piston group of BMW does not mean that the engines are identical. If only because. that BMW, unlike the M-34, had trailed connecting rods, the latter only appeared in the late 30s and, as a result, the displacement increased. M-34 was created as non-high, and BMW as oversized high-rise.
    1. lucul 4 September 2019 21: 20 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      and BMW as oversized high

      Before the war, the Soviet doctrine of battle saw fighter battles at high altitude, from 5000m and above. .Te completely anticipated the American doctrine.
      But the Germans did not climb to such heights, but they flew much lower, by 2-000m. And in general, a good and high-altitude MiG-3, which was considered the main fighter, remained out of work.
      1. Alf
        Alf 4 September 2019 22: 35 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: lucul
        But the Germans did not climb to such heights, but they flew much lower, by 2-000m.

        And why then did these same Germans on these same planes go to Britain in 5-6 thousand?
        1. lucul 4 September 2019 22: 37 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          And why then did these same Germans on these same planes go to Britain in 5-6 thousand?

          So it is to Britain. They didn’t go to us at such heights. At the height of the MiG-3 was superior to Me.109.
          1. Alf
            Alf 4 September 2019 22: 47 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: lucul
            They didn’t go to us at such heights.

            And why ?
  • KERMET 4 September 2019 21: 18 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    the crown of the line was M-71

    It is strange that the author did not hear about the ASh-73 and ASh-73 TK (and between them were still M-71F or ASH-72)
    And here we get very strange things: the M-71, which is two on the M-25, which Wright "Cyclone" does not go, even re-melt, and ASH-82, which of the elements (some) of ASh-62, but with changed to unrecognizable configuration - a very motor

    According to the chronology of birth and development, the M-71 was ahead of the M-82, in favor of the latter an administrative decision was made (in those conditions, on the threshold of war, it is most likely correct)
    1. lucul 4 September 2019 21: 27 New
      • 0
      • 3
      -3
      M-71 in chronology of birth and development ahead of M-82

      And they could have met the war on the M-71 and VK-107, which would have had a completely different effect on the nature of the war.
      But the revolutionary V-2 pulled over the entire R&D of the USSR engine industry ....
      1. KERMET 4 September 2019 21: 45 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Could .... If we had the same plants as in America or Germany, the same brands of high-octane gasoline and motor oils are better than castor oil
      2. Alexey RA 5 September 2019 11: 14 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: lucul
        And they could have met the war on the M-71 and VK-107, which would have had a completely different effect on the nature of the war.

        Hardly. There is no fuel, there is nothing to teach pilots, there is no connection, there is no target designation, BAO is being reorganized, there are no special equipment, aviation was distributed sub-division to the level of the army.
        When the district aviation commander at the All-Army meeting expressly declares that from June to September the crews of his district are sitting on the ground due to the lack of aviation gasoline, they will not even save La-11.
        1. mat-vey 7 September 2019 09: 06 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          "When the district aviation commander at the All-Army meeting expressly declares that from June to September, the crews of his district are sitting on the ground due to the lack of aviation gas, then even La-11 will not be saved." “Didn’t you read Rezun? This was such preparation for an attack on Germany.”
  • Undecim 4 September 2019 21: 47 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Even the principle of creating the mixture was slightly different (and in my opinion perverted): part of the air went through the carburetor, and the output turned out to be very enriched, and part went directly from the supercharger and diluted the enriched mixture. In general, somehow two-stage and not entirely clear, to be honest.
    This is called purging the engine cylinders.
    .
    Romanov A.I. (comp.) Aircraft engines VK-107A and VK-108. M .: People’s Commissariat of the Aviation Industry (NKAP) of the USSR, State Publishing House of the Defense Industry (Oborongiz), 1946.
  • rubin6286 4 September 2019 23: 27 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The article is interesting, informative. Until recently, the development of the Soviet aircraft engine industry was not covered in the domestic popular science and journalistic literature, and it was possible to get acquainted with its state and development prospects only at the specialized departments of universities. If in the early 20s aviation was in its infancy, then on the eve of the Second World War the Soviet Union already produced in sufficient quantities the main types of combat aircraft and aircraft engines for them. Initially, the country bought abroad a license for the production of aircraft engines and even entire aircraft factories. Along with mastering the production of motors, the main directions of their improvement and modernization were identified, a design school began to take shape, and specialized design bureaus, research institutes, and educational institutions appeared.

