Military Review

Combat aircraft. ANT-31: Sukhoi, a loser to Polikarpov

58

May 27, 1933 pilot K.A. Popov made his first flight on an experimental fighter I-14 (ANT-31). The flight was successful, work on the aircraft continued.


What is behind this information? In principle, nothing special. But for those who do not know what kind of car this will be very informative material now. The I-14 is not just a plane that was produced in a small series, it was a transition to a new principle of design and creation of aircraft.

A plane that did not seem to stay in stories, but nevertheless became a very noticeable milestone in the development of the design school of the USSR.

To begin with, the name ANT is not entirely correct (and to be honest, it is completely incorrect). Patriarch Aleksey Nikolaevich Tupolev did not design this aircraft, work was carried out under his “general leadership”. But everyone understands how it looked.

The creator of the aircraft is Pavel Osipovich Sukhoi. At that time - the head of the team number 3 on the creation of fighters and record aircraft in the structure of the Design Department of the pilot construction sector (COSOS) at TsAGI.

Combat aircraft. ANT-31: Sukhoi, a loser to Polikarpov

The story began in 1932, when Sukhoi, in parallel with Polikarpov, was given the task of developing the machine of the future: a single-seat all-metal fighter with enhanced weapons.

The plane had to meet international standards, and preferably exceed them. Technical requirements were as follows:
- maximum flight speed at an altitude of 5000 meters - 340-400 km / h;
- rise time to a height of 5000 m - 7 minutes;
- flight range - 500 km;
- armament - 2 guns.

And this was in 1932, when the I-5 fighter was in service with the Red Army Air Force, the maximum speed of which was below 300 km / h and the weapons of which consisted of two PV-1 machine guns. And what is an “air machine gun” is known: a Maxim machine gun converted by Nadashkevich for air cooling.

Sukhoi did everything he could and even more. The project was not just innovative, at that time it was generally something futuristic.


Judge for yourself, here is a list of innovations (looking at it, remember that the case takes place in 1932):
- low-wing monoplane, the wing is located at the bottom of the fuselage;
- retractable landing gear (yes, it’s right here, I-14 was ahead of I-16 in this, which is mistakenly considered the first in this matter);
- chassis on oil-pneumatic shock absorbers;
- wheels with brakes;
- a closed lantern and thanks to this a heated cabin.

The cockpit's equipment was also at a very decent level: an optical sight, a walkie-talkie (conditionally, but the place was planned), an altimeter, a speed indicator, a slip indicator, a longitudinal inclinometer, a clock, a compass.

In N. N. Polikarpov’s parallel project, there were no such "excesses." The fighter, dubbed I-14a, was a half-wing of a mixed design with a wing of the "Seagull" type, with a closed cockpit and fixed gear. Recognized immediately, this is subsequently I-15.


Sukhoi and his comrades went their own way, and this path was thorny and difficult. What did the designers have to face and what became the main obstacle in the development?

That's right, lack of engine.

Yes, there was no engine (as always, however). That is, there was no suitable new engine in terms of power for a new aircraft. In the initial calculations, it was supposed to use the M-38 engine of the designer F.V. Kontsevich, air cooling and a power of 560 hp. However, the engine did not go into the series without passing the life tests, and the I-14 was left without an engine at all.

The British helped out by selling the Bristol-Mercury engine, which, although it produced slightly less, was only 500 hp, but was considered high-altitude. During the tests of the I-14 with a British engine, the pilot K. A. Popov reached a record horizontal speed for the USSR - 384 km / h. At this speed, the I-14 and flew into state tests.

Factory tests of the I-14 were carried out from October 6 to December 13, 1933. During the tests 16 flights were carried out with a total flight time of 11 hours 07 minutes.

The ratings given to the aircraft by test pilot Popov and lead engineer Kravtsov were generally positive, but ambiguous.

Experts noted high speed characteristics, an impressive load per square meter of the wing, somewhat worse maneuverability in comparison with the I-5, but a large payload. And (not least) a small load on the control levers, which made the aircraft strict in piloting. From the pilot required accuracy and accuracy in the movements.

Naturally, there were some childhood diseases. The motor warmed up with terrible force, and when it overheated, detonation began. I had to redo the exhaust system, select a scheme of anti-knock additives for gasoline, at the same time finalized the chassis cleaning mechanism.

The car was handed over for state tests on January 2, 1934 without guns, which factory number 8 just did not have time to make, but they tested the aircraft with a ski landing gear.


A few words should be said about the guns separately. It was supposed to strengthen the armament of the new aircraft by installing two 75-mm guns of the agro-industrial complex - aviation guns Kurchevsky. There was such a fetish at the time, dynamo-jet guns that had no recoil.


