Experimental vertical take-off and landing aircraft Dassault Mirage Balzac V (France)

40

The first flight of the aircraft on a leash, October 12, 1962

In the fifties, the Air Force and aviation French industry was looking for new ways to improve the combat capability and combat stability of tactical aviation. The most interesting and promising direction of development was considered the creation of aircraft with short or vertical take-off and landing. The Dassault Balzac V experimental aircraft was the first example of this kind.

Sustainability issues


In the event of the outbreak of a full-scale armed conflict, airfields became a priority target for the strikes of a potential enemy, and their defeat led to the withdrawal of most of the Air Force from the war. Accordingly, it was required to work out the issues of dispersing tactical aviation over reserve sites - and to ensure full-fledged work on them.



Towards the end of the fifties, the idea of ​​a vertical take-off fighter appeared and received support. Such an aircraft could solve all the main tasks, but did not need a long runway. The concept of a vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft was developed by Dassault with the participation of several other organizations.

In "Dassault" considered two main schemes of a promising aircraft. One was based on the ideas of British aircraft manufacturers and proposed the use of a single lift-sustainer turbojet engine with special nozzles giving vertical and horizontal thrust. The second scheme provided for a separate cruise turbojet engine for horizontal flight, and takeoff and landing should have been provided with a set of small-sized lifting engines.


First free vertical takeoff, October 18, 1962

Research and laboratory tests have shown that both variants of the propulsion system, with the same thrust characteristics, will have a similar mass. The single engine scheme promised up to 30% fuel savings. At the same time, separate turbojet engines made it possible to do without complex and unreliable rotary nozzles, and also simplified the layout of the aircraft. In addition, failure of one or more of the lift motors did not result in immediate crash.

For further implementation, a scheme was adopted with separate lifting and sustainer engines. With the use of such ideas, it was decided to modify the existing Dassault Mirage III fighter, the new project received the number "III V" (Verticale). Work on this project started in 1960.

Pilot project


On the Mirage III V it was proposed to use a main engine from SNECMA with a thrust of 9000 kgf and eight Rolls-Royce lifting engines of 2500 kgf each. However, the experimental engines of these models were expected only in 1964, and the Dassault company had to adjust its plans.

In order not to waste time, Dassault decided to develop an experimental VTOL aircraft of a new scheme using available engines. The thrust of the latter did not exceed 1000 kgf, which is why the dimensions and weight of the experimental vehicle had to be limited. To save money, the new VTOL aircraft was planned to be built on the basis of the Mirage III-001 prototype.


Balzac V hovers to level flight

Later, the experimental project received its own name Mirage Balzac V. The letter "V" passed to him from the main project, and the name "Balzac" has a curious origin. The designation of the experimental vehicle "001" reminded someone of the telephone number of a well-known advertising agency in Paris - BALZAC 001.

Several organizations were involved in the work on the Balzac V. Dassault provided overall coordination of the project. She also developed the wing and a number of general aircraft systems. The Mirage III fuselage was developed by Sud Aviation, and the gas jet control system was created at SNECMA. Bristol Siddeley and Rolls-Royce were the suppliers of two types of engines.

Practically from the very beginning of the design work, various tests were regularly carried out at the stands. Due to this, it was possible to timely determine all the features of the aircraft, as well as get rid of a number of problems. In the future, this was supposed to simplify the testing of an experienced VTOL aircraft and the further development of the Mirage III V.

Technical features


According to the project, the Mirage Balzac V was a tailless low-wing aircraft, similar in appearance to other aircraft of its family. To install the lifting motors, the fuselage had to be rearranged and its cross-section increased in the central part. The triangular wing was borrowed from an existing project with minimal changes. It retained the standard mechanization and the caisson tank.

In the tail of the fuselage there was a cruising turbojet engine Bristol Siddeley B.Or. 3 Orpheus with thrust of 2200 kgf. Eight Rolls-Royce RB108-1A engines of 1000 kgf each were placed in pairs on the sides of the air duct and the main engine. Their air intakes were on top of the fuselage and covered with movable flaps. Closed nozzle windows were provided on the bottom. The lift motors were installed with a slight outward and backward tilt.


To control in level flight, they retained the standard cable and rigid wiring from the Mirage-3. In hover mode, gas rudders were used in all three channels, using compressed air from the compressors of the lifting motors. The nozzles were placed on the wing and on the fuselage.

