B-2: "obstinate horse" of the Soviet tank industry

B-2: "obstinate horse" of the Soviet tank industry

B-2 - not an aviation diesel



From the very beginning it is worth making a reservation and dispelling all doubts: B-2 was not born originally as aviation motor. The situation with this unit is a little more complicated than it seems. In the early 30s, the Kharkov Locomotive Plant launched the process of developing a whole family of diesel engines under the index BD-2 (it is he who is the predecessor of the legendary V-2, this was previous section) Engaged in diesel engines in three design bureaus. The smallest of the engines was the 1-cylinder, 2-stroke DB-32. And the largest is the 18-cylinder V-shaped 18BD-3, which they planned to install on river vessels. Most, of course, were 12-cylinder engines, of which only the DB-2A could be called purely aviation.


Scout P-5. They put on it the only aviation version of the DB-2A diesel engine

It was mounted at the end of the 1935 of the year on the P-5 reconnaissance aircraft, but the tests had to be interrupted and the development of this modification was generally postponed. Then they rightly considered that it was much more important to focus on the tank version of the BD-2. Therefore, it would be more correct to say that the B-2 and its predecessor were born as multi-purpose diesels with remarkable potential for acceleration and development. In the post-war period, at least 30 modifications of this motor were used in the national economy, which by that time had already been brought to mind.


The development engineers of the tank 12-cylinder diesel engine were constantly urged on by senior officials from relevant departments. Everyone was trying at all costs to put the diesel on the conveyor. However, many, obviously, forgot that such a motor was not developed anywhere in the world before. Even in the homeland of Rudolf Diesel in Germany, they did not dare to take such a step - to develop an expensive and difficult to manufacture tank high-speed diesel. At the same time, in the USSR in 1934, after unsuccessful tests of the BD-2 on the BT tank, it was decided to build production facilities for the new motor in Kharkov. Two years later, the modified engine again could not stand the 100-hour bench test, and a number of improvements were made to its design. We strengthened the cylinder block and crankcase, increased the stiffness of the crankshaft and optimized the cam profile of the camshaft, as well as installed powerful water and oil pumps. Further, the cylinder liners were nitrided, reinforced piston and connecting rod fingers. All this was the result of the small experience of domestic engineers working with high-speed diesel engines - the shock loads on the engine components were unprecedented, and they could not cope with them.


The government understood that Kharkovites could not cope on their own, and a group of specialists in aviation diesels headed by the famous Timofey Petrovich Chupakhin were transferred from Moscow. He worked at the Central Institute of Aviation Motors (TsIAM) and was engaged in the development of the AN-1 diesel engine. Timofey Chupakhin in Kharkov received the post of deputy chief designer and by March 1938 in the year (in just a year) he managed to bring the B-2 to state tests. For this, it was necessary to make at least 2000 changes of various sizes to the diesel engine. The motor worked the required 100 hours, withstood the increase in own power by 50 l. s., then another on 100 l. pp., which ultimately provided immediately 550 l. from. at settlement 400 l. from. Comparative tests of the new product in comparison with gasoline M-5 and M-17 showed a higher specific gravity of the engine (even in the "stock" 400-strong version), a significant advantage in fuel consumption and an almost twofold increase in the range of the BT-7 tank. However, gasoline engines had a much greater warranty in 250 hours. And Chupakhin, who by that time had become the chief designer of the engine instead of the repressed Chelpan, generally spoke of power in the 1000 l. with., which could be achieved by installing a turbocharger. By the way, it was the specialists from TsIAM that taught the Kharkiv people how to make the most critical parts - precision pairs in the fuel pump, bearings, crankshaft, connecting rods ...

Period of maturation


Timofei Chupakhin is perhaps one of the most underrated heroes of the Great Patriotic War. We are used to admiring such geniuses of weapons as Koshkin, Degtyarev, Shpagin and Ilyushin, and the name of the chief designer of B-2 Chupakhin is undeservedly forgotten. But it was he, being the head of the 400 department, together with the team insisted that the engine should not be put into service prematurely. It was he who brought to mind diesel already in the Urals during the war. By the way, at one point Timofei Petrovich left the duties of the head of the “400” department and plunged headlong into only one problem - the development of tank diesel. In particular, he was very worried about the problem of the gas interface between the unit and the head, which did not meet the tightness requirements. The designer even worked out the idea of ​​a single candy bar and, if not for the war, this solution would have appeared much earlier on the B-2 family. And then I had to confine myself to a stiffer block head and a new gasket, which quite reliably retained gases inside the engine. By February of the 1939 of the year, tank diesel was again reduced in a duel with the M-17T, which the B-2 hesitantly, but nevertheless won. In particular, the commission revealed the high fire safety of the diesel tank, as well as reliable start-up due to the lack of capricious electric ignition. After these tests, the warranty period of the B-2 was recommended to be increased to 200 hours, approximately outlined how to achieve this, and the 5 of September 1939 was recommended for production. In total, at first there were three diesel engines: B-2 for BT tanks, B-2K for the KV series, and also de-accelerated to 375 l. from. B-2В for the Voroshilovets tractor unit. For heavy tanks, increase power to 600 l. from. was due to an increase in engine speed and average effective pressure. Naturally, this reduced the engine resource to just 80 hours. Since January 1940 of the year, the first tanks equipped with new diesel engines went from the plants: in Leningrad, Stalingrad and Chelyabinsk.


Timofey Petrovich Chupakhin

The Defense Committee, inspired by the successes of the new engine, issued for Kharkov on the 1940 year a plan immediately for 2700 engines, and in 1941 this number increased to 8000! The only thing that saved the situation was that the production of tanks in the USSR was seriously behind the notorious plans. The first problem when developing a diesel engine was the workers' unpreparedness for such a high culture of diesel engine production. Accustomed to the assembly of gasoline engines, the factory workers did not withstand tolerances very often, which invariably affected the quality. At the same time, the workshops were equipped with the latest technology foreign machines, which had to be installed and set up without foreign specialists - privacy considerations prevailed in this case. This was one of the reasons for the slow introduction of a new motor in the series. Often, the reason for the shortage of working B-2 diesel engines at tank plants was due to the banal lack of high-pressure fuel pumps. And such a situation was not resolved until the end of the war. The People's Commissar Malyshev in November 1940 of the year complains that the B-2 has too little warranty service life and once again demands to increase it to 150 hours, and later to 200 in general. It is not possible to do this, and by the Great Patriotic War, the engine life of tank diesel engines, even in the new version of the B-2-34 (it is clear who it was intended for) did not exceed 100 hours.