    In the post-war years, with the development of jet aircraft, piston engines were gradually replaced by turboprop engines and turbojet engines of various designs, and all prospective work on them was erroneously curtailed. This led to stagnation in the production of regional aviation aircraft, initial training in flying clubs and so on. Economical, compact engines have to be acquired abroad, roughly speaking, "step on the same rake." As a result, there is neither TVS-2DTS, nor the Yak-152, nor the L-610, the "Trot", "Gzhel", etc.
  • Amurets 5 September 2019 00: 58 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Actually, by the turn of the 30-ies in the USSR there was already a design school. How can this be seen? Everything is simple. If there is no school, then there is exclusively licensed production without any frills there. But if there are designers ...
    Well, you need to start with the fact that, along with the license, Know-How, production technologies along with equipment were purchased, so we did not have English Rolls-Royces. They could not agree with the British precisely on know-how and equipment.
    Much has been written about Spain-Suiz here, but not a word about the M-85 engine: "M-85 is a Soviet aviation star-shaped 14-cylinder piston engine. It was a licensed copy of the French engine Gnome-Ron" Mistral Major "14Kdrs (en: Gnome- Rhône Mistral Major). " "M-85 was installed on serial DB-3 and experimental aircraft: I-207, DG-58, DG-58R, R-9, PS-35, DI-8. TTX: Type: 14-cylinder, two-row star-shaped , four-stroke, gear Manufacturer: Plant No. 29 (Zaporozhye) "And this is the line of engines M-85-M-90.http: //aviaru.rf/aviamuseum/dvigateli-i-vooruzhenie/aviamotorostroenie/aviamotory-sssr/porshnevye-i -dizelnye / porshnevoj-aviatsionnyj-dvigatel-m-85-gnome-rhone-mistral-major-14kdrs /
    The first stage: licensed production and study of the base.
    Second stage: modernization of the base motor. In our case, this is M-100.
    The third stage: creating your own engine, different from the base model. And this is the most difficult, because the equipment for mass production had a very narrow range of settings. And here the author’s mention of AvtoVAZ is appropriate. In fact, the first generation of VAZ engines had two cylinder diameters of 76mm and 79mm and two piston strokes of 66mm and 80mm and in these sizes, changing the combination created a whole gamut of engines from 2101 to 2106.
  • bars042 5 September 2019 07: 40 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    in the Shvetsov design bureau they adapted the German injection to a seemingly copy of the American engine - it already indicates a very not weak engineering work

    I read for a long time that the designers from the USSR were on a business trip to Germany, and worked together on the topic of fuel injection. Not from here, not weak engineering developments?
  • Dooplet11 5 September 2019 07: 58 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Novel! Presented in the photo https://topwar.ru/uploads/posts/2019-09/thumbs/1567327984_1200px-hispano_suiza_12lbr.jpg the engine is not Hispano12YB at all, the license for which the USSR bought.
    Today, many say that our designers were not able to afterburner. Good. There is one. Neither MW-50, nor GM-1 in our analogues could be created. Did you have to? The same ASH-82F quite normally could work in the so-called “take-off” mode as much as needed. What is not a substitute for afterburner?

    To begin with, it should be understood that there is a "boost", how the engine is boosted "by boost", and how "by turns", as this is related to the height of the engine. And then there will be no questions about “afterburner substitutes”.
    About M-105 and VK-107.
    Even the principle of creating the mixture was slightly different (and in my opinion perverted): part of the air went through the carburetor, and the output turned out to be very enriched, and part went directly from the supercharger and diluted the enriched mixture. In general, somehow two-stage and not entirely clear, to be honest.
    .
    If you do not pay attention to the conditionality of the suitability of the M-107 for use (constant overheating and scanty motor resources), we can say that the similarity with the original is minimal.