The aircraft retained the three-point retractable landing gear, but it was strengthened taking into account the loads during a vertical landing. In the early stages of testing, a non-standard chassis was used without the possibility of retraction.

The length of the Balzac V was 13,1 m with a wingspan of 7,3 m, the parking height was 4,6 m. The dry weight exceeded 6,1 tons, the maximum take-off weight was 7 tons. The estimated maximum speed reached 2M; during the tests, it was possible to get only 1100 km / h. The capacity of the fuel tanks was 1500 liters; during vertical takeoff and landing, this was enough for a flight lasting only 15 minutes.

To perform takeoff, the pilot had to start the main engine, after which the lifting engines were started using compressed air. By increasing the thrust of the lifting unit, the aircraft had to rise to a height of at least 30 m, and then horizontal acceleration was allowed. At a speed of 300 km / h it was possible to retract the chassis and turn off the lifting motors.


Vertical landing was carried out in the reverse order. When flying at a speed of 300-320 km / h, the covers of the lifting motors had to be opened, which led to their autorotation and made it possible to start. Then it was possible to start dropping the horizontal speed and switching to hovering followed by landing.

flight tests


The Mirage Balzac V project was ready at the end of 1961, and in January 1962, the assembly of an experienced VTOL aircraft began at the Dassault plant. The vehicle was ready in May and the first ground tests were carried out in July. Preparations for flight tests were completed ahead of schedule, aided by a large amount of preliminary research and testing.

On October 12, 1962, the first take-off took place at the Milan-Villaros airfield. Test pilot Rene Bigand raised the car on a leash for several meters and checked the operation of the main systems, after which he landed. Already on October 18, the second hover flight took place, this time without belay. Then they flew several more flights and showed the plane to the press. After that, in mid-November, the car was sent for revision - it was planned to install a standard chassis, a brake parachute and other units.

Flights continued only in March 1963. This time horizontal take-offs and landings were carried out. On March 18, for the first time, a vertical take-off was performed, followed by a transition to horizontal flight and landing "like an airplane". The tests continued successfully and provided a variety of data collection. In addition, in the same year, "Balzac-V" was shown at the air show in Le Bourget.


The first experienced Mirage III V

On January 10, 1964, pilot Jacques Pignet carried out another flight, the purpose of which was to check the gas rudders. When hovering at an altitude of 100 m, the VTOL aircraft lost stability and traction, after which it began to decrease uncontrollably. At low altitude, the car turned over and fell. The pilot was killed.

They decided to restore the damaged plane, which took about a year. On February 2, 1965, flight tests continued. Over the next months, 65 more flights were carried out with vertical and horizontal take-off and landing, in transient modes, etc. In general, it was possible to carry out a full-scale study of the design and its capabilities, as well as master the processes of training pilots.

On October 8, 1965, another test flight took place, with US Air Force pilot Philip Neal in the cockpit. While hovering at a height of approx. 50 m, the plane suddenly lost control and began to fall. The pilot managed to eject, but the parachute did not have enough height to deploy. The pilot died, and the plane was seriously damaged in the fall, and it was decided not to restore it.

Subtotals


Despite two accidents, the death of pilots and the loss of a prototype, the Mirage Balzac V project was recognized as successful. With the help of prototypes and one experimental machine, it was possible to carry out all the necessary research in different samples and to work out the proposed concept of an aircraft with separate lifting and sustainer engines.

Using the Balzac V developments, the final version of the Mirage III V project was formed. The construction of the first aircraft of this type was completed in early 1965, and the first flight took place on February 12. "Mirage" with vertical takeoff and landing failed to enter service, but two promising projects left a noticeable mark on stories French aircraft industry.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

40 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +4
    24 February 2021 18: 05
    Fighters with vertical takeoff and landing after the Second World War were engaged in different countries. Only these developments are now not very noticeable in existing models. Apparently then the war seemed more real than it is now.
    1. +6
      24 February 2021 18: 17
      just "missiles defeated airplanes" or rather guided weapons (torpedoes \ missiles \ drones) defeated a bunch of "unguided weapons + guided delivery vehicles"
    2. +11
      24 February 2021 18: 24
      Then they were preparing for a large-scale war in Europe with destroyed airfields.
      And at that time there was some euphoria from the introduction of jet engines
      1. 0
        25 February 2021 15: 24
        I have always liked the Dassault-Breguet jets, especially the Mirage series ...
  2. +11
    24 February 2021 18: 18
    The Mirage Balzac V project was completed at the end of 1961