In August of 1940, a special design department and engine building bureau of the Stalingrad Tractor Plant unexpectedly appeared, who proposed to abandon the Kharkov diesel engine altogether in favor of their own project. A note with such a proposal was sent to the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, where B-2 was formally mixed with dirt and offered its own motor, which supposedly will withstand the resource in fantastically 500 hours. A number of sources claim that in November of the 40 of the year the Stalingrad Tractor nevertheless received an order to develop its “unique” tank diesel, but by March 1941 had not provided anything adequate. As a result, the plant was made another site for the assembly of competitor B-2. Also, Leningrad Plant No.174 began to be prepared for the production of Kharkov diesel.

The ending should ...
Author:
Photos used:
ru.wikipedia.org, gruzovikpress.ru, autoscience.ru
Articles from this series:
"Order B". Satisfying the motor hunger of Soviet tanks
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. andrewkor 16 November 2019 06: 02 New
    • 16
    • 1
    +15
    The V-2 story is one of my favorite topics. As a young man, I worked for Barnaultransmash, before I studied at the Air Force for a little while before the Army. The department is very strong in teaching. It is not surprising that in Barnaul there is also a giant AMZ, personnel are good and good. So one of the professors from the department told in private conversation that the B-2 was created or conceived for use in airships, which the Union had intensively developed before the war.
    In my opinion, in “Osoaviahim” B-2 would be very out of place.
    I see the aviation legacy in this engine, among other things, in the arrangement of cylinder blocks at an angle of 60 °, which is necessary for a minimum midship of the fuselage. It is best for transport motors to have called cylinders 90 °, 120 °, 180 ° (opposed).
    I’ll clarify the Author to the account of V-2 modifications, including the 6-cylinder D-6: more than 70 in the 70s!
    1. Mityay65 17 November 2019 03: 12 New
      • 6
      • 1
      +5
      Quote: andrewkor
      told in private conversation that the V-2 was created or conceived for use in airships, which the Union intensively developed before the war.

      That's right. The B-2 was originally designed as an engine for an airship. Hence the silumin and high revs. I heard this version in the 80s more than once at MSTU. Bauman. Expected to meet this version in the article.
      1. abc_alex 18 November 2019 14: 39 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        Quote: Mityai65
        That's right. The B-2 was originally designed as an engine for an airship. Hence the silumin and high revs. I heard this version in the 80s more than once at MSTU. Bauman. Expected to meet this version in the article.


        Not. When the government issued an order to KhPZ for this engine, the Kharkiv themselves abandoned the idea of ​​universalism and the engine remained only a tank one. Even this aircraft was not going to put this motor, not that on airships.
        Moreover, the airships in the USSR were built individually in single pieces. To develop a motor for 5-6 devices, for the production of which it is necessary to re-design the design bureau and the institute, and re-equip the whole factory - this is absurd.
        Moreover, the USSR had a ready-made Charomsky diesel engine. He already worked in 1938 and was put on airplanes.
        1. Mityay65 18 November 2019 15: 53 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: abc_alex
          When the government issued an order to KhPZ for this engine, the Kharkiv themselves abandoned the idea of ​​universalism and the engine remained only a tank one.

          May be. I do not insist that this version is the only true one, because heard her from other people's words. However, she explains where the B-2 has the signs of an aircraft engine: silumin, speed, circuit. Everywhere there are signs of designers fighting for the weight characteristic of aviation. It was called, I remember, as a prototype, a specialized Steyr diesel for airships.
          Quote: abc_alex
          airships in the USSR were built individually in single copies.

          In the 30s there was a whole program of building airships. They founded the cities - Dirigible, now Dolgoprudny, institutes - the Dirigible Institute in Moscow. There was the Airship Building Glavk and the large enterprise of the Airship. So with the airships in those days, everything was in full openwork ...
          Quote: abc_alex
          the USSR had a finished Charomsky diesel engine.

          In the 30s, diesel for long-range aviation was generally considered a pillar of progress. There have been many attempts to install diesel on both bombers and airships.
          1. abc_alex 18 November 2019 17: 15 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Quote: Mityai65
            However, she explains where the B-2 has the signs of an aircraft engine: silumin, speed, circuit. Everywhere there are signs of designers fighting for the weight characteristic of aviation.


            Ay, it's getting longer. Well you understand, the story of B-2 begins in the late 30s. And the history of aircraft diesel engines in the USSR is 10 years longer. In the late 20s and early 30s, three organizations took up the initiative on this topic at once. In Moscow, TsIAM and two organizations in Kharkov. But on an initiative basis. At the same time, Moscow immediately made diesel for aircraft. And in Ukraine they tried to make a station wagon. But for the aircraft it was still required a small mass.
            When in the late 30s a tank diesel was required, besides Kharkov there was nowhere to place an order. Kolomna was busy with other motors. Moreover, in Kharkov they talked about an almost finished station wagon. They gave the motor to them. But they immediately stated that the wagon could not be done. Whether this was a forgery before, or if an awareness of the error happened, I do not know. But on the basis of two Ukrainian diesel station wagons, they were allowed to make one tank. But it didn’t work out.

            Most likely, they didn’t fight for mass in V-2, although 200-500 kilograms of fuel is an additional couple of hundreds of kilometers. They just used ready-made solutions for aircraft diesel engines.
  2. Jura 27 16 November 2019 06: 17 New
    • 3
    • 4
    -1
    1. What, in the opinion of the author, are the aviation and tank versions of the BD-2 different?
    2. Fleet diesel engines were developed in a heap abroad, and to put them in a tank or plane, there is no fundamental difference.
    3. It is not entirely clearly written that the diesel engine was radically redesigned (a new engine was actually made) twice: the first time at Chelpan, the second time at Chupakhin.
    1. Evgeny Fedorov 16 November 2019 07: 39 New
      • 11
      • 0
      +11
      What, in the opinion of the author, are the aviation and tank versions of the DB-2 different?

      What matters here is not the design differences, but the fact that B-2 stubbornly considers a descendant of some kind of aircraft diesel. As I wrote in the material, in a wide range of developed diesel engines based on the BD-2 there were both stationary marine engines and lightweight for wheeled vehicles, and only ONE aviation. Why does everyone think that the B-2 turned out to be a descendant of the aircraft? If we take the angle of the collapse of the cylinders, then this is a consequence of the general unification of the line of engines. In addition, the development of the motor was carried out in Kharkov, and not at TsIAM. Although later tsiamovtsy, nevertheless, brought to mind the design.
      1. Jura 27 16 November 2019 12: 51 New
        • 3
        • 5
        -2
        [/ quote] Here, not structural differences are important, but the fact that I persistently consider V-2 a descendant of some kind of aviation diesel engine. [quote]

        How do you determine which tank engine, and which aircraft, if they have no design differences?
        B-2 was aviation, because it had structural components of the aircraft engine.
        The camber angle is determined by the ease of balancing the engine.
        1. abc_alex 18 November 2019 14: 49 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Jura 27
          How do you determine which tank engine, and which aircraft, if they have no design differences?
          B-2 was aviation, because it had structural components of the aircraft engine.
          The camber angle is determined by the ease of balancing the engine.