But since Kurchevsky was more a charlatan than an engineer, then overlays always occurred with his creations. So this time, the I-14 was tested without guns.

Leading pilot Thomas Susy and Alexey Filin, who helped him, gave an opinion on the test results:

“The I-14 aircraft with the Bristol-Mercury engine, possessing flight data that puts it with the retracted landing gear at the level of the best foreign speed fighters, is at the same time not strong enough and has a number of major defects.”

And it all started again. They re-calculated and started building the backup aircraft.

In August 1933, construction began on the backup of the I-14 fighter with the American Wright-Cyclone engine. When designing, we took into account all the shortcomings of the previous car - the chassis, planes and the engine were redone. The construction of I-14 was completed on February 5, 1934, the next day the plane was taken to the airport, and on February 13 it was handed over for testing. Both factory and state tests were passed with a rating of "good."

Everyone liked the car, and on May 1, 1934, the I-14 took part in the Air Force parade over Red Square. This is a kind of recognition of the corresponding quality of the machine. At the parade, the three passed I-14, I-15 and I-16.

And on May 19, 1934, the head of the Red Army Air Force Alksnis signed the "Act on the results of state tests of the I-14 fighter with the Wright-Cyclone F-2 engine, conducted by pilot A. I. Filin."

The document is large, however, like all that related to state tests, but it has the following lines:

"At speeds of 5000 m, the I-14 Wright-Cyclone aircraft is at the level of the best foreign fighters, surpassing it in speed at an altitude of 1000-3000 m, significantly surpassing them in armament and somewhat inferior in the ceiling and rate of climb ..."

As a part of the tests, fighter flights were made by such luminaries as K. Kokkinaki, A. Chernavsky, I. Belozerov, P. Stefanovsky. And according to their reviews, the I-14 was a pretty decent car.


By the way, it was thanks to Stefanovsky’s work on testing weapons from aircraft dynamo guns decided to abandon completely.

Initially, the aircraft’s armament was to consist of 1-2 PV-1 machine guns and two APC cannons under the wing. But after testing the agro-industrial complex, it was decided to abandon dynamo-cannons in favor of the new ShKAS machine guns, and a little later, the discussion also involved the installation of ShVAK guns.

During 1935, a new wing with fenders was installed on the second prototype I-14, heated collectors, an electric starter, a variable-pitch propeller and agro-industrial cannons were replaced with ShKAS machine guns.

At the same time, the wing was calculated on the I-14bis of greater strength with enlarged shields for the experimental installation of ShVAK guns in the wing, however, unfortunately, the matter did not go further than the initial calculations.

But the plane received external bomb racks with SI electric spreaders and a 15SK radio station.

The serial production of I-14 was originally planned to be established at the factory No. 21, which produced I-5. The first batch of 50 cars was supposed to appear in Nizhny Novgorod, but alas, the matter dragged on at the stage of transferring the drawings, and as a result, the order for I-14 was transferred to Irkutsk, to factory No. 125.


So the serial birth of I-14 took place in Irkutsk in 1936. At the same time, there were problems with the aircraft during factory tests.

September 29, 1936 was a test flight of the first production copy of the I-14. According to the results of factory tests, the specialists of the Air Force Research Institute issued the following conclusion:

“The I-14 RC airplane, according to its flight data and the relative simplicity of take-off, landing and aerobatics, is of undoubted value, but due to the dangerous nature of the“ corkscrew ”it cannot be recommended for introduction to the supply of the Red Army air force until this defect is dangerous for flights. Offer TsAGI together with plant No. 125 to carry out the necessary research and alterations of the aircraft to eliminate the dangerous nature of the “corkscrew”, and then again present the aircraft for testing at the Red Army Air Force Research Institute ... "

In KB and at the factory they reacted, and during 1936-1937 a new plumage was developed, which completely eliminated the problem with the “corkscrew”. However, the military still complained about the aircraft due to poor build quality.

Since the Siberian factory lacked highly qualified specialists, production aircraft had low quality external surfaces, processing rivets, and seams. All this caused a loss of speed, as well as fair complaints from the military.

In total, 55 I-14 aircraft were under construction at the plant. In the aircraft parts in 1936-1937. 18. The rest of the fighters were never completed.

Here the "king of fighters" Polikarpov and his I-16 played a role.


The I-16, which appeared later than the I-14, was a more perfect machine at first glance. It was of mixed design, which means it was simpler and cheaper. But most importantly, the I-16 was faster. Yes, unlike the competitor, the I-14 was easier to fly, had better maneuverability and simple take-off and landing.

