Creation of promising Soviet fighters in 1941

At the end of 1940, on the instructions of the Supreme Commander of our country Joseph Stalin, a plan for serial production of all aircraft for the next year was drawn up. And this plan during 1941 practically did not change from the point of view of types of the produced objects.

The changes affected only the quantitative indicators of aircraft. MiG-3, Yak-1 and LaGG-3 fighters were launched into serial production.

The last plane in the top three fighters stood out, first of all, the largest number aviation factories that were allocated for its production (LaGG-3 was put into production at six plants): No. 21 in Gorky, No. 23 in Leningrad, No. 31 in Taganrog, No. 165 in Dnepropetrovsk, No. 153 in Novosibirsk, No. 463 in Tallinn ... Semyon Alekseevich Lavochkin was appointed chief designer.

Why did the workers of the plant in Gorky react negatively to Lavochkin's arrival? What weapons were planned to be installed on the new fighters? Who developed samples of advanced aircraft weapons in the country? Which aircraft armament became the leader in the competitive selection? Aviation historian Gennady Serov will answer these and other questions.

Comments

[Amateur]

At the end of 1940, as directed supreme commander of our country Joseph Stalin

I.V. Stalin in 1940 was NOT the supreme commander.

I.V. Stalin served as Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR (1941-1946), Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR (1946-1953). Since 1941, Stalin held the highest military posts of the USSR: Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the USSR (since 1941), Chairman of the State Committee of Defense (1941-1945), People's Commissar of Defense of the USSR (1941-1946), People's Commissar of the Armed Forces of the USSR (1946-1947) .

+ party posts.

In the USSR, the post of supreme commander was introduced only for the period of the war.

[lucul]

I look in the forehead at our Yaks, Stalls ..... and look at Spitfires, Mustangs, Thunderbolts, Corsairs .... And a huge difference is evident in the size of the screws (diameter 3 meters versus 4 meters), and number of blades too. But in the thrust-to-weight ratio of a piston fighter, the screw plays far from the last role. No, it’s clear that Corsair and others needed such a huge propeller for flying at high altitudes, where the air density is too low. But why do we, even the experimental high-altitude interceptors, the screw still had a fairly modest size? No one betrayed the screw value, or did not realize its benefits for increasing speed? Or after Polikarpov no one wanted to experiment? Something like few articles on this topic.

[adler87]

Just the power of our motors were not high

[lucul]

Just the power of our motors were not high

What are you - pure 1850 hp on the M-82 engine, which stood on the La-5FN / La-7, against, for example, the Mustang D with the Merlin engine, at 1500 hp)))

[Vladimir_2U]

Do not forget the weight and balance of the propeller; our aircraft industry had a noticeably lower culture, unfortunately, the T-bolt also had a power of 2100 hp. with D. screw 3,96 m, but Mustang D. already 3,4 m. By the number of blades, the adjustable-pitch screw is a complex product, and our designers did not master the four blades in the hub of the sane diameter, again because of the weak technological base . I read just such an explanation.

[lucul]

In addition, the T-bolt has a power of 2100 hp

Only on high-octane gasoline and for a very short time.

By the number of blades, the adjustable pitch screw is a complex product, and our designers did not master the four blades in the hub of the sane diameter, again due to the weak technological base. I read just such an explanation.

Yes, everything is simple there - on our planes, the guns fired through the propeller, there was a special synchronizer so as not to shoot off the propeller blades, inadvertently. And the installation of four, and even more so 5-6 rotor blades, catastrophically reduced the rate of fire of guns. the Americans were not able to create their firing synchronizer, which is why they placed their machine guns in the wings, and not in the fuselage, outside the diameter of the propeller.

don't forget, our aviation industry had a much lower culture,

Yes, not the culture was lower, but the more backward machine park was the reason.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: lucul

In addition, the T-bolt has a power of 2100 hp
Only on high-octane gasoline and for a very short time.

Checked, this is not so, 2000 nominally, on the first mod. and further up to 2500 par. Well, Americans have always had high octane gasoline. )))

Quote: lucul

on our planes, guns fired through a screw, there was a special synchronizer

The motor gun on the Yaks and LAGG will not agree with you.)))