          There are differences. First of all, related to operating modes. Pilots are much more likely to use gas. In addition, an diesel engine is used at high altitudes, where air density changes. An AN-1 aircraft diesel engine was even tested in a mining laboratory in the Pamirs.
          1. Jura 27 19 November 2019 04: 15 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            [/ quote] First of all, related to operating modes. [quote]

            And here are the operating modes, if you, corny, have nothing to screw the screw to?
        2. seregatara1969 19 November 2019 20: 19 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          but we thought that the number of cylinders dictates the angle of collapse. so that the motor works without shaking
        3. Elturisto 19 November 2019 21: 52 New
          • 4
          • 3
          +1
          You finish fantasizing tank works at rpm close to maximum 5% and aviation 80% - is that normal?
      2. dgonni 16 November 2019 13: 53 New
        • 9
        • 11
        -2
        Parents of this device BMW aircraft engines! And initially it was built just like an aircraft engine! There are many memories in the darkness of memoirs. From tankers to production workers!
        Now why this diesel was originally intended for aviation!
        1. All-aluminum block and heads! For a tank +/- 250-300 kg, nothing is critical for an airplane!
        2. Trailed connecting rods! Again, the rise in price of construction and production technology. What is justified for aviation but not for ground equipment!
        3. 4 valves per cylinder, camshafts in the heads and drive with intermediate shafts with bevel gears! Doesn’t resemble anything?
        4. Dry sump! Why dry sump tank is unclear. For the aircraft is critical. For it is necessary both in turn and in peak!
        5. Camber angle of 60 degrees! For purely layout reasons, for servicing a tank engine, excellent access is needed. What such a collapse does not provide. Hi M-17!
        6. The ability to push the centrifugal supercharger from the M-38 and then from the M-38F without actual alterations! Hello again M-17 mu!
        P.S. There was an attempt at the peak of joint work with Germany to create a real working unit for long-range bombers. But it didn’t work out. Gasoline units have gone sharply forward in terms of power and reliability. But do not disappear good. Especially considering that in fact for the new tanks there was no normal engine in the gasoline version!
        P.S. 2. Compared with deutsche, they did not bother with diesel engines in aluminum crankcases! They had ideas in terms of cast-iron diesel engines, specifically for tanks. What did not realize? So that is a question of necessity. Maybachs were completely satisfied with them. With regards to the type of less combustible diesel! It’s not like that, it was discussed more than once.
        P.S. On the net there is a manual for the operation and repair of the M-17 engine. In the air version essno. But just look and the ancestor of V-2 will be identified by you
        1. abc_alex 18 November 2019 15: 24 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Quote: dgonni
          Parents of this device BMW aircraft engines!


          I already wrote in the previous part of the article. Just these engines have no connection with German aircraft diesel engines. Everything is more complicated here. Let's start from the end.
          B-2 is most likely a descendant of the Charomsky aircraft diesel engine. As the author correctly wrote, Timofey Chupakhin received in 1938 a practically inoperative unit that could not stand even 72 hours of bench test. And under his leadership in the design made 2000 changes. And a year later the engine was already running. I don’t know whether it is possible to study such a complex unit thoughtfully for a year, but most likely 2000 changes simply led the future B-2 to a model. Moreover, before transferring to Kharkov, Chupakhin was the general designer of AN-1. Charomsky then sat down.
          "Germans" were sent to Kharkov, captured Jumo, immediately at the time of order. But it was a completely different two-stroke engine and if borrowed from it, then most likely some separate technical solutions.
          And what about Charomsky’s engine? He inherited the decisions of Mikulinsky M-34. Charomsky worked in NAMI, where A.A. Mikulin was the chief designer for aircraft engines. This motor was not a copy of the German ones, all the more so since it was started by development already in 1928. If you think that the M-34 is a copy of the Germans, then you have to prove a lot. wink

          Quote: dgonni
          1. All-aluminum block and heads! For a tank +/- 250-300 kg, nothing is critical for an airplane!


          Not. B-2 was a tank. And never intended for aviation. But his forerunners, and there were three and all Soviet ones, were precisely aviation. And not everyone in the USSR then understood why the tank had such an engine. There were real alternatives from STZ without any aluminum. But the engine was planned not only for 20-ton tanks, but also for 5-ton ones. And other transport.

          Quote: dgonni
          4 valves per cylinder, camshafts in the heads and drive with intermediate shafts with bevel gears! Does it resemble anything?


          This is the development of Charomsky. You just do not forget that nobody did aviation diesel fuel in the USSR. And certainly not standardized. Charomsky’s motor was generally “aviation oil"Obviously, such an injection system was required for the stable operation of the engine on fuel of different" severity ".

          Quote: dgonni
          The ability to shove a centrifugal supercharger from the M-38 and then from the M-38F without actual alterations! Hello again M-17 mu!


          Ha! But do you think that in the USSR there was a nomenclature of these very superchargers? This is the USSR of the 30s, not the 70s. There were 1-2 units "to choose" and that's it. Counted on what is. And for B-2, it was just planned to boost up to 1000 hp.
          Quote: dgonni
          There was an attempt at the peak of joint work with Germany to create a real working unit for long-range bombers.


          Nope, it wasn’t. In 1930, when Charomsky began working on the AN-1, the Germans themselves did not have a working diesel engine.
          Quote: dgonni
          They had ideas in terms of cast-iron diesel engines, specifically for tanks. What did not realize? So that is a question of necessity. Maybachs were completely satisfied with them.

          The USSR took up diesel engines because it could not make a lot of high-quality gasoline. And when considering alternatives in the late 20s, it was decided that the creation of a line of engines for heavy fuels would be rational. The Germans had no problems with petrochemistry. And during the war, not only TTX decides but also the speed of transition to a new model.
          1. dgonni 18 November 2019 16: 56 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            I wrote somewhere for Deutsche's diesel engines? I clearly wrote the probable B-2 became m-17 and its further development of m-34. Roughly speaking, it was an attempt to convert an aircraft engine to a different type of fuel! If you look at the dimension of m-17th and its subsequent descendants. Then we will see that the dimension of Mikulin persisted up to am-42!
            You can object to the type of another dimension of B-2! Well, this is the price for the diesel combustion process! 150mm cylinder diameter instead of 160 for the 17th and 34th and 10mm less piston stroke. Shorter piston stroke due to a longer and heavier piston and more massive connecting rods!
            And yet I did not write that the am-34 is a copy of the German BMW. No deep processing, but in the same paradigm while maintaining the dimensionality of the main elements! Although the ancestor of the m-17 / BMW is traceable throughout the lineup!
            According to a heap of memoirs from generals to engineers, V-2 was still designed as an aircraft. And for tanks of 5 tons, he was not intended a priori. Even after it became clear that he would not go on a plane!
            The camshaft intermediate camshaft drive is not Charomsky's development! This is a common practice for aircraft engines of the same BMW. Do not be lazy and download the manual on 17m!
            And 4 valves were needed for one reason. Namely, to provide enough air to burn more than a solarium. And yet the B-2 supercharger docked easily for the reason that the dimension of the engines was similar in this regard. And there were no superchargers in the form as you imagine them! There is no turbocharging! There, each engine model had its own Drive Centrifugal Blower! And the supercharger from the Wright cyclone, the gnome of Ron, Hispanics never gets in touch with the carterlm of the original BMW! For the roots are different and completely different places of fastening of boxes of units and other necessary things!
            And the Germans had diesel engines. But that is. Yumo who grew into engines is completely different with the union.
            For gasoline is better not necessary.
            1. abc_alex 19 November 2019 00: 48 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: dgonni
              I clearly wrote the probable B-2 became m-17 and its further development of m-34. Roughly speaking, it was an attempt to convert an aircraft engine to a different type of fuel!