However, the simplicity of construction and the use of inexpensive and affordable materials have done their job. Plus, with the same Wright-Cyclone engine, aka M-25V, I-16, it really showed higher flight performance, despite the fact that the Polikarpov fighter was very difficult to pilot.


Nevertheless, having weighed all the pros and cons, the plane of the talented, but very young (second plane) designer P.O. Sukhoi decided to refuse.

The reasons for this decision are simple and understandable. The main thing is the shortage and high cost of aluminum produced in the USSR, the technological complexity and high cost of the new all-metal fighter.

No matter how disruptive the I-14 was, its cost was prohibitive, and the USSR could afford to build all-metal fighters only 10 years later.

Plus, for the Polikarpov fighter with two hands, military pilots who were already accustomed to the "king" technique voted. This is also an important aspect.

The Polikarpov fighter was a mixed wood-metal structure and even allowed the use of canvas, it was cheaper and more technologically advanced in construction with approximately the same flight data as the Sukhoi fighter.

Yes, the I-14 was really somewhat ahead of time. Polikarpov created a more familiar and cheaper car, but there is a nuance. Sukhoi worked under the patronage of Tupolev himself, who was allowed everything, including work on all-metal aircraft. Therefore, no one forbade Sukhoi to design and build such an aircraft, but all other designers were gently and unobtrusively “recommended” to use a mixed design scheme.

Well, what can you do if in reality the country at that time could not produce so much aluminum to satisfy the needs of ALL designers.

But it so happened that the cheap Polikarpov scheme defeated the expensive and innovative Sukhoi scheme. Yes, that happened so often.

I-14 became the second (after I-4) aircraft of Pavel Osipovich Sukhoi. But not the last. In any case, the designer noticed, he was among the best. And he did not leave the design Olympus until his very death in 1975.


And in December 1933, Pavel Osipovich Sukhoi was awarded the Order of the Red Star for the successful creation of serial combat fighter aircraft I-4 and I-14. The first, but not the last award.

The history of the outbreak of World War II confirmed that Sukhoi was absolutely right: the future lies with all-metal aircraft. In the same way, he turned out to be right when, at the end of the war, he gave up everything and began working on jet aircraft.

But this, in many ways, the first, albeit not a very beautiful aircraft, became the beginning of a new and long path, which Soviet aviation passed with honor and dignity.

LTH-14


Wingspan, m: 11,25.
Length, m: 6,11.
Height, m: 3,74.
Wing area m: 16,93.

Weight, kg:
- empty aircraft: 1 169;
- normal takeoff: 1 540.

Engine: 1 x M-25 (Wright R-1820 Cyclone-F3) x 712 hp
Maximum speed km / h:
- near the ground: 357;
- at height: 449.
Cruising speed, km / h: 343.
Practical range, km: 600.
Rate of climb, m / min: 769.
Practical ceiling, m: 9 420.

Crew, person: 1.

Armament: 2 synchronous machine guns PV-1, 7,62 mm caliber, 2 machine guns ShKAS 7,62 mm under the wings.
Author:
58 comments
Ad

The editorial board of Voenniy Obozreniye urgently needs a proofreader. Requirements: impeccable knowledge of the Russian language, diligence, discipline. Contact: [email protected]

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 27 May 2020 06: 18 New
    +3
    Dry and breakthrough machines are synonyms! True wildly expensive among them also met. )))
    new wing with fenders
    Flaps I know, slats too, but what are wing flaps?
    1. svp67
      svp67 27 May 2020 06: 26 New
      +2
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      Dry and breakthrough machines are synonyms!

      Yeah ... "the constructor is Sukhoi, the plane is damp, and the pilot is wet"
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 27 May 2020 06: 31 New
        +3
        Quote: svp67
        and the pilot is wet

        I hope you are on the back of the pilot.)))
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 27 May 2020 10: 22 New
        +5
        Quote: svp67
        Yeah ... "the constructor is Sukhoi, the plane is damp, and the pilot is wet"

        A technician in general in soap ... smile
        In operation as of 1965, when, it would seem, the main problems were to be resolved, the labor costs for servicing the Su-7B were 83 man-hours for one hour of flight, which caused legitimate questions for the developers from the Air Force leadership. Paying attention to the unsatisfactory state of the issue. The Air Force Commander cited data for comparison on American aircraft of this class, where they were half as much. So, for servicing the tactical fighters F-104 Starfighter and F-105 Thunderchief, even with their sophisticated electronics, the training standards per flight hour were about 45 man-hours.