    Probably they wanted to do it for Bois Bellot and Lafayette, but after the first at 61, and the second in 64, they let it go, and at Clemenceau and Foch there were Super-Étendard (very good, By the way, they destroyed the Sheffield URO destroyer) was no longer needed ...
    1. +8
      24 February 2021 18: 41
      Don't suck like that
      VTOL aircraft were then developed as land aircraft, there were a lot of similar projects
      NATO had a concept of aviation scattered over small airfields in case of war
    2. +9
      24 February 2021 19: 39
      Just look at his diagram. Yak is scolded for 2 lifting motors, but here there are 8 lifting motors !!! pieces.
      1. +4
        24 February 2021 21: 35
        for the stability of the takeoff scheme.
        grouped by 2 into 4 groups.
        In fact, the failure of the Mirage and some other reasons stopped the development of a supersonic fighter from the British. Of the two projects, the British left the simpler subsonic Harrier.
        1. +1
          24 February 2021 22: 01
          for the stability of the takeoff scheme.
          grouped by 2 into 4 groups.

          What's the point? Anyway, if any of them failed in the hover mode, the plane turned over, as can be seen from the accidents.
          At the same time, in the transient mode, even the yak did not turn over in case of failure of 1 PD. There was a case when a pilot refused 1 out of 2 pd when landing, but he picked up the minimum speed and thrust at which the plane did not fall and sat on the deck on its belly "along the plane", but the speed was less than in a purely plane landing and length the deck was enough for braking.
          1. +3
            24 February 2021 22: 49
            it was easier to stabilize the position in hover mode, as I understand it.
            Yak-38 landed and took off at 2 engine points, Mirage at 4.
            and maybe for another reason, I will not argue.
            When one engine failed during landing, the yak broke down, unfortunately, there were such cases.
            there were also cases when one of the engines did not start.
            1. 0
              25 February 2021 10: 25
              Yak-38 landed and took off at 2 engine points,

              The PMD vectors are not parallel + the PMD nozzles are spaced apart. But not the point is important.
              it was easier to stabilize the position in hover mode, as I understand it.
              Yak-38 landed and took off at 2 engine points, Mirage at 4.

              All the same, all such aircraft in hover mode are controlled by jet rudders, which take power from the engines.
              When one engine failed, the yak would break off during landing,

              If this happened in hover mode, or if the pilot continued to extinguish the speed without noticing something was wrong, the plane turned over. But for this there was a chair with automatic ejection, which was turned on only in transient and vertical modes.
              But the mirage was not devoid of this:
              While hovering at a height of approx. 50 m, the plane suddenly lost control and began to fall.

              When hovering at an altitude of 100 m VTOL aircraft lost stability and cravings, after which it began to decline uncontrollably. At low altitude, the car turned over and fell. The pilot was killed.
              1. 0
                25 February 2021 10: 43
                Yes, this is a problem with multi-engine circuits - the complexity of coordinating the operation of the motors
                Therefore, we could not make it really working
                1. 0
                  25 February 2021 10: 48
                  Well, they actually did. The same Yak-38 and the Germans with their VFW VAK 191B implemented a 3-engine scheme.
  3. +5
    24 February 2021 18: 31
    It is interesting, of course, they tried to do it, but until now such a technique has not reached the price-efficiency indicators of aircraft of the classic layout.
    1. +1
      24 February 2021 19: 40
      And how many representatives of VTOL aircraft were in the series?
      1. 0
        24 February 2021 21: 05
        Because there weren't many of them, no one, theoretically sales, hoped to get something stunningly effective from them.
        There ved a continuous compromise between the wishlist of the military and the capabilities of the manufacturers.
        Maybe later, if they don't come up with something fundamentally and actually better.
        1. +1
          24 February 2021 22: 03
          Well, I can roughly name 7 countries that have operated VTOL aircraft. And 5 countries that had their own experience on this topic. Often very serious.
          1. 0
            25 February 2021 06: 06
            These aircraft have advantages, but there are also enough disadvantages.
  4. +2
    24 February 2021 18: 40
    it should be stated that scientists are unable to solve the problems of optimizing effective takeoff, flight, landing.
  5. +6
    24 February 2021 19: 21
    MiG-21PD

    MiG-23PD
    1. +4
      24 February 2021 19: 45
      Sorry, I forgot (or rather, did not have time) to mention that the MiG-21PD and MiG-23PD are not vertical, but with a shortened takeoff.
      1. +2
        24 February 2021 20: 03
        MiG-21PD and MiG-23PD - performance characteristics
      2. +2
        24 February 2021 20: 53
        Quote: Bad_gr
        MiG-21PD and MiG-23PD are not vertical, but with a shortened takeoff.