              It is something like this, only NOT about V-2! What you wrote is true for AN-1 Charomsky.

              Quote: dgonni
              According to a heap of memoirs from generals to engineers, V-2 was still designed as an aircraft. And for tanks of 5 tons, he was not intended a priori. Even after it became clear that he would not go on a plane!

              Any memoirs are considered authentic only conditionally. In any case, official documents clearly say: B-2 aircraft was not planned due to the refusal of KB KhPZ to develop a station wagon. B-2 was planned precisely tank.

              Quote: dgonni
              And for tanks of 5 tons, he was not intended a priori. Even after it became clear that he would not go on a plane!

              B-2 was not planned on the plane. The aircraft was already ready, working AN-1, with a capacity of 1000 hp. Why was a second half power needed? But in light T-50 tanks, the halved B-2 was just planned. Yes, the T-50 is not 5 tons, its weight is 13,5.

              Quote: dgonni
              This is a common practice for aircraft engines of the same BMW. Do not be lazy and download the manual on 17m!


              Damn, how can I explain that to you ... :) Understand that the fact that the V-2 engine uses ready-made AN-1 engine solutions does not mean that the V-2 engine itself was made like an aircraft. It’s just that in that situation, non-standard solutions were required that give a guaranteed result. Chupakhin urgently needed to bring the engine to working condition. He used what was READY. And he was ready that was done for the AN-1.
              In the same way, Koshkin had Christie's candle pendant ready, and he stuck it in the future T-34, although such a suspension is not needed at all for a caterpillar tank. And in Leningrad already made torsion bars.
    2. Amurets 16 November 2019 09: 03 New
      • 8
      • 2
      +6
      Quote: Jura 27
      1. What, in the opinion of the author, are the aviation and tank versions of the BD-2 different?

      In operating modes. The aircraft engine most of the time runs in stationary mode, at about the same power and speed as the DES. Automobile and tank options work in variable modes, about the same as urban car driving, only tougher, with overcoming obstacles. Also as tank biathlon show. By the way, on the T-72 tanks are clones of V-2, diesel V-84 and V-92. Automotive options for the V-2 diesel engine, under the brand name D-12-300 and D12-425, stood at the quarry
      dump trucks MAZ-525 and MAZ-530, respectively.
      1. Amurets 16 November 2019 09: 10 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        Quote: Amurets
        and MAZ-530, respectively.

      2. andrewkor 16 November 2019 12: 46 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        No matter how he collects these engines, their correct name: 1D12A-300 and 1D12A-525
        1. Amurets 17 November 2019 00: 38 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: andrewkor
          No matter how he collects these engines, their correct name: 1D12A-300 and 1D12A-525

          Well, to be precise, in the old GOST, the first digit indicates the purpose of the diesel engine:
          1) for stationary work (DES; diesel pumps,), We had 5D96A diesel engines on the 97E1 / 12 DES, and 5D93B on the 1E6. All diesel engines manufactured by AMZ.
          2) This is precisely what transport diesel engines are. 2D12 were MAZs and the first series of BELAZ. BELAZ 527/540.
          3) Main ship diesels.
          7) Auxiliary marine diesels. Unfortunately, I do not remember all the markings on the first digit for the intended purpose.
      3. Jura 27 16 November 2019 12: 53 New
        • 2
        • 5
        -3
        [/ quote] In operating modes. [quote]

        And here are the operating modes? I asked about something completely different.
        And by the way, about the modes: in what kind of stationary mode does the fighter’s aircraft engine operate in a “dog fight”?
        1. Amurets 16 November 2019 13: 43 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: Jura 27
          And here are the operating modes? I asked about something completely different.

          And despite the fact that the V-2 engine was produced in a very large number of options, from tank to ship, and the TNVD meant different adjustments6 in terms of power, speed and load. It all depends on how the fuel injection pump is adjusted.
          1. Jura 27 17 November 2019 05: 40 New
            • 1
            • 2
            -1
            [/ quote] It all depends on how the fuel pump is adjusted. [quote]

            The level of your knowledge is clear. I’ll try to explain in a simple way: take the motor, adjust the fuel pump “aviation” and put it on the plane, but it turns out that there is nowhere to install the screw, because there is no protruding toe of the crankshaft, and there is no sense in adding a screw in a different way, because inside there is no thrust bearing (which receives pulling forces from the screw), and you can do some kind of loop (if all this miraculously took off), only once, because if the motor does not have a dry crankcase, then the engine at the end of the loop "without oil in friction pairs.
            1. Amurets 18 November 2019 10: 06 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Jura 27
              I’ll try to explain in a simple way: take the motor, adjust the fuel pump “aviation” and put it on the plane,

              Do not exaggerate! Power from the engine can be removed from both ends of the K / V example, the D-100 diesel engine, its power is removed from the wallpaper of the K / V ends. I. immediately about the thrust bearing, each engine has it, it controls the longitudinal take-off K / V. And if the strength of the bearing installed in the engine for power take-off is not enough, then an external thrust bearing is installed. As for the dry sump? It belongs to the external oil system and look at the diagram of the V-2 diesel oil system, it is made with a dry sump, and it is done for various reasons, not only on aircraft engines, mainly because of the small volume of the crankcase.
              1. The comment was deleted.
              2. Jura 27 19 November 2019 04: 24 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                [/ quote] Power from the engine can be removed from both ends [quote]

                Thanks, laughed !!! Particularly delivered about the removal of power from both ends (I had a friend for a long time, which removed power even from three ends, and at the same time!), In the light of my question: where will the propeller be screwed. Well, about the thrust bearing and dry sump, - also fun!
                Then let me take my leave from conversations with you. I hope that you will kindly do the same.
            2. Rzzz 18 November 2019 14: 51 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              The B-2 has a dry sump, and the thrust bearing problem is not a problem at all. On ship 3D6 and 3D12, three thrust bearings are in the reverse gear on the output shaft. On airplanes, the propeller also spins through the gearbox, it is obvious that the bearings are there.
      4. Locksmith 16 November 2019 18: 18 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        Quote: Amurets
        By the way, on the T-72 tanks are clones of V-2, diesel V-84 and V-92

        What fright did they become clones of? this is tantamount to saying that you are a clone of your second cousin. laughing
        1. Amurets 17 November 2019 00: 46 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Quote: Locksmith
          What fright did they become clones of? it's tantamount to saying that you are a clone of your second cousin

          No, these are siblings. laughing lol laughing lol
          Blocks, crankcase, heads, crankshaft are modernized V-2 diesel units.
          1. Locksmith 20 November 2019 17: 14 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Amurets
            No, these are siblings.
            Blocks, crankcase, heads, crankshaft are modernized V-2 diesel units.