        When carrying out preliminary preparation, without fail preceding the next pair of flight days, on the Su-7B, for the work, it was necessary to open 38 hatches of various components and systems (on machines of different series, their number varied, these figures relate to airplanes of the summer of 1969). Of these, 27 hatches were required to open a special tool (miscellaneous screwdrivers) with a total of 122 screws and screw locks unscrewed.
        © Victor Markovsky, Igor Prikhodchenko
      3. not main
        not main 28 May 2020 00: 09 New
        +1
        Quote: svp67
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        Dry and breakthrough machines are synonyms!

        Yeah ... "the constructor is Sukhoi, the plane is damp, and the pilot is wet"

        I will correct "Constructor Sukhoi, the plane is damp, and the technician is wet"
        1. svp67
          svp67 28 May 2020 06: 20 New
          +1
          Quote: non-primary
          I will correct "Constructor Sukhoi, the plane is damp, and the technician is wet"

          Unfortunately no. If we have already remembered about the technique, then it is in continuation of this saying of the 60s "sweaty"
          The constructor is Sukhoi, the plane is damp, the pilot is wet, and the technician is POTNY "
    2. Aviator_
      Aviator_ 27 May 2020 08: 50 New
      +6
      Flaps I know, slats too, but what are wing flaps?

      Now I am waiting for the appearance of "wing flaps", will appear soon.
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 27 May 2020 08: 51 New
        +5
        Quote: Aviator_
        "wing flaps"

        This is some kind of entomology. )))
    3. Mooh
      Mooh 27 May 2020 10: 20 New
      +6
      These are the wing flaps.

    4. illuminat
      illuminat 27 May 2020 12: 58 New
      +2
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      Flaps I know, slats too, but what are wing flaps?

      Apparently, this meant landing flaps. But it is desirable to know the terminology, of course.
    5. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 27 May 2020 13: 18 New
      +5
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      Flaps I know, slats too, but what are wing flaps?

      Encyclopedia of technology
      Fender liner
      wing mechanization element designed to increase lift by changing the area and profile of the wing. The P. represents the bearing surface of the wing profile, deflected downward with a shift back beyond the contour of the trailing edge of the wing with the formation of a profiled gap between the wing and the upper part of the P. In the neutral position, the P. is placed under the wing (hence the name) in the recess of the tail along the span and located only below its surface, not protruding from the surface of the wing from above (in contrast to the flap). P. is usually slit, its action is similar to the action of a hanging flap. P. were used in the 40s.
      Aviation: Encyclopedia. - M .: Big Russian Encyclopedia. Editor-in-chief G.P. Svishchev. 1994.
      1. illuminat
        illuminat 27 May 2020 13: 40 New
        +4
        Quote: Bad_gr
        Fender liner
        This term is not used in aviation. This type of mechanization is called a sliding (sliding slotted) flap, or "Fowler's flap".

        Quote: Bad_gr
        Aviation: Encyclopedia. - M .: Big Russian Encyclopedia. Editor-in-chief G.P. Svishchev. 1994.
        And in 1994 they could publish any slag.
        1. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 27 May 2020 14: 17 New
          +4
          Quote: illuminat
          This type of mechanization is called a sliding (option of a sliding slotted) flap, or "Fowler's flap".

          I think here this most suitable under the name "fender liner".
          But the very name "fender liner" really does not occur.
          1. illuminat
            illuminat 28 May 2020 11: 55 New
            +1
            Quote: Bad_gr
            I think this one is the most suitable under the name "fender liner".

            Well, I actually agree, as I wrote above. This is a flap, or as options "simple flap", "landing flap" or "Schrenk flap" (although Schrenck himself did not consider such mechanization solely his invention).
            However, I do not exclude that in the 30s it could briefly exist, as the term "fender liner" which later did not take root. For example, "the rudder" (as the elevator was called for some time) or "ranversman" (aerobatics figure, known as turning on the hill).

            And about the above mentioned "wing flaps", spoilers or spoilers may well pass for them. Paper will endure everything.
        2. Vladimir_2U
          Vladimir_2U 28 May 2020 03: 59 New
          0
          I heard about such "fenders". Plus sign.
      2. PilotS37
        PilotS37 11 August 2020 16: 07 New
        +1
        Thank God there are still people who know how airplanes work!
  2. The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 27 May 2020 06: 56 New
    +3
    If I'm not mistaken, the pilots also mentioned the narrow track of the I14 chassis. I have long read about this ...
    1. svp67
      svp67 27 May 2020 07: 22 New
      +3
      Quote: Leader of the Redskins
      If I'm not mistaken, the pilots also mentioned the narrow track of the I14 chassis.