        And one more, now from Sukhoi (T-58VD).

      3. +2
        24 February 2021 21: 31
        All projects of multi-engine aircraft with lift engines, and there were quite a few of them, were terminated at various stages. Americans, Germans, French, ours, they all stopped sooner or later
        The Yak-38 lasted the longest.
        1. +1
          24 February 2021 21: 39
          Quote: Avior
          The Yak-38 lasted the longest.
          It is then the longest, but after all, it was planned to continue in the face of the Yak-141 again with lifting (2-a of the RD-41 engine).
          With lifting we still had at least one - VVA-14 from Bartini (lifting: 12 DTRD RD36-35PR)
          1. +4
            24 February 2021 22: 22
            Yak-141 initially began to be made single-engine, but could not. It was the same with the Yak-38 - Yakovlev categorically believed that it should only be single-engine. I recently wrote in detail.
            In general, there were many VTOL projects. about a dozen projects took part in the competition for the NATO supersonic fighter alone, separate projects were carried out on a subsonic attack aircraft - the future Harrier, and on a transport one.
            below I quote my post from the comment to the article
            https://topwar.ru/180039-tavkr-proekta-1143-i-ssvp-jak-38-maksimum-vozmozhnogo.html#comment-id-11257255
            38 years have passed since the creation of the project of the first "vertical" of the Yakovlev Design Bureau until the Yak-25M was put into service. Since the first flight of the Yak-36M / 38 - 15 years. Since the adoption of the Yak-38 into service - 8 years. This is the time frame for such aircraft being created and brought to an operational state.

            And what about the British?
            In 1957, the Bristol Engine Company, which produced aircraft engines, developed a power plant that could change the direction of the thrust vector. It was a turbofan engine equipped with knee-shaped nozzles mounted on the sides of the unit and rotating 90 degrees downward. Hawker Siddeley became interested in the new engine, which later received the designation Pegasus, which took it as the basis for the development of a light multipurpose aircraft with vertical take-off and landing ... The Pegasus I thrust was 9 pounds (or 000 kN), and its first activation was made in September 40 ...
            Design work on the P.1127 was officially commenced in 1957 ... In early 1967, the RAF ordered 60 aircraft to enter service and were given the designation Harrier GR.1 ....
            The first flight of the Harrier GR.1 aircraft took place on December 28, 1967. It officially entered service with the Royal Air Force on April 18, 1969.


            In total, with all prototypes, 12 years from the start of development and 10 years from the moment the engine was created for it.
            This is a clear difference in terms of creation between a single-engine and a multi-engine scheme.
            Look further

            ... But he focused on the shortcomings of the aircraft:

            low thrust-to-weight ratio ....

            unsatisfactory longitudinal balancing in case of engine thrust mismatch and disruption of their stable operation due to exhaust gases entering the inlet;

            high specific fuel consumption ...

            small power reserves of reactive control and directional stability in the modes of vertical takeoff and landing;


            high level of vibrations, thermal and acoustic loads,

            as well as insufficient operational adaptability ...

            and all this, we note, is a direct consequence of the fact that there was no suitable engine.
            Further more.

            “By combining WRC and short-range landing, significant improvements in aircraft performance were achieved, especially in tropical conditions.

            So, at a temperature of +30 ° C, starting with a takeoff run of 110 m, it turned out to be possible to increase the take-off weight of the aircraft by 1400 kg.

            An important achievement was the significant fuel economy (280 kg, compared to 360 kg for vertical takeoff).

            When landing with the new and the old method, fuel consumption was 120 and 240 kg, respectively.