            Well, they would write that this is a development, a clone is a complete copy !! wink
  3. Jura 27 16 November 2019 06: 20 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    [/ quote] In January 1940, the first tanks equipped with new diesel engines left the plants: in Leningrad, Stalingrad and Chelyabinsk. [quote]

    Which tank went in Chelyabinsk since January 1940?
    1. Evgeny Fedorov 16 November 2019 06: 28 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      Yes, I agree, not from January, but from the end of December 1940 of the year. The first Chelyabinsk HF.
  4. Jura 27 16 November 2019 06: 53 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Quote: Yevgeny Fedorov
    Yes, I agree, not from January, but from the end of December 1940 of the year. The first Chelyabinsk HF.

    You have beguiled the year, the first KV with ChTZ came out in 41.
    1. sibiryouk 16 November 2019 12: 58 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      And in Stalingrad, the first T-34 tank was released only in 1941.
      1. Alexey RA 19 November 2019 12: 14 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: sibiryouk
        And in Stalingrad, the first T-34 tank was released only in 1941.

        The first T-34 in Stalingrad was assembled on June 17, 1940. But he went only after a couple of months. Because this tank was made almost manually according to the set of documentation collected from different versions of the drawings (STZ complained that the tower drawings did not fit with the drawings of the hull) and without documentation for various devices for the manufacture of parts and components of the tank.
        By November 1940, two tanks of the first series were assembled at the STZ, but without weapons. And by the end of the year 23 semi-finished T-34s were in the workshops, the plant could not complete the assembly.
  5. Jura 27 16 November 2019 06: 59 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    [/ quote] Scout R-5. They put on it the only aviation version of the BD-2A diesel engine
    It was mounted at the end of 1935 on an R-5 reconnaissance aircraft, but the tests had to be interrupted [quote]

    Where does this bike come from? Shavrov writes that the German diesel engine YuMO was installed on the P-5, but Shavrov did not say a word about the installation of the BD-2 (or at least B-2). And by the way, about the influence of the “Spanish” UMO (discussion in a previous article): German diesel, in several copies, was quite officially bought back in 1935.
    1. Saxahorse 17 November 2019 19: 41 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Jura 27
      Where does this bike come from? Shavrov writes that the German diesel engine YuMO was installed on the P-5, but Shavrov did not say a word about the installation of the BD-2 (or at least B-2).

      Do not exaggerate the encyclopedia of Shavrov. He composed his famous book on Soviet aircraft for the most part from the memory and recollections of friends and acquaintances. There are a lot of discrepancies with documents.
  6. Amurets 16 November 2019 07: 12 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    [quote] A number of sources claim that in November 40, the Stalingrad Tractor Tractor nevertheless received an order to develop its “unique” tank diesel, but by March 1941 had not provided anything adequate. As a result, the plant was made another site for the assembly of competitor B-2. Also, Leningrad Plant No. 174 began to be prepared for the production of Kharkov diesel. [Quote] Thank you! Author. Yes, and I read similar materials about the Stalingrad diesel, but I will be brief. Stalingraders engaged in utopia. Even with separate, well-developed components and assemblies, it is difficult to get them to work in a complex, it takes time to refine. I do not say that the Stalingrad diesel is bad, it is none, it was not assembled. V-2K diesels were initially produced at LKZ. "There was another modification of this engine - the V-2K, which was characterized by an increased power up to 442 kW (600 hp). An increase in power was achieved by increasing the compression ratio by 0,6–1 units ., increase of the crankshaft rotation speed by 200 min – 1 (up to 2 min – 000) and fuel supply The modification was originally intended for installation on heavy tanks KB and was made at the Leningrad Kirov Plant (LKZ) according to the KhPZ documentation. with the base model do not change vivo Recording ".http: //www.gruzovikpress.ru/article/1-dizelniy-dvigatel-v-2993/
    1. abc_alex 19 November 2019 12: 07 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Amurets
      A number of sources claim that in November 40, the Stalingrad Tractor Tractor nevertheless received an order to develop its “unique” tank diesel, but by March 1941 had not provided anything adequate.


      Not an order. Permission was given to begin work. And in March 1941 nothing could have happened in principle. Too little time has passed since the letter was sent to the Central Committee. There, by March, they probably didn’t even manage to get to work.
      1. Amurets 19 November 2019 14: 38 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: abc_alex
        Not an order. Permission was given to begin work. And in March 1941 nothing could have happened in principle.
        Well, why? Could begin preliminary design, calculations. layout solutions. It is clear that the detailing, the technical process, this should come later. Moreover, according to the material that you dumped me the last time, it is clear that the Stalingraders wanted to use those achievements that they had. And this is a very big help. And one more thing, even during the Second World War, work on improving the B-2 was carried out. V-44 options were released; AT 11; AT 12. After the war, the development of the following versions of the B-2 began.
        1. abc_alex 19 November 2019 21: 27 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          The letter was submitted to the Central Committee in August. Only on November 20, 1940, the Defense Committee under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR adopted decree No. 426ss “On the creation of a new tank engine with a capacity of 500 l at STZ. from. and longer life. ” It was ordered by the end of January 1941 to collect 5 samples for testing. But the development money was ordered to be allocated "no later than April 15, 1940." They could start, of course, but by March they could not "provide something adequate" in principle. Well, judge for yourself, the same B-2 sawed at least since 1936, by the efforts of three organizations.
          1. Amurets 19 November 2019 23: 56 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: abc_alex
            Well, judge for yourself, the same B-2 sawed at least since 1936, by the efforts of three organizations.