      Yes, this can be seen from the photo, it is certainly not as narrow as on the BF-109, but clearly narrower than on the I-16
      1. illuminat
        illuminat 27 May 2020 12: 53 New
        +1
        Quote: svp67
        Yes, this can be seen from the photo, it is certainly not as narrow as on the BF-109, but clearly narrower than on the I-16

        The photo shows the exact opposite. Before the alteration, the I-14 track is MUCHLY narrower than on the Me-109 (about 1,5 m).
        And after the alteration, it is WIDER (about 3,2 m) of both the hundredth and the donkey. The I-16 and Me-109 track is almost the same (2,3-2,4 m).
        1. svp67
          svp67 27 May 2020 13: 49 New
          0
          Quote: illuminat
          The I-16 and Me-109 track is almost the same (2,3-2,4 m).

          Track gauge for BF-109 2000 mm "Brief general technical description of the Me-109-EZ aircraft"
          https://airpages.ru/mn/bf109e3_01.shtml
  3. Revolver
    Revolver 27 May 2020 07: 52 New
    +4
    The presence, or rather, the absence of lumin, killed not only the I-14. I-180 and I-185 of the same Polikarpov, Er-2 - those that remember the flight, without searches. And the same Yak-3 went to the front only in 1944, when Lend-Lease aluminum supplies were adjusted, although such an aircraft was terribly lacking in 1941, when its prototype I-30 was successfully tested and ... the project was put on hold , because there was nothing to do it.
    1. Vladimir_2U
      Vladimir_2U 27 May 2020 08: 56 New
      +2
      Quote: Nagan
      Ep-xnumx
      What are you, EP-2 was produced in a very serious series, but all of its classmates (2-engine bombers) were all-metal. As far as I remember, this was explained by a greater demand for mass perfection of a bomb than a fighter. Saved winged metal on fighters.
      1. Revolver
        Revolver 30 May 2020 20: 27 New
        0
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        EP-2 was produced in a very serious series

        Well, how much did EP-2 do after the Germans seized aluminum production capacities in Ukraine? And at the front he was in demand. It was not for nothing that they resumed production at the end of 1943, when supplies of aluminum under Lend-Lease were adjusted.
    2. mark1
      mark1 27 May 2020 09: 10 New
      +2
      not so much the absence of "luminescence", for most of them, as the absence of engines. I-30 in the series wanted to call the Yak-3, but because he did not go into production, this numbering went to another Yak (Yak-1M)
    3. konchitawurst
      konchitawurst 30 May 2020 20: 05 New
      -1
      I-180 Ruined the motor and a trip to Polikarpov Germany, as well as the difficulties of fine-tuning and time. Having returned from a trip to Germany, Polikarpov began to design the i-185.
  4. antivirus
    antivirus 27 May 2020 08: 09 New
    +2
    Well, what can you do if in reality the country at that time could not produce so much aluminum to satisfy the needs of ALL designers.
    - again "all and immediately give and take out"
    or maybe not the laminas and the complexity of the constructions. And THE COST AND DIFFICULTY OF OPERATION AND SERVICE ruined?
    I’m for spoons, and I’m for your daydreaming — how much will a nose-feed of 100 t VI (with a summer wing) eat money in 000 years of life (up to 50-2070 g)?
    Have you seen the minusers s \ boards in d \ kindergartens? or just look at your roots
  5. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 27 May 2020 09: 00 New
    +2
    In general, after the war, the roles of fighter design bombs were distributed. The leaders in the Second World War were Yak and La, and the main design bureaus after the war were MiG and Sukhoi after the war.
    1. Potter
      Potter 27 May 2020 10: 14 New
      +3
      Yakovlev still had a lot of post-war fighter equipment, including twin-engine interceptors, as well as the naval VTOL Yak-38. And Lavochkin, after the top of piston perfection La-9 and La-11, released the serial jet La-15, which lost the MIG-15, and did not go into a large series. By the way, the interceptor Lavochkin La-200 lost Yak-25 Yakovlev.
      But Lavochkin caught the stream of time and switched to rocket and space subjects. The last production aircraft was the La-17 UAV in the early 1960s, but by the time the NGO named after Lavochkina has almost completely gone into space, which he is doing now.
    2. Vikxnumx
      Vikxnumx 27 May 2020 14: 41 New
      -1
      In general, after the war, the roles of fighter design bombs were distributed. The leaders in the Second World War were Yak and La, and the main design bureaus after the war were MiG and Sukhoi after the war.

