Tsar-plane: how the first serial giant of the First world war fought

The weakness of the designer Sikorsky

Igor Sikorsky was a capable aircraft designer, but he had a weakness that could both help him and let him down - as, for example, in an attempt to create an airplane for the world's first non-stop flight across the Atlantic. The name of this weakness was the pursuit of comfort and gigantomania. But, if in the 20s, in emigration, she became Sikorsky across the throat, then shortly before the First World War everything turned out to be very useful.

The designer did not yet suspect what scale the military conflict would break out in 1914 - he drew in his imagination large-scale passenger air travel between major cities and even continents. The embodiment of these dreams was the four-engine "Russian Vityaz", the cabin of which resembled a city tram. By the standards of 1913, it was a giant - it could comfortably accommodate ten people.

In September of the same 1913, the "Russian Knight", however, ordered to live a long time. Moreover, the giant Sikorsky ditched in a very unusual way - at one of the airshows, a biplane was flying over the plane peacefully on the ground, from which the engine suddenly fell out. Yes, it is so unfortunate that it is definitely in "Vityaz". The wooden-linen structure could not be restored.

Igor Sikorsky

Sikorsky, who knows how to find good sponsors, did not lose heart - this was an opportunity to build another, more comfortable, plane. Fortunately, he knew in which direction to work - to build not a separate cabin, but a hefty one, coinciding with a rather big fuselage. This is how the Ilya Muromets was born - the prototype of the "classic" heavy bomber of both world wars.

The "Muromets" looked powerful: 4 motors, placed one after the other on a 30-meter wing. The scope of the latter, plus or minus, corresponded to that of some "Lancaster" - thousands of them will be destined to burn Hamburg, Dresden, Magdeburg and a number of other large German cities in the 40s.

The Achilles' heel of the aircraft was the foreign origin of the motors - the necessary engines of 140-200 horsepower could only be obtained abroad, and a teaspoon a day. It was not difficult to assemble the linen-wooden structure of "Muromets". But the engines were most often obtained cannibalistically - by disassembling damaged aircraft.

A total of 76 Muromtsev were built. But they could never be assembled in one place - because a new plane could most often be built only by removing the motors from the old one.

Incendiary start

By the summer of 1914, the imminence of a major war in Europe had already become evident.

And Sikorsky's planes began to interest military customers. The first of these was, oddly enough, the fleet. The Muromets was equipped with floats, and the giant capable of landing on water began to look even more unusual.

True, the plane is long naval did not last.

At the very beginning of the war, they themselves ruined him, and in a rather non-trivial way. Once in the Baltic, off the coast of today's Estonia, the "Murom" had some kind of engine malfunction. To find out the cause of the breakdown in a more or less calm environment, the giant was put on water. And then suddenly on the horizon the silhouettes of some approaching ships or ships began to dawn.

Float version of "Ilya Muromets"

All this was reminiscent of the approach of the German destroyers.

The crew had already resigned themselves to being captured, but to do it with the aircraft in addition would be quite ashamed. Therefore, having plunged into the watercraft, the pilots finally set fire to "Muromets". Later, however, it turned out that the ships seen did not belong to the enemy, but the wooden-linen structure burned merrily and quickly. Therefore, throwing something to extinguish it was already pointless for a long time.

Combat work

After this precedent, the fleet did not show much interest in Sikorsky's "air ships".

Whether it is the army. True, the initial design was damp, and the flying giant required very specific control training. Therefore, the Muromtsy were able to start bombing in earnest only by February 1915.

Attacking troops on the battlefield or even moving columns with clumsy heavy bombers would be foolish - and everyone understood this. Therefore, "Muromtsy" worked on strategic (as far as the range allowed) objects. Although, by today's standards, they would be classified as operational goals.

The best object of application for four-engine bomb carriers was considered to be railway junctions - large enough objects that will definitely not run away anywhere. I don’t want a bomb.

The effectiveness of the raids was different. But in successful raids, the resulting fireworks could be seen from afar. For example, in June 1915 "Muromtsy" attacked Przhevorsk. In addition to the station itself, a German echelon filled with shells was hit by bombs. The shells that day exploded long and colorful.