Quote: lucul

Americans could not create their firing synchronizer

Ours were able, the Germans were able and the Americans are not? Nonsense is complete!

The first Mustangs with an Allison engine carried two 12,7 mm machine guns mounted under the hood. The machine guns were equipped with a synchronizer, which allowed to shoot at engine operating modes from 1000 to 3000 rpm.

https://military.wikireading.ru/23239
Just, I think, they did not bother and push the guns under the hood, at the same time the forms were cleaner.

Quote: lucul

And the installation of four, and even more so 5-6 blade propellers, catastrophically reduced the rate of guns

It’s illogical, if they didn’t put the guns under the hood, then they could have put 5-6 blades, right? However, they did not. So the point is precisely this, not counting the power of the motor by itself, in the hub of the adjustable screw, the more blades, the either the hub is larger, or the rotation mechanisms are smaller, and therefore require more development of technology. And four blades instead of three would reduce the rate of well by 15 percent. well 25 percent maximum, where is the disaster?

Quote: lucul

Yes, not the culture was lower, but the more backward machine park was the reason.

And that too.

[lucul]

Checked, this is not so, 2000 nominally, on the first mod. and further up to 2500 par.

Also checked

The main technical feature of the Thunderbolt was the installation of a turbocompressor (TC), which ensured a high altitude power plant. Thanks to the TC, which worked as the first stage of the supercharger, the motor power of the R-2800-63 in the nominal mode is 1625 liters. with. preserved to a height of 8850 m, on the battlefield - 2000 liters with. up to 8250 m, and on the emergency - 2300 liters. with. up to 7620 m. Other engine options, such as the R-2800-21 or -59, which also stood on the Thunderbolts, were mostly distinguished by altitude and emergency power.

That is, in fact, all emergency power was achieved using
water-methanol mixture
, "afterburner (5 min), b.r. - combat mode (15 min), h.r. - emergency mode (5 minutes)."
More details "https://airpages.ru/us/p47_2.shtml"

Just, I think, they did not bother and push the guns under the hood, at the same time the forms were cleaner.

Yeah, and therefore they shoved 6 machine guns into the wings, as a result of which, Mustang at speeds up to 400 km / h had a low roll speed (Thunderbolt too, there really is a different graphics curve, but still), and only at 600 km / h increased to 90gr / s.

[A.TOR]

The USA did not just COULD create a synchronizer - it created the world's only electric synchronizer for firing through SOOS propellers on the experienced P-75 "Eagle" heavy escort fighter.
The placement of heavy machine guns in the wing was more expedient for several reasons.

[lucul]

The placement of heavy machine guns in the wing was more expedient for several reasons.

For the pilot - there is nothing better than fuselage weapons, not wing. And jet fighters only confirmed this. As the screw was removed, so immediately everyone began to place weapons only in the fuselage ....

[A.TOR]

After the "disappearance" of the screw - yes.
I wrote that creating a synchronizer for the US was not a problem

[Grigory_45]

Quote: lucul

As the screw was removed, so immediately everyone began to place weapons only in the fuselage ....

the wings of a jet plane are thinner. Not always successfully weapons fit into the wings of piston engines (had to put fairings), and even more so into the jet shove. In addition, the bow is freed not only from the screw, but also from the motor - put it, and the weight distribution, you know ....

[Grigory_45]

Quote: lucul

Yes, everything is simple there - on our planes, guns fired through a propeller, there was a special synchronizer so as not to shoot off the propeller blades, inadvertently. And the installation of four, and even more so 5-6 blade propellers, catastrophically reduced the rate of guns

the rate of fire would be slightly reduced, but the ammunition load would be simply brutal. The Americans had to negotiate their "fortresses", and for them the ammunition load was very important. Even if by chewing the caliber of weapons. However, for fighters and 12,7 is effective

[NF68]

Quote: lucul

Just the power of our motors were not high

What are you - pure 1850 hp on the M-82 engine, which stood on the La-5FN / La-7, against, for example, the Mustang D with the Merlin engine, at 1500 hp)))