      But nothing that the leader Yakovlev was kicked out of the People’s Commissariat for lobbying his technology?
      And pushed the Yak-1 into service before the State tests? And the I-180 and I-185 that passed the tests were not allowed into the series ... He raised the "King of Fighters" on his ... the head of the designers.
      1. ser56
        ser56 27 May 2020 22: 00 New
        +1
        Quote: VIK1711
        Raised the "King of Fighters" on his ... head of designers.

        Yakovlev is not his student ... request and Mig-1 was just stolen ... repeat
  6. knn54
    knn54 27 May 2020 09: 33 New
    +1
    The "delayed exit" from the spin was never completely eliminated.
    But in training battles I-14 due to greater maneuverability and greater stability at low speeds beat I-16.
    By the way, the I-16 had a narrow wheelset, which could lead to a rollover during take-off (Spain). with a rocky surface.
  7. Potter
    Potter 27 May 2020 09: 48 New
    +2
    Article plus, an interesting and rarely hit the press machine. But this is Sukhoi’s third plane, the second was the ANT-25 (RD), created in his brigade, the same one on which Chkalov set records. However, his glory of record flights was yet to come.
  8. Mooh
    Mooh 27 May 2020 10: 25 New
    +4
    Something Roman overdone in matters of management complexity. If the I-14 was even stricter than the I-16, then only pilots of the Chkalov level could fly on it. All pilots flying I-16 said that the aircraft is very strict in control and does not forgive flight errors.
    1. illuminat
      illuminat 27 May 2020 13: 22 New
      +5
      Quote: MooH
      If the I-14 was even stricter than the I-16, then only pilots of the Chkalov level could fly on it. All pilots flying I-16 said that the aircraft is very strict in control and does not forgive flight errors.

      The fact is that most authors of articles do not understand the difference between severity, complexity, ease, sensitivity of management. And there are many nuances.
      Management can be extremely complex for a variety of reasons. For example, a short stroke of the handle leads either to poor handling or to increased control sensitivity. A small margin of stability leads to an unintentional stall and stall, and then to a tailspin. An insufficient load on the handle (in the longitudinal relation), as well as a small gradient of effort on it, leads to the same thing as in the previous case (in this case, the causes of the same consequences are fundamentally different, and the ways to eliminate them too).
      Therefore, for most readers, and writers, it is completely incomprehensible how this or that aircraft is difficult to pilot.
      For example, a simple and stable Yak-52 is deadly without loading springs. And on the L-39, the springs, on the contrary, do not load, but stand as an amplifier.
      And what exactly was there on the I-14, without reading the original report by a specialist, it's hard to say.
  9. John22
    John22 27 May 2020 11: 38 New
    +2
    The I-14 lantern was not movable back, but leaning back. I-14 bis lantern altogether removed. Strictness of control with a small stroke of the control knob and delay when withdrawing from a corkscrew by 1,5 - 2 turns are the result of a small area of ​​rudders, although greater maneuverability compared to I-16 and stability on bends were mentioned. The first pancake. For some reason, in those years it was believed that the fighter would have to. short.
    1. illuminat
      illuminat 27 May 2020 13: 24 New
      +1
      Quote: John22
      Strictness in control with a small stroke of the control knob and delay when withdrawing from a corkscrew by 1,5 - 2 turns is the result of a small area of ​​rudders,

      The small stroke of the handle does not correlate with the rudder in any way. Not at all.
      1. John22
        John22 28 May 2020 16: 44 New
        0
        The reaction of ailerons and elevators with a small displacement (in distance, and not to the stop) was meant. The lack of rudder area affected the speed of exit from the corkscrew.
  10. Dr. Frankenstucker
    Dr. Frankenstucker 27 May 2020 11: 45 New
    +1
    And why is only the competition between Sukhoi and Polikarpov considered? But what about Grigorovich? He was also a contestant. And, by the way, his IP-1 was also all-metal. Why not mention it?
  11. Undecim
    Undecim 27 May 2020 12: 09 New
    +6
    To begin with, the name ANT is not entirely correct (and to be honest, it is completely incorrect). Patriarch Aleksey Nikolaevich Tupolev did not design this aircraft, work was carried out under his “general leadership”. But everyone understands how it looked.
    To begin with, not everyone understands "how it looked". This makes it possible to produce all kinds of conspiracy theories of history in the information space, of which this paragraph is an example.
    Firstly, Tupolev is not Alexei but Andrey. Secondly, the Design Department of the Experimental Construction Sector, which was entrusted with the development of the I-14, was headed by Andrei Nikolaevich Tupolev. He received the task, he determined who would be the lead designer, he was responsible as the chief designer.
    So it looked quite normal.
  12. illuminat
    illuminat 27 May 2020 12: 56 New
    +1
    Quote: Nagan
    And the same Yak-3 went to the front only in 1944, when Lend-Lease aluminum supplies were adjusted, although such an aircraft was terribly lacking in 1941, when its prototype I-30 was successfully tested and ... the project was put on hold , because there was nothing to do it.