            In terms of the indicated 1400 kg for fuel, this meant an increase in the range of the vehicle from 75 to 250 km at low altitudes and from 150 to 350 km at high altitudes "...



            but it was not there
            However, it should be borne in mind that if the takeoff with a short takeoff (SRS) justified itself, then the landing with "slip" was possible only when the sea was calm. The study of takeoff from a springboard (according to the "English model") showed that due to the complexity of the selection of the necessary engine thrust vector control algorithm, this method is not for the Yak-38

            Thus, it turned out that the economical take-off and landing modes commonly used by Harrier were not available for the Yak-38.
            The root of the problem lies in the propulsion system.
            And this was understandable after the very first experiments with VTOL aircraft, at the very beginning of the creation of the Yak-38.
            Guided by considerations of technical feasibility and relying on the experience of the British, Yakovlev insisted on creating an aircraft with one lift-sustainer engine. Perhaps that is why, when he learned that a group of his employees was proactively working on the look of a VTOL aircraft with a combined power plant, he forbade the OKB specialists to participate in this work.

            The "disgraced" group was headed by Deputy Chief Designer S.G. Mordovin, who proceeded from the fact that an engine suitable for use as a single power plant for a VTOL aircraft was not even in development in the USSR, and its creation would take ten to fifteen years.

            That is, from the very beginning it was clear that the three-engine scheme is not some kind of breakthrough technology, but a forced decision, from which it was desirable to go to a single-engine scheme, if there was such an opportunity. Moreover, during the development of the Yak-141, the situation repeated itself. We started with the development of a single-engine version, and only when it did not work out did we move on to the old three-engine version, with all its shortcomings.
            On June 26, 1974, a directive was issued by the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR, which officially gave rise to the development of a new VTOL and set a deadline for presenting the finished draft. At an early stage, the use of a single power plant with one PMD with a thrust of 15 kgs was implied. The first full-size model of the aircraft was assembled. But already in the course of work on it, it became clear that a car with such an arrangement would be almost impossible to stabilize in vertical flight modes. The State Commission, having familiarized itself with the layout, came to the same conclusions. Therefore, it was decided to switch to a combined power plant, the experience of creating and operating which was already obtained on the Yak-000.


            Thus, although the Yak-38 as a whole turned out and flew, it turned out to be impossible to achieve high performance from it, in principle achievable. This same fate undoubtedly awaited the Yak-141.
            Therefore, the creation of a modern VTOL aircraft should start with the development of a propulsion system, and the very first question is whether it is possible to obtain a single-engine power plant on the basis of the Su-57 engines at least the first, even the second stage, or other available engines, or not? If this is real, then a fairly rapid development of VTOL aircraft is possible and it is realistic to obtain light aircraft carriers based on the aircraft carriers under construction and Kuznetsov, if he waits until those years. And if not, then the VTOL aircraft is not worth starting, although the decision to create it already exists, however, it is not known that something would actually be done.
            1. +3
              25 February 2021 00: 32
              Quote: Avior
              Therefore, the creation of a modern VTOL aircraft should start with the development of a propulsion system and the very first question is whether it is possible to get a single-engine power plant on the basis of the Su-57 engines at least the first, even the second stage, or other available engines

              Probably the most advanced vertical mount, after all, on the F-35
            2. +3
              25 February 2021 12: 38
              Why carry around half-myths?
              This is all taken from articles in which the situation in the KB is described in 2 words, which physically cannot describe everything that is happening. And in such a summary, it simply misleads the reader.
              Yak-141 initially began to be made single-engine, but could not.

              Yes, initially they wanted a single-engine one, but they refused it during development. A supersonic VTOL aircraft with 1 engine could be created only 30 years later, repeating the I-141 line-up, replacing 2 PDs with 1 fan, which is larger, heavier, while having less thrust and an extreme false power take-off mechanism from the main engine.
              Yak-38- Yakovlev categorically believed that it should only be single-engine.

              Guided by considerations of technical feasibility and relying on the experience of the British, Yakovlev insisted on creating an aircraft with one lift-sustainer engine.


              The "disgraced" group was headed by Deputy Chief Designer S.G. Mordovin, who proceeded from the fact that an engine suitable for use as a single power plant for a VTOL aircraft was not even in development in the USSR, and its creation would take ten to fifteen years.

              Only here it is not said that the same Mordovin headed the development of the experimental Yak-36 and was immersed in this topic more than Yakovlev.
              That is, from the very beginning it was clear that the three-engine scheme is not some kind of breakthrough technology, but a forced decision, from which it was desirable to go to a single-engine scheme, if there was such an opportunity.

              This was approximately the case, but then it became clear that this scheme was more promising.
              The Yak-38, with a nominally less PMD thrust than the Pegasus thrust, and a mass greater than that of a competitor, developed a speed higher than any of the harriers.
              And the Harrier's descendant lost the F-35B competition, which is closer to the Soviet machines in the scheme.