Recolorized photograph of "Muromets" during the First World War

"Ilya Muromets" could take from three hundred to five hundred kilograms of bomb load, depending on the power of the motors installed on a particular board.

During the entire First World War, these bombers flew three hundred sorties. And again here the very strength and weakness of the Russian Empire, with which we began our conversation, manifested themselves.

The plane was breakthrough at the time of its creation. An excellent concept of application, real significant combat successes. And - only 300 flights. By the standards of some Englishmen or Germans - to chickens, to be honest, for a laugh.

The reasons are predictable - a lack of engines and a high accident rate. At the same time, there were so few aircraft that there was a constant squabble between the crews - for whom the newly built on the basis of the old, many times wrecked, patched-repaired engines would be assigned.

Russian Troubles

The empire that gave birth to "Muromtsy" collapsed under the weight of its own and practically unavoidable problems. The airships lasted a little longer - long enough to take part in the Civil War. Although the path to the latter for some crews turned out to be very, very thorny.

By the beginning of the great Russian turmoil, the "Muromtsev" squadron was based in Vinnitsa.

The decomposition of the army went by leaps and bounds, and the pilots flew inland. In the conditions of the collapsed discipline, one could not count on the long-term preservation of the front. And it was at least about the fact that the four-engined machines did not go to the enemy.

The crew of Joseph Bashko decided to leave in February 1918. The original target was Smolensk. But "Muromtsy" were considered emergency vehicles for a reason - the plane barely made it to Bobruisk. They sat right in the clutches of the Polish troops. Those, however, treated the pilots favorably - the personnel are still rare. Therefore, the crew of Basko, together with the bomber, joined the ranks of the armed forces of the young Polish state.

Perhaps Bashko would have stayed there, but by May the situation had developed in such a way that the unit to which our hero's "Muromets" was assigned decided to disarm in front of the Germans.

This meant that the plane would be handed over to a former enemy or (at best) destroyed. At the same time, the prospects for Bashko himself were very vague. Therefore, he decided to follow the example of one of the characters in Russian folk tales: he left those, and I will leave the others. And Bashko flew to a new, already Soviet, Russia.

He did it, but only partially - "Muromets" again refused to air. The landing was hard - the plane crashed. But Bashko himself survived. And even managed to fight for the young Red Army in the Civil War.

By the way, the red Muromets were appreciated. And even restarted their build. True, it was not about a full-fledged production, but only about the completion of the backlog formed during the First World War. But in the meager conditions of the Civil War, this was already a serious contribution.

In the Red Army, the four-engine giants worked not only at railway stations - the armies of the Civil era, especially the white ones, were much less dependent on them. They tried to use aircraft against mobile targets like armored trains and Mamantov's cavalry. And the results, of course, were more modest than in the First World War. But, again, it still fit perfectly into the logic of the Civil War -

"better than nothing".

In 1920, one of the "Muromtsy" nearly put a fat point in the life of the white general Turkul, at the same time killing his beloved dog, a French bulldog named Palma.

But the Civil - the last war of these heavy bombers - was coming to an end.

They tried to find a new application. For example, it can be adapted for postal and passenger transportation. But this occupation was not for the faint of heart - "Muromets" was famous for its accident rate before. And in the early 20s, when the technical condition of the tortured engines was very sad, to climb into it, special courage was required.

The last flight of "Ilya Muromets" took place in 1923.

After that, the traces of these air ships of the Russian Empire were cut off completely.

All that remains of them today is a handful of individual artifacts, a hefty stack of photographs, memoirs of those involved, and surviving documentation.

Comments

[SAG]

Thanks to the author for the article. It is written interesting. Read in one breath

[Flooding]

Quote: SAG

Thanks to the author for the article. It is written interesting. Read in one breath

The largest bomber of its time. Consequently, it carried a record bomb load.
What type of bomb?
How were you attached?
Who carried out the bombing and how?
After all, what are the design features of an outstanding aircraft?

[Reviews]

Quote: Flood

The largest bomber of its time. Consequently, it carried a record bomb load.

