Creation of promising Soviet fighters in 1941

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 aircraft in the top three fighters was especially distinguished, primarily by the largest number of aircraft plants 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. The chief designer was appointed Semyon Alekseevich Lavochkin.

Why did the workers at the Gorky factory negatively perceive Lavochkin’s arrival? What weapons did you plan to install on the new fighters? Who developed the samples of promising aircraft in the country? Which aircraft became the leader in competitive selection? The historian will answer these and other questions. aviation Gennady Serov.

Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Amateur April 29 2020 08: 10 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    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.
  2. lucul April 29 2020 08: 56 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    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.
    1. adler87 April 29 2020 09: 29 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Just the power of our motors were not high
      1. lucul April 29 2020 10: 36 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        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)))
        1. Vladimir_2U April 29 2020 14: 28 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          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.
          1. lucul April 29 2020 15: 50 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            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.
            1. Vladimir_2U April 29 2020 18: 24 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              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.
              1. lucul April 29 2020 21: 20 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                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
                , "fast and furious (5 min), bor. - combat mode (15 min), ch. - emergency mode (5 min)."
                Read more "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.
            2. A.TOR April 29 2020 20: 44 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              The USA not only COULD create a synchronizer - they created the world's only electric synchronizer for firing through COOL screws on the P-75 Eagle heavy pilot escort fighter.
              The placement of heavy machine guns in the wing was more expedient for several reasons.
              1. lucul April 29 2020 21: 28 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                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 ....
                1. A.TOR April 29 2020 22: 40 New
                  • 3
                  • 1
                  +2
                  After the "disappearance" of the screw - yes.
                  I wrote that creating a synchronizer for the US was not a problem
                2. Grigory_45 9 June 2020 22: 14 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  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 ....
            3. Grigory_45 9 June 2020 22: 16 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              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 reduced slightly, but the ammunition is just brutal. The Americans had to spoil their "fortresses", and for them the ammunition was very important. Even by means of a caliber of weapons. However, the fighter and 12,7 effective
        2. NF68 April 29 2020 18: 15 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          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.
        3. adler87 April 30 2020 08: 00 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          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.
          1. NF68 April 30 2020 20: 35 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            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.
    2. knn54 April 29 2020 10: 10 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      In today's Mustang language, a heavy fighter to escort. The action radius is impressive.
      Yak-1 light front-line fighter.
      1. NF68 April 30 2020 20: 37 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: knn54
        In today's Mustang language, a heavy fighter to escort. The action radius is impressive.
        Yak-1 light front-line fighter.


        And the flight altitude of high-altitude P-51 is not impressive?
    3. Grigory_45 9 June 2020 22: 19 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      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
  3. Farewell April 30 2020 12: 59 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    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.