              Playing with dates is also valid.

              38 years have passed since the creation of the project of the first "vertical" of the Yakovlev Design Bureau until the Yak-25M was put into service. Since the first flight of the Yak-36M / 38 - 15 years. Since the adoption of the Yak-38 into service - 8 years. This is the time frame for such aircraft being created and brought to an operational state.

              In total, with all prototypes, 12 years from the start of development and 10 years from the moment the engine was created for it.
              This is a clear difference in terms of creation between a single-engine and a multi-engine scheme.

              Let's put the numbers in order:
              Yak-38:
              start of development - 1967
              First flight -1971
              1 serial car -1974
              start of operation - 1977

              "kestrel"
              start of development -1957
              first flight - 1960

              Harrier GR.1 (full-fledged combat aircraft built on the basis of an experimental kestrel)
              the beginning of development (obtaining TTT) -1961
              first flight - 1966
              start of operation -1969

              TOTAL yak began to operate in 10 years after the start of development. Harrier - after 8 if you count without kestrel and after 12 years.
              But what does the next modification of the Yak-38m have to do with it is not clear.

              However, it should be borne in mind that if the takeoff with a short takeoff (SRS) justified itself, then the landing with "slip" was possible only when the sea was calm. The study of takeoff from a springboard (according to the "English model") showed that due to the complexity of the selection of the necessary engine thrust vector control algorithm, this method is not for the Yak-38

              Thus, it turned out that the economical take-off and landing modes commonly used by Harrier were not available for the Yak-38.
              The root of the problem lies in the propulsion system.


              Here, let's estimate the horseradish to the nose.
              1.) Landing with slippage when rolling is contraindicated for both the harrier and the yak. At the same time, it is possible not only in calm weather, but simply the restrictions on rolling during landing with slippage are higher than with any option of entry or vertical landing.
              2.) Take-off from springboard 38 is fundamentally possible, but for its implementation it was necessary to carry out separate tests, and most importantly, the carriers of the springboard did not have and they had to be modernized.
              3.) The length of the takeoff run of the Yak-38, with a WRC 90-140 meters, depending on the wind speed and ship speed.
              At the same time, the length of the Kiva flight deck is approximately 185m.
              Harrier take-off run, with WRC - 180m
              The length of the flight deck from the edge to the edge of the springboard of the Invisible aircraft carriers is approximately 160-170m.
              Those. less than the standard take-off run with SRS.
              At the same time, the Americans, when using harriers from their UDCs, whose flight deck is about 230-240 m long, do not use a springboard.

              Thus, although the Yak-38 as a whole turned out and flew, it turned out to be impossible to achieve high performance from it, in principle achievable.

              As well as from the harrier.
              This same fate undoubtedly awaited the Yak-141.

              Why do you think so?
              1. +1
                25 February 2021 14: 22
                Wrote a lot, but in vain
                It also says that this is a repetition of growth to another article.
                Everything is written there
                Including by dates
                And the highlighting of quotes was gone when copying, but in the original post it is
                The Harrier has been in service in various modifications since 1969 to this day, precisely because the scheme was initially chosen successfully, and everyone lost interest in the Yak-38 by the end of the 80, despite your ra
                And the Yakovtsy understood this perfectly, trying to make the Yak-141 single-engine, another thing is that they did not succeed.
                And what you wrote, and Yakovlev, it turns out, did not understand what he was doing over the plane in the design bureau, if, according to the results of the yak-36, he insisted on a single-engine circuit for the yak-38, and even after he left, they did not understand, trying to make a single-engine one on the yak-141 scheme, and not repeat the Yak-38, which was abandoned a short time after being put into service, and the memories of the reasons for the three-engine scheme - everyone is indiscernible, except you, it turns out.
                One you are in the subject.
                1. +2
                  25 February 2021 15: 39
                  It also says that this is a repetition of growth to another article.

                  I'm not going to go into comments in another article and look for the necessary comment there in a very large number of comments.
                  And the highlighting of quotes was gone when copying, but in the original post it is

                  I more or less understand where the quotes are, and where your words are already. I have read the articles that you are citing, albeit for a long time.
                  Everything is written there
                  Including by dates

                  I wrote down the dates. You have everything turned upside down.
                  For example - why are you comparing the Yak-38M and the GR1 harrier? Yak-38M is also a modification of the original aircraft, which was developed in parallel with new machines, for example, the same Yak-41/141.