ASH-82 FN developed 1850 hp. only at small, up to about 2 km., heights. The R-51 D engine was high-altitude, with a two-stage supercharger. On takeoff, the engine of the American R-51 D developed less power than the ASH-82 FN, but starting from an altitude of about 6 km. the power of the P-51 D was already higher than that of the ASH-82 FN, and as the height increased, this advantage in the engine power of the American fighter increased even more.

http://airwar.ru/enc/fww2/p51d.html

And 1520 hp. this was the power of the Packard V-1650-7 in rated mode. On the afterburner, Packard V-1650-7 was already developing about 1700 hp. Would the engine be not high-altitude, but intended for medium and low heights. would it have a single-stage supercharger-power Packard V-1650-7 at take-off would be even higher by about 150-160 hp. which would give the same 1850 hp.

[adler87]

And what stood on the yaks? And if you compare the air-cooled motors, then they must be shuttered. Fokers and thunderbolts what did they have? And yes, 1850 is under what conditions? And it turns out that we had the best engines during WWII.

[NF68]

Quote: adler87

And what stood on the yaks? And if you compare the air-cooled motors, then they must be shuttered. Fokers and thunderbolts what did they have? And yes, 1850 is under what conditions? And it turns out that we had the best engines during WWII.

The Yak-ahs were clearly not the best clones of the lightweight French V-12 engines.
If we compare the air-cooled engines, then in 1943 the BMW-801 D2 at an altitude of no more than 1000 meters developed 2060 hp. Since 1944, the BMW-801 D2 c MW-50 on take-off developed 2000 hp. BMW-801 S in 1944 developed on take-off 2000 hp. Since the beginning of 1945, 2200 hp. Developed in 1942, the BMW-801 E developed 2000 hp at take-off.

Not serially produced, but completed:

In 1944, the BMW-801 F was developed, developing 2400 hp on take-off. In 1944, a high-altitude BMW-801 R was developed with a 2-stage 4-speed supercharger at take-off and developed 2000 hp.

http://alternathistory.com/aviatsionnye-dvigateli-firm-siemens-bramo-bmw-po-materialam-karla-prestelya/

In 1941, the Soviet Klimov M-105PA developed at take-off 1050 hp. German DB-601 N-1175 hp., DB-601 E-1350 hp.

In 1944, VK-105PF2 on take-off developed 1240 hp. VK-107 A on take-off developed 1650 hp. DB-605 ASCM DB-605 / altitude 7,8 km. and DB-605 DCM developed 2000 hp. Jumo-213 A-1 2240 hp-gasoline with an octane chmslom 87-89 units ..

Compare with the American most common air vents. True, this engine had a working volume of about 10% more than that of the M / ASh-82, while almost all the versions made from the middle of the WWII were high-altitude - the same engines in medium-high vairants would develop an additional 200-250 hp:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_R-2800_Double_Wasp

The American high-altitude Packard V-1650-9 in 1944 on take-off developed 2040 hp.

1945 Packard V-1650-11 2218 hp and 2270 hp.

English Merlin XX-1940 - 1480 hp. at an altitude of 1,8 km.

high-rise Merlin 130/131 2060 hp

As it is not noticeable that the Soviet engines were the best.

[knn54]

In today's language, the Mustang is a heavy escort fighter. The range is impressive.
Yak-1 light front-line fighter.

[NF68]

Quote: knn54

In today's language, the Mustang is a heavy escort fighter. The range is impressive.
Yak-1 light front-line fighter.

And the flight altitude of high-altitude P-51 is not impressive?

[Grigory_45]

Quote: lucul

But why do we, even the experimental high-altitude interceptors, the screw still had a fairly modest size? No one betrayed the screw value, or did not realize its benefits for increasing speed?

power needs to be realized. What is the use of a huge screw if the motor, let's say, is not very?
Well, there are such restrictions as the height of the chassis

[Farewell]

It's not about the presence / absence of a synchronizer. On the Aero Cobra, the fuselage machine guns were quite standing for themselves. It’s just that the Americans had difficulties in mastering the production of Hispano guns, constantly got out problems with reliability that the large-caliber Browning did not have. And to put a pair of synchronized machine guns did not make sense, they did not provide sufficient volley weight.