    Yak-3 deep modernization of the Yak-1. He has absolutely nothing to do with I-30, and the metal in the Yak-3 is much less than in the I-30.
  13. Undecim
    Undecim 27 May 2020 13: 45 New
    +4
    Sukhoi did everything he could and even more. The project was not just innovative, at that time it was generally something futuristic.
    Judge for yourself, here is a list of innovations (looking at it, remember that the case takes place in 1932):
    - low-wing monoplane, the wing is located at the bottom of the fuselage;


    I-Z fighter Dmitry Grigorovich. 1931 year. The fighter was built in a small series - 71 aircraft.
    1. Undecim
      Undecim 27 May 2020 14: 06 New
      +4

      Fighter IP-1 Grigorovich. It was developed almost parallel to the I-14 and I-16.
      The design provided for a "chassis on oil-pneumatic shock absorbers, and wheels with brakes." Moreover, unlike the I-14 and I-16, the IP-1 also removed the ski chassis installed in winter.
      1. AllBiBek
        AllBiBek 27 May 2020 14: 31 New
        +1
        The maximum speed is less than 260 km / h, up to five km - in 15 minutes.

        And what for he is so necessary even without the DRP, which tore him apart in the air and without the help of a potential enemy?

        The maximum is to accompany TB-3, being bolted to it in the version if that is an aircraft mast. And that is a dubious decision with such speed characteristics.
        1. Undecim
          Undecim 27 May 2020 14: 56 New
          0
          Maximum speed less than 260 km / h
          What do you mean - a Zhiguli car?
          1. AllBiBek
            AllBiBek 27 May 2020 15: 06 New
            +2
            I poked the wrong number, there is a triple instead of a deuce.

            360 at altitude, this is the maximum achieved in tests against 410 declared, if I remember correctly.

            And this is very so-so even for its time, and even in the version where it was hung with eight ShKASs instead of a pair of anti-tank caliber recoilless ones.

            For from the thrust to tipping over into a tailspin, at every opportunity, this machine was not cured either.

            Correct if I remember incorrectly.
            1. Undecim
              Undecim 27 May 2020 15: 23 New
              +2
              Correct if I remember incorrectly.
              Different sources have different numbers. I have no reason not to trust the TsAGI publication "Aircraft Building in the USSR in 1917-1945".
              Drawing from there.
              1. AllBiBek
                AllBiBek 27 May 2020 15: 34 New
                +1
                So here are the instances of individual instances for a specific parameter.

                One of my acquaintances, for example, has a Lada, which quietly accelerates to three hundred or more in a few seconds.

                On a perfectly flat and straight track, of course.

                Everything was removed from it, including the headlights. In the cabin - only a driver's seat, as light as possible. Hanged for aerodynamics with everything that is possible.

                He only carries it on a trailer from competition to competition, and before the race he pours three glasses of gasoline. Two of them - stupidly warm the engine.

                And on public roads, this rattletrap will not go far.

                Well, the cost that this alteration flew into would be enough for a one-room apartment on the outskirts of any domestic millionaires.
                1. Undecim
                  Undecim 27 May 2020 15: 44 New
                  +1
                  The car for drag racing here as an example is not very suitable. On the graph - the speed is not a record aircraft, such as Me.209.
  14. Alex
    Alex 28 May 2020 12: 46 New
    0
    Innovative and, especially, futuristic I-14 can not be called by any means. Low wing, so the first Soviet fighter IL-400 (I-1), too. All-metal, so back in 1927 the same P.O. Sukhim created an all-metal I-4 (the first in the USSR). On the experimental I-14, the fuselage is smooth-skinned, and the wing is traditional for the ANT of those years. The design, again, is nothing innovative - in the wing there are the same truss spars with pipe belts, in the fuselage there are bent profiles, thin sheathing 0,5 mm. The only thing, the riveting became flush. On the understudy, the wing sheathing became smooth. But on the other hand, the cabin lost its flashlight and became open (as on the I-16 starting with type 10). The chassis began to retract outward in scope, and not to the fuselage. Accordingly, the track narrowed.
    He lost to I-sixteenth according to the LTH. In addition, that was a mixed construction, which, however, at that time was also archaic.
    And, by the way, the I-16 is the first SERIAL fighter with retractable landing gear, and not generally the first with it.
  15. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 28 May 2020 14: 50 New
    0
    The history of the outbreak of World War II confirmed that Sukhoi was absolutely right: the future lies with all-metal aircraft. In the same way, he turned out to be right when, at the end of the war, he gave up everything and began working on jet aircraft.