                  It would be legitimate to compare the Yak-38 (without M) and the GR1 harrier - and the timing gap is minimal there.

                  The Harrier has been in service since 1969 to this day in various modifications precisely because the scheme was initially chosen successfully,

                  Not. The harrier's longevity lies only in the fact that Britain, India, Italy, Spain, Thailand, and the US Marine Corps, for economic and / or political reasons, could only afford light aircraft carriers and UDCs, from which either helicopters or those same harriers could be operated. Only. Harrier is a bad plane. The performance characteristics of the harriers are comparable to the performance characteristics of the Yak-38 of similar years.
                  But if the USSR was waiting for the next generation VTOL aircraft, then the Western countries had no alternative to replacing the harrier and they squeezed all the juices out of it. And on yaks, for example, they did not take 4 p-60s, although the launch was possible from all 4 pylons. Didn't try to use paired holders for P-60. They practically did not fly with PTBs, although they were in units, in contrast to what is written in the articles.

                  An example - the same springboard - a necessary measure, because due to the length, a full-fledged take-off with a short range for the harrier was impossible on most of its carriers. And even the presence of a springboard forced to start takeoff from the edge of the deck, which made it difficult to prepare for a mass takeoff and reduced the deck's carrying capacity.

                  And the Yakovtsy understood this perfectly, trying to make the Yak-141 single-engine, another thing is that they did not succeed.

                  Various versions of the Yak-141 layout were worked out. Including single engine and fan. But again, the 3-engine was considered optimal.
                  I remind you that the "good" harrier scheme automatically made it subsonic. And the heir to the Harrier X-32 failed the test.

                  And what you wrote, and Yakovlev, it turns out, did not understand what kind of plane they were doing in the design bureau, if, according to the results of the Yak-36, he insisted on a single-engine Yak-38 scheme

                  Yakovlev was in charge of not a small design bureau, which at the same time was engaged in civilian passenger aircraft, sports and training aircraft, fine-tuning the interceptor and bomber, until recently helicopters were developed there. In addition to general project management, there was also administrative work. And Yakovlev himself at the time of the beginning of the development of the Yak-38 was already over 60. All this will not contribute to the maximum immersion in each project.
                  The article says that he insisted and that was all. Until what moment and and why he changed his mind - they do not mention. In such a setting, it turns out that the Yak-38 was made 3-engine almost in spite of. And in fact, he most likely insisted up to 1 detailed justification.


                  even after he left, they did not understand, trying to make a single-engine scheme on the yak-141, and not repeat the yak-38

                  Both under Yakovlev and after his departure, different options were worked out in the early stages of design. This is the normal course of development.


                  Yak-38, which was abandoned shortly after being put into service

                  The rejection of which quite accurately coincided with the collapse of the USSR and the rejection of a bunch of other aircraft, in particular from all single-engine aircraft. For example MiG-27 and or Su-17M4.

                  and memories of the reasons for the three-engine circuit - everyone does not understand, except you, it turns out.
                  One you are in the subject.

                  I do not deny that the decision to make an airplane with 2 PD + PMD is forced, but whether it is successful or not - various sources (monographs, memoirs and memoirs differ in opinions.At the same time, in 90 the prevailing opinion was that yak is a poop, and here is the harrier - uh. And some of the sources broadcast this point of view. If you are interested - here at VO there is an aircraft technician engaged in the operation of yaks - you can ask him what he thinks about the various schemes. He quite objectively will give you + and - each of them ...
                  1. 0
                    25 February 2021 16: 52
                    ... You have everything turned upside down.

                    If you understood where the quotes are, the question of timing would not arise.
                    Harrier has not only naval versions, it is not a purely naval aircraft.
                    As for the yak-141, they began to make it exactly single-engine, despite the existing yak-38, and did not conduct parallel development. And only when the single engine did not work out, then they were forced to return to the old scheme.
                    As for the aircraft technician on the Yak, I know who you are writing about, and I know his view, I discussed this issue with him, now he rarely writes, used to write actively.
                    But in this case, there is objective comparative data.
                    If the Yak-38 had been successful, no one would have removed it from service.
                    1. +1
                      25 February 2021 17: 13

                      Harrier has not only naval versions, it is not a purely naval aircraft.