By the middle of the war, it was surpassed by the much more compact bombers of the Allies and even the Germans.

How were you attached?

In the bomb racks. Only that single 500-kilogram bomb was attached outside. I just didn’t climb inside and didn’t go through the bomb bay.

Who carried out the bombing and how?

Navigator-bombardier (at first he was called "artillery officer"). At the first stages by eye, and then devices made in the conditions of EVZ appeared. For example, in the navigator's window there was a vizier, with which the navigator measured the drift and helped the pilot to aim - he moved the arrow in the window under the pilot's feet and the pilot, as it were, "stringed" the target onto the arrow. At the right moment, the navigator pulled the descent.

After all, what are the design features of an outstanding aircraft?

There are a lot of them. One listing of them with comments would be enough for two such articles.

[Flooding]

Thank you.
Natural desire to see this interesting information in the article.
But the author did not grow together.

[Reviews]

Quote: Flood

But the author did not grow together.

This is putting it mildly. :)

[Aviator_]

There is a classic, the author is aircraft designer V.B. Shavrov. The first volume - "The history of aircraft designs in the USSR until 1938"

[Reviews]

Quote: Aviator_

There is a classic, the author is aircraft designer V.B. Shavrov. The first volume - "The history of aircraft designs in the USSR until 1938"

Marat Khairulin is now a classic on the topic "IM". Shavrov - "for general initial acquaintance".

[Old electrician]

"Ilya Muromets" could take from three hundred to five hundred kilograms of bomb load, depending on the power of the motors installed on a particular board.

- gee-gee-gee!
Mathematical theories of aircraft stability were developed quite a long time ago, and by 1910 the theories of Ferber, GA Botezat, and others were published. This is well known. However, Sikorsky was not an aircraft designer, he was a very successful businessman and adventurer, so the laws of aerodynamics were unwritten for him. Breakthrough in "Ilya Muromets" (IM) were 4 engines, otherwise it was a completely mediocre design, which is presented at the departments of aerodynamics and flight dynamics as an example of how it is impossible to design airplanes. Thanks to the genius of Sikorsky MI, this is the only aircraft in the world with a rear center.
Rear alignment guaranteed the MI extremely high drag. It is as if the MI were flying with a braking parachute attached to the tail, while the First World War required bombers to increase their speed, range and bomb load. In MI, an increase in any of these indicators led only to a significant increase in frontal resistance. Nevertheless, before and after emigration, Sikorsky, like an unwise person, held on to the rear alignment scheme, while bombers from other countries progressed rapidly. Several numbers and dates.
At the beginning of WW1, there were 4 IMs in Russia. 23.12.1914/27.02.1915/XNUMX of them was created the Squadron of air ships, EVK. The first combat mission XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX.
France began a war with the Voisin L bomber. In total, more than 1914 Voisin Ls were built in France in 1915-800. In November 1914, the first bomber unit in France (Groupe de Bombardement) was formed from Voisin. earlier than in Russia. In the middle of 1915, it was launched into the Voisin LAS series. By the end of the year, 350 cars were produced. A total of 1150 bombers of this type only and only in France.
Thanks to Sikorsky's talent, the single-engine Voisins were only slightly inferior in flight duration to the four-engine IM and had an equal bomb load with it. But a couple of hundred Voisins could arrange a much more terrible defeat than the four of them. Therefore, at the beginning of the war, for the French, four single-engine aircraft were preferable to one four-engine. The four-engine front-line bomber (except for the MI) has never been built by anyone else.
England entered the war with the Avro 504C. As early as November, three Avro 504s were used to bomb positions of German airships. And at the beginning of 1915, two submarines at the docks were destroyed with the Avro 504.
29.06.1915/XNUMX/XNUMX the first flight of the German twin-engine bomber Gotha GI took place. Gotha was not a long-range bomber, but from the moment of its appearance, IM finally became an outsider.
In 1916, the MI in flight range, speed and bomb load was already significantly inferior to the British single-engine DH.4 short-range bomber. The British twin-engined long-range bomber Handley Page was not even a match for the IM. It is simply ridiculous to compare THEM with 4 and 6 motor German Riesen.
For the sake of advertising, Sikorsky made a 415 kg bomb, which, to the delight of journalists, was lifted into the air and transported around the airfield. IM could not fly further with such a load. Until the end of the war, this bomb stood at the firm of Sikorsky under the promise that he would shower the Germans with such bombs. A 656 kg bomb was also made for advertising, but they did not even dare to take off with it.
Very rarely, when flying at short range, the MI used 250 kg of bombs, somewhat more often 82 kg (5 poods). The most popular - 16 kg bombs. On average, the bomb load per flight of the MI was 10 pounds, the maximum - 12 pounds (197 kg). A bomb load of 500 kg was unattainable for MI (except for advertising flights).
The maximum caliber of actually used British bombs is 907 kg, for Gotha - 700 kg. There is a known case when Riesen dropped a 1 ton bomb on London, flew with it to London from Germany and returned safely back.
During the First World War, the Germans built 542 Gotha and 63 Riesen, England built 554 Handley Page, Russia built about 80 IM.