    The war showed the exact opposite - in the war, you need a plane made of wood and using as low as possible octane gasoline.
  16. vitlas
    vitlas 27 June 2020 14: 46 New
    0
    "The fighter, named I-14a, was a half-glider of a mixed design with a Seagull wing, with a closed cockpit and fixed landing gear. We found out right away that this was later an I-15." The author, what are you actually writing about ?! The I-15 did not have a “gull” wing, so it should not be confused with the I-153. Here he had a gull wing. Correct.
    1. PilotS37
      PilotS37 11 August 2020 15: 29 New
      +1
      Quote: vitlas
      "The fighter, named I-14a, was a half-glider of a mixed design with a Seagull wing, with a closed cockpit and fixed landing gear. We found out right away that this was later an I-15." The author, what are you actually writing about ?! The I-15 did not have a “gull” wing, so it should not be confused with the I-153. Here he had a gull wing. Correct.

      The author writes everything correctly.
      The I-15 had a "seagull" wing ([media = https: //ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98-15]). But then Polikarpov made an I-15bis, and now it was a "normal" one-and-a-half-plane ([media = https: //ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98-15_%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%81 ]).
      The new car did not fit the pilots, as the forward-up view was blocked by the upper wing, so on the I-153 Polikarpov returned to the seagull.
  17. PilotS37
    PilotS37 11 August 2020 15: 14 New
    0
    Patriarch Alexei Nikolaevich Tupolev did not design this aircraft, the work was carried out under his "general supervision".

    Yes, at that moment, not even under the "general" - under any, since at the time when the I-14 was being created, Tupolev was removed from the direct management of KOSOS TsAGI for something and was replaced by ... Sergey Vladimirovich Ilyushin!
    So the I-14 may well be called the Il-0 ...
  18. PilotS37
    PilotS37 11 August 2020 15: 22 New
    0
    The story began in 1932, when Sukhoi, in parallel with Polikarpov, was given the task of developing the machine of the future: a single-seat all-metal fighter with enhanced weapons.

    The situation, again, was "more cunning": Polikarpov was Sukhoi's deputy and at the beginning did not deal with the "topic" of the I-14, but later the same Ilyushin instructed him to take on the one and a half-plane I-14a (the future I-15) for safety. This seemed to NN not enough and he began to proactively design a monoplane - the future I-16.
    When at the beginning of 1933 Ilyushin left TsAGI for the plant. Menzhinsky, in TsKB-39, he took Polikarpov's group with him with all its developments. (I suspect that the future Il simply did not want to have anything to do with ANT and himself initiated "above" the creation of a new design bureau for himself ...)
    So formally I-15 and even I-16 are also "Ilys" ...
  19. PilotS37
    PilotS37 11 August 2020 15: 33 New
    0
    They found out immediately, this was later I-15.

    Mr. author, the photo under this phrase does not show the I-15 (with a "gull" wing), but its modification I-15bis (without the "gull").
  20. PilotS37
    PilotS37 11 August 2020 15: 41 New
    0
    Yes, unlike its competitor, the I-14 was easier to fly, had better maneuverability, and simple takeoff and landing.

    I-16? What, really ?!
  21. PilotS37
    PilotS37 11 August 2020 15: 47 New
    0
    The serial production of I-14 was originally planned to be established at the factory No. 21, which produced I-5. The first batch of 50 cars was supposed to appear in Nizhny Novgorod, but alas, the matter dragged on at the stage of transferring the drawings, and as a result, the order for I-14 was transferred to Irkutsk, to factory No. 125.

    It's always like this with us: either the drawings are stuck somewhere, then something else ...
    And at the 21st plant at that time they put into series production ... I-16!
    And Polikarpov was then still a subordinate of Ilyushin, and before the start of his design career, the SV worked for many years as the chairman of the aircraft section of the Scientific and Technical Committee of the Red Army Air Force. He knew everything, so he helped his current ward to overtake his ex-ward ...
    But it is hardly possible to reproach him.
  22. PilotS37
    PilotS37 11 August 2020 15: 53 New
    0
    And he did not leave the design Olympus until his death in 1975.

    Well, of course! Even as he left: in 1949, the Sukhoi Design Bureau was dismissed, he was sent to the former "patron" Tupolev, who did not give him work under the pretext that "for such a talented person he simply does not have suitable tasks."
    And only in 1953 Pal-Osich returned to active design work ...