    The VK-107 mixing principle can be easily dealt with if you familiarize yourself with the maintenance requirements for this engine (can be found on the network). As for the VK-107 resource, it was brought to 100 of engine hours, and you can’t call this motor resource scanty compared to other engines with about the same liter capacity!

    The rest of the message is clear. Having run over the tops, to prove the idea that on the basis of other people's achievements, Soviet engine building quickly created its own design school. The thought is correct. The evidence is so-so. For schoolchildren ride.
  • fighter angel 5 September 2019 10: 56 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    "... If you do not pay attention to the conventional suitability of the M-107 for use (constant overheating and scanty motor resources), ..."
    Well, how can I say. If the technical staff competently exploits, in accordance with the instruction manual, then the resource is quite imagined.
    One example: 163 Red Banner IAP, the M-107 engines nursed about 110-115 hours, with the claimed resource of 90-100 hours. This is written by Nikolai Yakubovich, in the book "Unknown Yakovlev."
    So the numbers are not from the ceiling.
    The M-107 engine required qualified service, and in those shelves where it really was, it worked quite normally.
  • dgonni 5 September 2019 10: 57 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    If this topic is raised again, I’ll throw a couple of my cents. The M-105 in fact is a completely new motor that retained almost the dimension and the possibility of installing a gun in the collapse of the block from the French. In m-107a, such a power system was used because of the conversion and hence the need to somehow cool the fuel mixture entering the cylinders! The re-enriched mixture when it met with hot air from the monitoring station evaporated abruptly, lowering the overall temperature of the mixture and improving the filling of the cylinders. Direct injection would be better but to push the nozzle on a very compact motor was in fact very problematic, although according to some recollections such work was carried out.
    Starting from the 34th funeral camps, Mikulinsky AMs have in fact completely their own development, although they retained the dimension and characteristic features of BMW engines throughout the development. If you look at the manuals for 38mu and 42 motors, then this can be seen with the naked eye, such as a valve actuator, the location of the drive monitoring station and much more.
    In AS, it’s just all the more sad. When purchasing the R-1820 Cyclone 9, design documentation was purchased and technical support was agreed upon. M-63 in comparison with M-62 was not forced in terms of compression. It was boosted by the degree of boost! M-71 is only two M-62s in appearance, but in fact an attempt to copy the same Amerov R-3350 Cyclone 18 samples of which were purchased and for which there was documentation. Photos on the network can be found, one-on-one engine. Later, doped to the M-73 state, he quietly flew on our Tu-4.
    ASH-82 is also not a Shvetsovskoy development, it is a licensed R-2600 Cyclone 14, which has been washed down under its production conditions. Again, you can open and light up a photo in a net shaft.
    P.S. An increase in engine mass with an increase in power occurs in any case, since it is also necessary to ensure acceptable reliability. But how much weight will increase depends on the materials that are used and processing technology. And with this in alliance it was frankly not very clear. And where Germans or Americans added power by increasing, I just roughly approximate 10-20 kg, ours gave an increase of 40-50. For steel was not casting aluminum into a chill mold and not under pressure, and so on.
    With the same M-63 for a long time they sucked until they introduced a hyperbolic bore of the liner on the main connecting rod. After that, the engine resource became normal, and such a bore immediately migrated to the M-62.
    1. DimerVladimer 5 September 2019 13: 06 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      [/ Center]
      Quote: dgonni
      ASH-82 is also not a Shvets development, it is licensed R-2600 Cyclone 14

      Where did you get this information? No one sold a license for R2600-14. Can you confirm?
      further constructive:
      R-2600-14
      cylinder diameter: 155,6
      cylinder stroke 160,3 mm

      M-82
      cylinder diameter: 155,5 (well, of course - the cylinder-piston group is identical in the entire Wright-Cyclone engine line)
      155 stroke - a completely different original crankcase
      Shvetsov used the well-known scheme with a decrease in the number of cylinders, but planted a cylinder-piston group on a smaller crankcase than the Americans.
      At best, he was familiar with the general principle of what the Americans are working on, but did not have a copy model, so he designed the original crankcase for the M-82.