[Bolt cutter]

Thanks to the genius of Sikorsky MI, this is the only aircraft in the world with a rear center.

And one of the few that was controlled "against intuition" - the tie rods were overlapped crosswise and turning the steering wheel "to the right" turned the plane to the left. Sikorsky considered this feature convenient and abandoned it only in America.

[dauria]

Rear alignment guaranteed the MI extremely high drag. It's as if IM were flying with a retard parachute attached to the tail.

Oh how !!! So the circuit with the carrier GO is bad?
Explain this thought in more detail, and at the same time a picture, and at what balancing position of the controlled stabilizer appears useless inductive reactance ....

[Old electrician]

And what does the MI have to do with the unsuccessful aerodynamic design?

useless inductive reactance?

Are you saying there is also useful inductive reactance? Alas, inductive resistance is a thing that cannot be eliminated by a simple deviation of the stabilizer and has nothing to do with the topic of our conversation.
The aircraft does not fall due to the aerodynamic force F acting on the wing. Force F is applied to a point on the wing called the focus or center of pressure. And the plane also has a center of mass. The ratio of the position of these centers is called centering.
Centering is a very important characteristic of an aircraft in terms of its stability and controllability. If the center of mass is in front of F, then the airplane is said to have front centering. The closer the center of gravity is shifted to the wing tip, the more longitudinally stable the aircraft and the worse it is controllable. If the center of mass and F coincide, then this centering is called the rear critical. Such an aircraft is perfectly controllable, but the pilot cannot even sneeze, so as not to accidentally knock the eraplan down and crash to smithereens.
If the centering is negative (rear), then this guarantees the crew and passengers a mouthful of ground. Such an aircraft is called unstable.
In addition to the lift force, the frontal resistance force acts on the aircraft. Roughly speaking, the forces F and drag are proportional to the square of the flight speed and the angle of attack. In horizontal flight, the drag force is equal to the thrust of the engines.
The angle of attack is the angle between the air flow on the wing and the line of zero lift F. When the angle of attack of the limiting (critical) value is reached, the air flow stalls and the aircraft falls. The critical angle of attack or stall angle of attack is in the order of 15–20 ° for many profiles.
The idea of ​​Sikorsky's fix was that a stable horse has four legs, respectively, a stable plane should have four bearing half-planes. Unfortunately, the dynamics of an airplane and a mare is radically different, therefore, thanks to the genius of Sikorsky IM, this is the only airplane in the world with a rear centering and four bearing half-planes (like a horse's legs).
Theoretically, the MI should not fly at all, but Sikorsky coped with this task by installing a stabilizer (rear wing) deflected 23 ° in relation to the front wing. Because of this, the MI stabilizer was constantly in the attack catch area close to critical. Such an angle of attack of the stabilizer of a large area (in comparison with conventional aircraft of the same weight) guaranteed an extremely high drag, unattainable with an aerodynamic configuration with a front centering. An increase in the power of the IM engines did not give any increase in speed or other indicators, because the drag increased in proportion to the square of the speed.
Your photo shows a stabilizer that creates a negative lift in horizontal flight, because besides MI, there are no rear-centered aircraft in nature. The stabilizer IM created a positive lift in horizontal flight, so a modest question: what does this photo have to do with MI?