            Well, there can be no doubt here. From the beginning of the 50s, after the Second World War, the development of the new ZiS-E-129, the predecessor of the ZiL-130/375 series, began and only after 10 years they went on stream. So I completely agree with you.
  7. mark1 16 November 2019 08: 32 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Quote: andrewkor
    I see the aviation legacy in this engine, among other things, in the arrangement of the cylinder blocks at an angle of 60 °, which is necessary for a minimum midship of the fuselage

    It is rather a solution to the issue of engine balance, for the V12 one of the most optimal angles.
    1. Zufei 16 November 2019 11: 51 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      The 6-cylinder in-line is the most balanced engine. When they are connected in V, the angle of the collapse of the blocks does not matter for balance and is set only by the layout.
      1. mark1 16 November 2019 19: 13 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        This is all true - in theory. in fact, when tweaking V 12 aircraft engines, shaking was a common occurrence. They tried to get rid of it in different ways - counterweights, a special bore of the crankshaft necks, etc. For example, when developing the M-14 on the basis of the M-5, the displacement and crankshaft speed were increased, and the angle of the collapse of the cylinders was increased from 45 to 60 degrees to reduce shaking.
  8. Paul Siebert 16 November 2019 08: 45 New
    • 5
    • 3
    +2
    Well done, the Soviet engine! The Germans until the end of the war could not put adequate diesel on their tanks. We went to gasoline. And they are more fire hazard.
    An excellent answer to the position of the Russophobes, they say: "Russians can only copy well!"
    1. Zeev Zeev 16 November 2019 11: 50 New
      • 7
      • 6
      +1
      The Germans were in no hurry to put diesel tanks on the tanks due to a lack of natural fuel. Germany does not have its own oil, the Soviet (until June 1941) Romanian and Polish (since 1939) hardly had enough to manufacture joiners for diesel submarines, and synthetic gasoline was made from ordinary brown coal.
      1. Operator 16 November 2019 12: 20 New
        • 12
        • 10
        +2
        Oh wey - the team of heroes from the Nemetschina couldn’t take what the Russian “quilted jackets” did, and now the Jews from Israel still have to wriggle in their ears, inventing excuses for the so beloved German “gloomy genius”.

        Bdsm, not? laughing
        1. Zeev Zeev 16 November 2019 12: 34 New
          • 7
          • 6
          +1
          Excuses for the Germans? C fig? We must really look at the situation. The Germans could not afford to put a diesel engine for lack of fuel for them. And then something strange comes out: the Americans were able to develop and deliver, the British were able, but the Germans were not?
          1. tesser 16 November 2019 13: 31 New
            • 3
            • 6
            -3
            Quote: Zeev Zeev
            C fig? We must really look at the situation. The Germans could not afford to put a diesel engine for lack of fuel for them.

            This is a common bike that grows from the "intelligence" of Soviet intelligence of those years. In reality, the Wehrmacht expected to receive (but did not receive) a unified diesel truck, which, taking into account the quantity and intensity of operation, spends more fuel than a tank.

            The gasoline engine on German (and American) tanks appeared due to random, by and large, circumstances. The Germans had problems with the transmission at high torque, which they decided to cure by increasing engine speed at a moderate moment. A gasoline engine is better suited for such a concept. Over time, they changed their minds and tried to replay, but no longer had time.
        2. vadim dok 16 November 2019 19: 33 New
          • 4
          • 1
          +3
          Diesels stood on all German submarines, as well as on almost all ships and even on pocket battleships! The German Navy did not give diesel fuel (which they CANNOT synthesize in contrast to gasoline) for the army. In addition, the army had UNIFICATION of fuel (gasoline) for all transport and combat vehicles! And today some of the best diesel engines in the world are German!
          1. Oyo Sarkazmi 16 November 2019 20: 55 New
            • 2
            • 3
            -1
            Only tanks need diesel - small, not 19 tons. Therefore, ships and diesel engines for submarines were made in Germany, and the "small" ones did not work. But the tanks were still powered by aircraft engines. Hence the high revs. But - an unsuccessful layout requiring a large armored hull - overloading a transmission made of low-quality, manganese-free steel.
            In general, the school of tank engineering and metal science in Germany was useless.
            1. tesser 16 November 2019 21: 48 New
              • 6
              • 4
              +2
              Quote: Oyo Sarkazmi
              small "- did not work

              Take an interest in a materiel already. Small diesels did not work in the USSR, but in general none did. KoJu and others. The Germans and Bohemians (Czechs) had diesel engines on trucks by that time for a long time.
          2. Amurets 17 November 2019 01: 24 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: vadim dok
            On all German submarines, as well as on almost all ships and even on pocket battleships, diesel engines stood!

            About the "pocket battleships", there were enough problems above the roof. "on the head" Deutschland ", which served
            a kind of testing ground for revision.
            The problems were primarily
            but with crossheads and piston rods.
            Only after I managed to understand
            causes of accidents and breakdowns, engineers
            firms and ship mechanics were able
            fully master the situation and ensure
            to read the stable work of the energy sector.
            Coffman. "Pocket battleship Fuhrer
            "KO R S AR T R E T E G O R E Y Y A".
            Synthetic diesel fuel was in Germany. For synthetic fuel see
            Aviasolarka. Since the Germans used diesel engines quite normally (Junkers “Yumo” 204, 205) on airplanes, they required special diesel fuel. It also had two types, E1 - from oil and E2 - synthetic.
            It is worth noting that synthetic diesel fuel could not become a full-fledged substitute for oil. The main reason is the same as that of gasoline - a tendency to thicken at low temperatures. In this regard, synthetic diesel fuel could give odds to synthetic gasoline.
            https://topwar.ru/158494-benzin-i-diztoplivo-tretego-rejha-legendy-i-mify.html
        3. Antares 17 November 2019 12: 43 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Quote: Operator
          Oh, wei - the teamworkers from Nemetschyn didn’t know what the Russian quilted jackets did

          in the absence of oil supplies, they were able to synthesize the artificial.
          And the best Chem. industry tried to save Germany from fuel hunger twice in a century.
          The chemists of the Germans were always outstanding.
          The Germans in general in science have always been in leading roles.
          1. Operator 17 November 2019 13: 22 New
            • 7
            • 3
            +4
            This is not about German chemists (synthesizing gasoline and diesel fuel from coal), but about German engine engineers (who in the 1940's could not create a high-speed diesel from aluminum).
    2. Alexey RA 19 November 2019 12: 19 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Paul Siebert
      The Germans until the end of the war could not put adequate diesel on their tanks. We went to gasoline. And they are more fire hazard.

      The specialists of the NIIBT Polygon in 1942 did not notice a special fire hazard of the German engines.
      The Germans' use of a carbureted engine, rather than a diesel engine, on a new tank released in 1942 can be explained:
      a) the specifics of the fuel balance of Germany, in which the main role is played by synthetic gasolines, benzenes and alcohol mixtures, unsuitable for burning in diesel engines;
      b) the advantage of a carburetor engine over a diesel engine according to such important indicators for the tank as the minimum dimensions possible for a given power, reliable start-up in winter time and ease of manufacture;
      at) a very significant in combat conditions, the percentage of tank fires with diesel engines and the absence of significant advantages over carburetor engines in this regard, especially with the competent design of the latter and the availability of reliable automatic fire extinguishers;
      d) the short life of tank engines due to the extremely low survivability of tanks in combat conditions, because of which the cost of gasoline saved when using a diesel engine on a tank does not have time to justify the increased consumption of alloy steels and highly skilled labor required for the manufacture of a diesel engine, not less scarce in wartime than liquid fuels.