      The difference in the crankcases is clearly visible in the photo: the first ASh-82FN and the second R-2600-14

      [Center]
      1. dgonni 5 September 2019 16: 55 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        And where is the difference in the crankcases? In both photos, the front view of the engine. Amer has a shorter front, so what? This is not a case; it is a bell to which some engine assemblies are attached, such as a screw regulator, by the way in both photos it is perfectly visible and some others. And the crankcase is further there, and if you look closely, it is completely identical to wright.
        For the fact that Shvetsov did not have a sample? Curtis put such motors on anything and calmly traded them, + to everything, with the purchase of 1820 there was a condition to acquaint with new developments and provide those support. What about the piston stroke? Wang again, the failure of our metallurgy and thicker piston bottoms that would not burn out! Therefore, such a move. And maybe they stupidly used pistons from the serial M-62/63. There is nothing cardinal in this.
        P.S. The toe of the engine for almost all amers is short, they somehow did not bother much with the aerodynamics of the engines. Which is strange by the way. Need to add speed? not a question, + about kobyomu or forcing and voila, there is a result. If you look at the same B-25 Boston, you can see the heavily engine hoods compared to those that were on the LA-5/7 or the same Tu-2. It’s just that the designers were not given such a task and they did everything within the framework of the technical task!
        1. DimerVladimer 6 September 2019 09: 47 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: dgonni
          And where is the difference in the crankcases? In both photos, the front view of the engine. Amer has a shorter front, so what?


          Look in the wrong direction - the difference in the distance between the cylinders - the diameter of the American crankcase is larger, the cylinders are farther apart from each other both in the radial direction and around the perimeter of the crankcase - this is very noticeable in the photo.
          And so yes - 14 cylinders there and 14 there, cylinder-piston ones are identical, but the crankcases and engine dimensions are more compact.
          I read the history of creation - I know how the original crankcase was worked out and not one source says that a license was bought or there was a purchased prototype prototype — they were not sold individually — in batches. Then this engine would be mentioned in the directory:

          "Aircraft engines of the military air forces of foreign states" [State military publishing house of the People's Commissariat of Defense of the USSR, Moscow-1939]
          But there is no mention of R-2600-14

          all that is there is:
          Wright
          Cyclone SR-1820-F52
          Cyclone SR-1820-F56
          Cyclone GR-1820-G2
          Cyclone GR-1820-G3
          Cyclone GR-1820-G5
          Cyclone R-1820-G 102-A
          Cyclone R-1820-G 103-A
          Cyclone GR-1820-G 105-A


          here is about the English Merlin II Merlin X is already there, but about the double star Wright is not - because it is still being finalized.
          But there is a mention of several 14 cylinder stars at once: Pratt & Whitney R-1830 Twin Wasp and previous Pratt & Whitney R-1535 Twin Wasp Junior, and R-2180-A Twin Hornet
          in 1935 - Howard Hughes set a world “C” speed record with a 700 liter engine from the Pratt Whitney Twin Vosp Junior engine. s, reaching a speed of 567 km / h,

          and in the 1939 reference this type is indicated:
          USA
          Allison
          V-1710-c6
          Pratt Whitney
          Hornet SIE-G
          Play S 3HI
          Twin Play R-1830 S1C-G (note 14-cylinder double star)
          Posp Junior (model TB)
          Twin Vosp Junior (Model SB 4-G) (note 14-cylinder double star)
          Twin hornet (note 14-cylinder double star)


          Compare R-2180-A Twin Hornet and later Rait
          We look at the photo: R-2600 (the lowest photo) repeats the scheme of the R-1535 Twin Wasp Junior (upper photo) R-1830 Twin Wasp R-2180-A Twin Hornet (middle photo)


          The R-2600-14 has much more in common with existing competitor engines, although it was based on single-row R-1820 units.