                      Yes, it's also a stormtrooper. The British took him foolishly into their Air Force, even before the Navy. But land harriers were used by the British as ship-based aircraft. All other countries except Britain used the harrier as a carrier aircraft. So the harrier can be viewed with a clear conscience as a ship's plane.
                      As for the yak-141, they began to make it exactly single-engine, despite the existing yak-38, and did not conduct parallel development.

                      And how then did it happen that an engine was specially developed for a single-engine VTOL aircraft, which did not provide it with the ability to be single-engine? This, after all, could only happen if the scheme with one engine was worked out at the stage of the draft design and was discarded in favor of another.

                      If the Yak-38 had been successful, no one would have removed it from service.

                      How then do you explain the fact that the successful mig-27 and su-17 were removed from service, the outer sides of which were straight from the factory? What does it have to do with exactly the same year?
          2. 0
            25 February 2021 09: 24
            VVA-14 from Bartini (lifting: 12 DTRD RD36-35PR)

            The most pointless of all VTOL aircraft

            The key idea of ​​the "verticals" was to shorten the takeoff run. Based on takeoff in the absence (damage) of runways or from ship decks of limited size

            VVA-14 was a flying boat.
            In front of which was an endless, free and indestructible runway in the form of a sea surface

            It is unclear how the crazy idea of ​​a VTOL amphibious aircraft was able to come to embodiment in metal
            1. 0
              25 February 2021 17: 27
              Quote: Santa Fe
              ... The most pointless of all VTOL aircraft ...
              VVA-14 was a flying boat. In front of which there was an endless, free and indestructible runway in the form of a sea surface

              Flying boat, you say .. What's this?
              If there is a landing gear, then there is a need for an airfield, or, as in this case, a helipad for landing or takeoff. VVA-14 could take off and land almost anywhere, whether on land or on water. As a lifeguard, nothing could be better.
              And the number of engines for vertical takeoff was chosen from what was.
              1. 0
                25 February 2021 18: 02
                Flying boat, you say .. What's this?

                Many amphibians have a chassis.

                Why do they need vertical takeoff?

                VTOL aircraft for emergencies - takeoff from a broken airfield or a short ship deck. Why would a sea savior need it? The coastal airfield is in order. Takeoff / run on water is unlimited
                1. 0
                  25 February 2021 22: 11
                  Quote: Bad_gr
                  Flying boat, you say .. What's this?

                  Quote: Santa Fe
                  Many amphibians have a chassis.

                  All amphibians have a chassis. They differ from flying boats and float seaplanes, which do not have a landing gear. VVA-14 is precisely an amphibian, which means that takeoff and landing in an unprepared area of ​​terrain are also relevant for it.
                  I repeat, in my opinion, as a rescue, and will fly quickly, and sit down, and then take off from anywhere - an ideal option.
  6. +2
    24 February 2021 21: 03
    Take off out of focus: saw the dock. film how Migi on boosters took off vertically upwards (like the C-75 approximately), the question is about landing.
    1. 0
      25 February 2021 18: 44
      Quote: Avior
      As for the Yak-141, they began to make it exactly single-engine,

      A full-fledged VTOL aircraft will turn out if the only lifting main engine is installed in front of the aircraft (under the body), and the cockpit is pushed into the tail, then the rotary nozzle of the engine will be exactly under the center of gravity of the aircraft, with such a scheme, no additional lifting engines are required as in the Yak-38 and Yak-141, no lift fan like the F-35B
      1. +1
        25 February 2021 22: 58
        Quote: agond
        A full-fledged VTOL aircraft will turn out if the only lift-sustaining engine is installed in front of the aircraft (under the body)

        Was already like this. Yak-36 was called. True, it has two engines, but they are in the nose, and the rotary nozzles are in the aircraft's center of gravity.
  7. 0
    26 February 2021 17: 18
    Quote: Bad_gr
    And one more, now from Sukhoi (T-58VD).

    Then we must remember more from Sukhoi and T-6-1.
    1. 0
      26 February 2021 18: 08
      The Yak-36 had an indistinct design, so it did not fly, they would be based on the son-in-law of the VTOL aircraft designed by K.A Shulikov from 1947, in which the cockpit was at least slightly moved back, and in the Yak-36 both the cockpit immediately behind the engine, and the rotary the nozzle g is somewhere under the seat, everything is piled up in a heap, what the designer wanted is not clear.
      To date, it is fully realistic to build a VTOL aircraft according to the engine in front, (for example, AL-41F1S), the pilot's cabin is pushed as far as possible into the tail, a rotary nozzle in the center of gravity

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"