      Moreover, in October of the same 1942, the percentage of fires on diesel T-34s was higher than on carburetor T-70s.
      1. Operator 19 November 2019 12: 45 New
        • 11
        • 0
        +11
        You forgot how to read the reports of Soviet research institutes laughing

        How did the associate professors with candidates in 1942 know the combat ratio of fires in tanks equipped with diesel and carburetor engines, respectively? The usual pseudoscopic chatter of parasites, which had previously been suspended from practical work on promising engine models for complete engineering impotence. The statement that a tank equipped with automatic fire extinguishing means is better than a tank without these means generally refers to sayings like “don't drink raw water”.
        1. Alexey RA 19 November 2019 12: 56 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Operator
          How did the assistant professors with candidates in 1942 know the combat ratio of fires in tanks equipped with diesel and carburetor engines, respectively?

          I made a mistake in the date - report of 1943. crying
          And at that time there was already statistics on the T-34 and T-70 - they burn the same, diesel sometimes even more often.
          1. Operator 19 November 2019 13: 18 New
            • 11
            • 0
            +11
            How to understand the word "sometimes" in the summary report? laughing

            And then - it is impossible to compare the absolute number of tanks burned down, respectively, with diesel and carburetor engines (since there were more banal ones first), but we must compare the specific indicators of “total destroyed / including burned out”.

            PS In Soviet times, university graduates were sent to teachers, science, design bureaus and to production, but nowhere in demand - to industrial research institutes such as today's consulting offices "any whim for your money."
            1. Alexey RA 19 November 2019 13: 27 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Operator
              How to understand the word "sometimes" in the summary report? laughing

              Comparative statistics on fires are publicly available as of October 1942. Therefore, in order not to stretch the particular to the general, I wrote "sometimes."
              Here are the data for July 1943:
              Inspection of 154 damaged T-34 tanks both at repair plants and on the battlefield showed that the total loss of vehicles from fires after being hit by artillery shells amounted to 24,6% (38 vehicles). The number of holes in each machine ranged from one to seventeen with a caliber of shells from 20 to 88 mm. Of the 58 T-34 tanks examined at the places of failure, 37, i.e., 63,8%, were burned, and 48,7% of them were destroyed by an ammunition explosion, which brought them into the category of irretrievable losses. 92% of the cars that exploded had bottoms knocked out by the explosion. The number of hits in separate parts of the hull and turret ranged from one to five shells (caliber from 50 to 88 mm). Inspection of heavy KB tanks on the battlefield revealed that out of 32 wrecked vehicles, 11 (34,4%) were burned out, the number of shell hits in individual structural elements ranged from one to twelve.

              And the statistics of the 2nd MK for 1942-1943
              2nd mechanized corps from 30.09.42/01.04.43/10 to 108/34/94 lost: 70 KV, 5,71 T-64 and 488 T-34, including 168 and 95 cars burned down, respectively. During the offensive battles on the Kursk Bulge, out of 57 T tanks, XNUMX were injured, and XNUMX of them (XNUMX%) were irretrievably lost due to fires.

              © TO THE HISTORY OF CREATION OF THE AUTOMATIC SYSTEM PPO
              1. Operator 19 November 2019 13: 32 New
                • 11
                • 0
                +11
                Quote: Alexey RA
                lost 10 KV, 108 T-34 and 94 T-70, including 5,71 and 64 cars burned, respectively

                What is 5,71?

                Even if 57 is meant, the fire hazard of gasoline T-70 was still greater than diesel HF and T-34. Which clearly confirms the presence of lies in the report of the research institute.
                1. Amurets 19 November 2019 15: 03 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Operator
                  lost 10 KV, 108 T-34 and 94 T-70, including 5,71 and 64 cars burned, respectively

                  Well, it happens that Alexey RA (Alexey) made a mistake, a stylistic mistake. The 2nd MK lost 10 KV, of which 5 were burned. T-34 lost 108 tanks, 71 of them burned down
                  1. Operator 19 November 2019 15: 11 New
                    • 11
                    • 0
                    +11
                    76 from 118 is 64%, and 64 from 94 is 68%, so the point is not in the style of the comment, but in the compilers of the report of the research institute.
                2. Alexey RA 19 November 2019 19: 56 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Operator

                  What is 5,71?

                  These are 5 and 71. 5 KV and 71 T-34s burned down.
  9. Ravik 16 November 2019 09: 10 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: andrewkor
    As a young man, he worked for Barnaultransmash, before he studied for the Army a bit, he studied at the IPA on ICE.

    And no escape from fellow countrymen drinks
  10. geologist 16 November 2019 10: 37 New
    • 9
    • 1
    +8
    This diesel engine was not born as an aircraft engine, but was born from them. Where did these aluminum parents come from? This article is not clear. We are offered a locomotive-steamship version, which, in my opinion, does not withstand criticism. And I offer a choice of aviation ancestors - Spanish-Suiza or BMW VI in the licensed version. Fuel equipment, of course, BOSCH because with the Germans were good contacts in the early 30s. This motor is beautiful and terrible. When he roars it is a song, but unfortunately more often it is under repair because motor resource is very limited. 100 hours is the norm for aviation in 1922-25 and for a mass tank it is bad. The motor was created for 10 years and has been pulled by a lot of absurdities since the childhood of aviation. Why did you choose, not a V-shaped, but a Y-shaped scheme with different piston strokes and connecting rod sizes. This scheme gives a slight reduction in weight with a serious decrease in reliability. For aviation, fighting weight is more important, but for tanks this is not significant. Therefore, I still bow to the version of the aviation ancestor of B2. It would be interesting to follow all the steps to create this famous engine with error analysis. Why did it take so long? Probably wandered in the dark, correcting errors by typing. At first, the engine could only work for a few minutes and constantly had to redo something and strengthen it, then the engineers changed, sent new ones and again the failures were repeated. This drama of people and design still requires its own epic description.
    1. mark1 16 November 2019 11: 09 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: geologist
      Therefore, I still bow to the version of the aviation ancestor of B2.

      Why did you decide that there must necessarily be specific ancestors (probably we mean design prototypes). If consider. that the task was for a universal engine, then the requirements applied to it, including the aviation one. Hence the desire to reduce weight - silumin and the use of trailed connecting rods (this scheme does not cause a special decrease in reliability but decently reduces the length).
    2. Locksmith 16 November 2019 18: 24 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: geologist
      Why did you choose, not a V-shaped, but a Y-shaped scheme with different piston strokes and connecting rod sizes. This scheme gives a slight reduction in weight with a serious decrease in reliability.