          Only R-2600-14 was brought much later - therefore, it did not appear in the 1939 reference book.
          So the circuit was known for a long time and Shvetsov was definitely not repelled by R-2600-14 in his developments.
          At that time, successful 14 cylinder stars had already flown and their power was increasing, so Shvetsov, taking the coponic scheme as a basis, creatively approached a denser cylinder layout on the crankcase.
          Nothing of the kind is observed on the R-2600-14.
          Your assumptions are not substantiated.
        2. DimerVladimer 6 September 2019 11: 56 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: dgonni
          And the crankcase is further there, and if you look closely, it is completely identical to wright.

          [/ Quote]
          With regards to the possibility of obtaining R-2600-14 from Wright.
          Indeed there was such an opportunity:
          [quote] Trying to overcome the backlog from Wright regarding the improvement of the Cyclone, in January 1939 they prepared a new agreement on technical assistance totaling $ 900 thousand. Under this agreement, the company undertook to provide documentation on modifications of the G100 and G200 series, as well as the R-2600 twin-row star engine. Representatives of the company themselves proposed to include a new powerful R-3350 engine in the document, but this item was blocked by the US Department of War. The contract was signed. It began to operate on March 29, 1939.
          A group of Soviet engineers left for America to receive documentation. In September additionally wanted to get samples of engines: G205A - four; G205B - ​​six and R-2600-A5D - ten (then the order was cut to four). But not one of them received.
          The work was delayed by the introduction of a “moral embargo” during the Soviet-Finnish war. On December 26, Soviet specialists were no longer allowed into the workshops of the Wright factory. But on February 8, 1940, the first batch of drawings left for the USSR aboard the Mayakovsky steamboat. By August 3, the acceptance of all G100 documentation was completed. Subsequently, it was actively used in the process of improving the M-62 and M-63 engines. The Wright agreement lasted until May 1941, when the Americans suspended it for a year. During this time, the Soviet side paid the company $ 169. In 000, the contract was extended, but purely formally. Until the end of the war he remained in a suspended state.

          The source is taken here: https://www.liveinternet.ru/users/2902292/post392172521
          That is, by 1940, according to the prototypes suitable for the construction of the M-82, nothing was received neither drawings, nor documentation, nor prototypes.
          In 1940, the situation changes:
          Information about foreign engines came to the USSR through other channels. So, in 1940, Soviet intelligence delivered to Moscow the drawings of the American aircraft engines R-2600, V-3420 and V-1710. They were copied and handed over to various design bureaus.

          I can’t vouch for the reliability of this material ...

          But most importantly:
          Bench factory tests (M-82) began in the first half of 1940 and were successful. ... the motor passed the GI again (completed on May 22.05.40, XNUMX) and a decision was made to launch the engine in series.

          Content Source: https://naukatehnika.com/aviaczionnyie-dvigateli-m-82.html
          naukatehnika.com

          That is, even if the R-2600-14 drawings were delivered to the USSR, they did not play the slightest role in the development of the M-82, since by that time a prototype motor had already been created, and its design was carried out in 1939! Repeated state tests ended in May and the engine was launched into series.
          Source: https://naukatehnika.com/aviaczionnyie-dvigateli-m-82.html
          naukatehnika.com

          supposed to be modified for Merlin and V-1710, La-5 - under the R-2600 and R-2800, IL-4 - under the R-2600 and R-1830-33, Li-2 - under R-1820-71. But the calculations showed that none of the proposed options gives such significant advantages to justify the restructuring of mass production.

          Confirming sources of this information I could not find.
    2. mark1 6 September 2019 16: 23 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: dgonni
      ASH-82 is also not a Shvetsovskoy development, it is a licensed R-2600 Cyclone 14, which is sawed under its production conditions.

      Probably all the same, the M-81, on the M-82, due to the reduction in the piston stroke, the design turned out, however, to be completely independent. hi
      1. dgonni 6 September 2019 16: 37 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        I immediately wrote, sawn under my capabilities!
        1. mark1 6 September 2019 16: 46 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Almost agree, Cyclone as a prototype adapted to its technological capabilities is the M-81. Well, it’s obvious, what is there to butt !?
        2. DimerVladimer 9 September 2019 12: 56 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: dgonni
          I immediately wrote, sawn under my capabilities!


          With a decrease in the stroke of the piston group, it is necessary to at least recount almost the entire engine, its heat stress, piston speeds, load curves, create an original crankcase - this is not an easy task - you can’t do it with “sawing” ...
          By the way, the result of the tight layout of the M-82 was negatively manifested in the overheating of the cylinder heads of the second row, respectively, with a low engine resource. While the single-row Wright had a resource of at least 420 hours even before the R-1820 war.
          The post-war fenced Al-82T on the Il-12 Il-14 brought the resource to 1200 hours - cruising regimes are lean.

          With regards to the aircraft engine Wright R-2600-14:
          engine development began on September 23, 1936 according to specification No. 439, and production began in 1938.
          In the early stages of development, he suffered from problems and was under the scrutiny of the Truman Committee. In an additional report by the Special Committee to Investigate the National Defense Program in Aviation, the committee found that the production of substandard and defective materials was widespread. During an investigation at the Lokland plant in Ohio, it was found that among the many complaints were falsification of tests and falsification of inspection reports. More than 25% of the engines tested had failures during the 3-hour trial run.
          A large number of failures due to poor carburetor operation and low resource due to pitting of cylinders (cause oil oxidation).
          Pratt & Whitney engines struggled with similar problems, the solution was a new engine oil composition, Curtiss-Wright switched to a similar oil, which also solved the problems of pitting corrosion.
          There was also increased oil consumption due to wear on the rings.
          So with the R-2600-14 there were big problems at the beginning of operation.

          from the Chronology of Rodionov: June 11, 1943 A.I.S. wrote I.V.S. letter N 288
          2. On La-5
          The options for replacing the M-82FN motor with the Wright R-2600 and Pratt-Whitney 2800 motors, which have data closest to the data of the M-82FN motor, are considered.
          Replacing the M-82FN motor with the Wright R-2600 motor reduces all flight data of the La-5 aircraft, with the exception of the range and climb time, which remain virtually unchanged. In particular, the maximum speed near the ground is worse by 55 km / h and at an altitude of 30 km / h.
          The installation of the Pratt-Whitney 2800 motor on the La-5 aircraft instead of the M-82FN engine improves all flight data, except for the run, increasing by 30 m (by 10%). Speed ​​at the ground increases by 5 km / h and at altitude - by 35 km / h.

          Still - the diameter of the R-2600-14 is 1397 mm (55 inches), the weight is 928 kg, and the M-82FN has a diameter of 1280 mm and a weight of 868 kg (a difference of 60 kg) with similar power and a greater frontal drag of Wright.

          Well, a logical conclusion
          2. On the La-5 aircraft, it is possible to install the Pratt-Whitney 2800 Double-Wosp motor with a general improvement in the flight data of the aircraft.
          1. dgonni 9 September 2019 15: 35 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            do you know what piston speed do the ASh-62 have? 13,67 m / s, at al-82 13,43! I did not hear for overheating of the second row, but there was no CPU resource and the first series did not take care even 50 hours! From the fourth series they introduced a narrowing of the cylinders in the upper part of the liner along a parabolic profile, machining. Which gave positive results. To simplify the production and to release the fleet from the 5th series, cylinders with strain narrowing were installed. That bish, the head warmed up to a temperature of 170-200 degrees, was wound on a sleeve. as a result, in the upper part of the sleeve narrowed to cold by 0,5 mm. In the hot state, it acquired an almost cylindrical shape throughout. As a result, the resource immediately increased from the declared 100 hours at the stand to 150! In parts, the engines immediately crossed the 100-hour threshold of motor resources!
            P.S. Is it really so difficult to find and read neta manuals and Murzil on engines. Fortunately, there is no need to go to the library!
  • DimerVladimer 5 September 2019 11: 01 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    In general, if the modernization, then well, very deep. Well, I’m not an engine driver, but we have some thinking, let them say that it was actually a modernization or actually another engine.