      This scheme provides a sharp reduction in engine length, which is important in placement in the reserved space. and in particular with different lengths of connecting rods - nobody seriously hovering is purely technological parks, this is once and for all, and about the unreliability of trailed connecting rods - tell modern motorists about this, it will be neighing over (someone).
  11. vnord 16 November 2019 10: 42 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    while studying at the institute, we studied the design of V-2, gave the teacher information that it was originally developed as an aircraft engine and one of the arguments in favor of this version is the presence of a dry crankcase in the lubrication system. That is, this ICE can work in any position ..
  12. Operator 16 November 2019 11: 59 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    Chelpan - designer, Chupakhin - technologist of the B-2 diesel engine.

    The problems of B-2 were the reluctance of management to spend time and money on development work and high-quality preparation of engine production, including personnel training.
  13. Operator 16 November 2019 13: 24 New
    • 5
    • 5
    0
    Quote: Zeev Zeev
    The Germans could not afford to put a diesel engine for lack of fuel for them

    Have you been banned in Google? laughing
  14. trahterist 16 November 2019 17: 15 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: Zufei
    The 6-cylinder in-line is the most balanced engine. When they are connected in V, the angle of the collapse of the blocks does not matter for balance and is set only by the layout.

    If you get clever, my dear, then with knowledge of the materiel.
    For V12, this camber angle (75 °) is really the most optimal, well, almost, in the absolute, 72 ° will be.
    And the optimally balanced engine in general is V16 (42 ° camber).
    Tired of the order of the fable about the "perfect six."
    Such a general fashion, in this period, on R6, is only in optimal balance in terms of mass and size and simplicity of design.
    And that is a bunch of nuances.
    What doesn’t interfere with making V-shafts with a very different number of cylinders, camber angles, while perfectly balanced.
    1. tesser 16 November 2019 21: 49 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      Quote: trahterist
      V-pulleys with a very different number of cylinders, camber angles, while perfectly balanced.

      Additional shafts.
      V16 (camber 42 °).

      In those years, even the British did not risk making the crankshaft longer than 12 pots. The Americans played for some time and quit.
  15. Nycomed 16 November 2019 17: 47 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Great engine! They were installed on rigs! yes good
  16. Eug
    Eug 16 November 2019 18: 45 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    The article once again saw confirmation that the vast majority of repressed and, accordingly, repressed in the technical sphere were “vaccinated” against irresponsibility and self-promotion .....
  17. PilotS37 17 November 2019 14: 45 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Comparative tests of the new product in comparison with gasoline M-5 and M-17 showed a higher specific gravity of the engine (even in the "stock" 400-horsepower version),

    Perhaps, on the contrary: a lower specific gravity of the engine or - or rather - a higher specific power?
  18. Jura 27 18 November 2019 04: 38 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: Saxahorse
    Quote: Jura 27
    Where does this bike come from? Shavrov writes that the German diesel engine YuMO was installed on the P-5, but Shavrov did not say a word about the installation of the BD-2 (or at least B-2).

    Do not exaggerate the encyclopedia of Shavrov. He composed his famous book on Soviet aircraft for the most part from the memory and recollections of friends and acquaintances. There are a lot of discrepancies with documents.

    At a minimum, there is a photo of R-5 with a YuMO diesel engine, but there is no photo from BD-2, or at least from B-2. And dokumasov that BD-2 (or V-2) was placed at least on some sort of plane is not there, but there are only Internet bikes of unknown origin.
  19. Jura 27 18 November 2019 04: 41 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: PilotS37
    Comparative tests of the new product in comparison with gasoline M-5 and M-17 showed a higher specific gravity of the engine (even in the "stock" 400-horsepower version),

    Perhaps, on the contrary: a lower specific gravity of the engine or - or rather - a higher specific power?

    In this case, it is correctly written: namely, a higher specific gravity, because the diesel engines of that time were inferior to lighters in this indicator.
  20. abc_alex 18 November 2019 14: 30 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    I am pleased to put the article plus.
  21. Alexey RA 19 November 2019 11: 59 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    The Defense Committee, inspired by the successes of the new engine, issued for Kharkov for 1940 a plan for 2700 engines at once, and in 1941 this number increased to 8000! The only thing that saved the situation was that the production of tanks in the USSR was seriously behind the notorious plans.

    In fact, the situation with the production of B-2 before the war was awful. According to Shein / Ulanov, the production of V-2 exceeded the production of tanks with it by only 10%. This, coupled with low motor resources, was one of the reasons for limiting the number of tanks of the combat training fleet of new models and, consequently, the lack of trained crews. In the spring of 1941, all border districts had a little more than 100 KV and T-34s of the 2nd category, the rest belonged to the 1st (storage in boxes or on sites, the consumption of motor resources was allowed only at the final exercises).
    Just to understand the extent of the problem with the resource and the lack of spare engines: only one tank driving training course ate 40-50 hours. For everyone should be able to drive. That is, they prepared two crews - and the motor resource was used up.
  22. Elturisto 19 November 2019 21: 47 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    A sensible article. Thank you to the author. To my shame, I did not know anything about Timofey Chupakhin.
    1. Amurets 20 November 2019 00: 34 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: ElTuristo
      To his shame, he did not know anything about Timofey Chupakhin.

      And little was written about him. There were just mentions that he participated in the creation of the V-2 diesel engine. The M-30 and M-40 diesel engines are attributed to purely Charomsky, but after Charomsky, V.M. was engaged in the M-40 diesel Yakovlev, and Charomsky, in sharashka, was engaged in the diesel engine M-30 / ACh-31 ..
  23. Dedok 3 February 2020 14: 59 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    An unconvincing article: there are many reasons for this.
    Spend aluminum on diesel for a tank - who allowed ???
    About the collapse of the block - they already wrote.
    About that on PE8 - tried to put the diesel engine is not written, although this is the same ...
    About the differences between the AN-1 and B-2 is not written ...
    It is written about bearings, precision pairs, etc. - already worked for the bearing industry, precision pairs should not only be designed, but, most importantly, equipment and machine tools needed ...
    Unconvincing ...
  24. Dedok 3 February 2020 15: 23 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: Amurets
    Quote: andrewkor
    No matter how he collects these engines, their correct name: 1D12A-300 and 1D12A-525

    Well, to be precise, in the old GOST, the first digit indicates the purpose of the diesel engine:
    1) for stationary work (DES; diesel pumps,), We had 5D96A diesel engines on the 97E1 / 12 DES, and 5D93B on the 1E6. All diesel engines manufactured by AMZ.
    2) This is precisely what transport diesel engines are. 2D12 were MAZs and the first series of BELAZ. BELAZ 527/540.
    3) Main ship diesels.
    7) Auxiliary marine diesels. Unfortunately, I do not remember all the markings on the first digit for the intended purpose.

    At MAZ - 12 cylinder was never installed.
    At MoAz - yes, I stood.