    If the crankcase and the unit has not changed dramatically - modernization.
    The diameter and stroke have changed - this is an upgrade.
    Turbocharger, injection system others - modernization.
  • DimerVladimer 5 September 2019 11: 12 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Good about the origins of Soviet engine building is written here:
    http://forum.guns.ru/forummessage/42/258631-29.html


    I quote the author:
    On August 13, 1930, a group of aviation specialists headed by **** A.D. Charomsky turned to I. Stalin, with a letter that highlighted the state of aircraft engine building and substantiated the need for the creation of the Institute of aircraft engine building:
    "... It is known that for all 13 years (the existence of the USSR) we did not create a single finished aircraft engine that would stand on our aircraft. It is also known that for all time in the Union, various organizations designed more than 40 aircraft engines, 30 of them were put into production, about 15 were built, but not one of them is and probably will not be on airplanes. At the same time, our industry builds foreign models, engines, and our aircraft flies on outdated cars. Our pilot production was extremely barren. One of the main reasons should be considered the lack of a concentrated base of pilot construction ... "

    Thanks to the letter, according to the decision of Stalin, TsIAM (Central Institute of Aviation Motors) appeared.
    But this excerpt from A.D. Charomsky, very well shows that all the prototypes of aircraft engines built in the USSR on their own, were raw and did not become serial.
    The beginning of the entire aircraft engine industry in Russia was laid by the engines <BMW> (V-shaped), <Gnom-Ron> and <Wright> (radial), <Spanish-Suiza (V-shaped). Radial engines supervised by A.D. Shvetsov, and (V-shaped) V.Ya. Klimov (see below), and A.A. Mikulin. Moreover, Klimov remained faithful to the “Spanish-Suise” and drew inspiration from it, while Mikulin gravitated to <BMW>.

  • DimerVladimer 5 September 2019 12: 33 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    These figures indicate that in fact the ASh-82 is a completely different engine.

    The author is right to a certain extent:
    crankcase - a completely original design on which they installed a cylinder-piston group worked out by industry from Wright-Cyclone, respectively, short rods (reduced piston stroke).
    What to call this engine?
    Rather, it’s a kind of hybrid engine that combined the original crankcase design with the existing cylinder piston group (Wright cyclone) and the modified timing - I think it’s a brilliant development to take the well-known double-star scheme, but to make a new engine out of what was (produced by the industry) on a new crankcase.
    1. Barb 6 September 2019 08: 11 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      crankcase - completely original design on which they were installed cylinder-piston group worked out by industry from Wright-Cyclone, correspondingly short connecting rods (reduced piston stroke).

      The fact of the matter is that the CPG Shvetsov also changed by reducing the piston stroke to 155 mm, which led to the "stepwise development of cylinder liners and the development of piston rings" corrected the problem only towards the end of the war.
      1. DimerVladimer 6 September 2019 08: 51 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Barb
        The fact of the matter is that the CPG Shvetsov also changed by reducing the piston stroke to 155 mm, which led to the "stepwise development of cylinder liners and the development of piston rings" corrected the problem only towards the end of the war.


        Reducing the piston stroke did not affect production in any way - these are not interdependent factors.
        By the way, on the "shortened" M-71, development in the cylinder heads was also noted - so this was a common problem for the cylinder-piston group of double stars.
        Also carefully read this series of articles on the refinement of the M-82.
        And your father flew on a Li-2 Il-12 Il-14 flight engineer and with single-row, double-row Cyclones was on you
      2. dgonni 6 September 2019 17: 59 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        For Batb! In order not to write heresy, you need to be at least a little kid in the course of WHY the development has occurred and there was a low CPG resource on all air vents starting from m-25 and further M-62/63 and further M-82! To do this, you do not need to have seven spans in your forehead, but simply open a book on repairing these engines and see from which series and from what year the top of the engine cylinders was narrowed at the top when attaching the sleeve to the cylinder head!