[dauria]

because, apart from the MI, aircraft with rear centering do not exist in nature.

Yes, sir. Your knowledge of aerodynamics is amazing ... Then a simple question ... The focus of the wing is about 25% of the MAR, and the centering of 33%. Nobody was surprised in the 30s. But the planes were longitudinally quite stable. Not annoying, why?
And the scheme of the longitudinal biplane in your opinion will not fly at all?

[Old electrician]

Yes, sir. Your knowledge of aerodynamics is amazing ... Then a simple question ... The focus of the wing is about 25% of the MAR, and the centering of 33% did not surprise anyone in the 30s. But the planes were longitudinally quite stable. Not annoying, why?

Monsieur! Have you tried teaching materiel? Start, perhaps all is not lost for you. Before writing obvious nonsense to the dynamics of flight, read any textbook on this topic, but preferably two, or even three. To begin with, at least “Tarasenkov A.M., Braga V.G. Dynamics of flight and combat maneuvering of aircraft. Textbook for Ing. VVUZov Air Force ".
An indispensable condition for the longitudinal static stability of the aircraft in terms of overload is the REQUIREMENT OF THE PLANE FOCUS POSITION BEYOND ITS CENTER OF MASS. No options.
Again, the alignment at which the center of mass of the aircraft coincides with the focus of the aircraft is called neutral or critical.
The difference between the neutral centering (focus) and the actual centering is called the centering margin or the longitudinal static overload stability margin.
If the center of the aircraft is more than neutral (i.e., negative), then the aircraft becomes unstable in terms of overload, which is unacceptable. Therefore, for all loading options, the center of mass of the aircraft must be in front of the focus, i.e. the aircraft must have a certain minimum balance stability margin, based on which the maximum rear and maximum front operational balance is assigned. In the 30s they knew very well about this, so there is not a single aircraft of that time with zero and, even more so, with a negative margin of stability. If such planes are allegedly known to you, then name the model - I will laugh.
The maximum rear operational alignment is selected so that the overload stability margin is sufficient. This is 3.4% of the MAC for maneuverable aircraft, and for training and heavy aircraft - at least 10% of the MAC. Your figures of 25% MAH and 33% MAH have nothing to do with the margin of longitudinal static stability.
PS. As I understand it, your photo shows a four-engine long-range bomber, built according to the ingenious scheme of Sikorsky himself?

[dauria]

Oh how How many words, but no answer. Have you forgotten with what your stupidity the conversation began? Or just play around?

Rear alignment guaranteed the MI extremely high drag. It's as if IM was flying with a retarding parachute attached to its tail,

Here and explain why. And I do not need to rewrite common truths so verbosely. This plane was thoroughly analyzed back in 1968 by Pyshnov.
And this is a masterpiece of that time. And the instability with a time constant of 5,5 seconds did not interfere in the least with flying, setting records and fighting. And at the same time, so for general education - if you are talking about the angle of attack of the GO, take into account the bevel of the flow from the wing at 30% of the angle of attack.

[Old electrician]

This plane was thoroughly analyzed back in 1968 by Pyshnov.
And this is a masterpiece of that time. And the instability with a time constant of 5,5 seconds did not interfere in the least with flying, setting records and fighting.

- Wow! Large-caliber artillery went into action!
Pyshnov's task was to prove that Russia is the homeland of elephants. Therefore, he proudly narrates about the pre-war records of IM, but extremely diligently avoids any comparisons of the performance characteristics of them with the performance characteristics of any other bombers of the First World War. Because in this case it would be necessary to explain why IM was the worst among them. Looking at your trolling, you are convinced that Pyshnov has achieved his goal.
It is surprising that you did not turn to the authority of Shavrov, although Shavrov's drawback is that he is even slightly more honest than Pyshnov. Quote from “Shavrov V.B. The history of aircraft designs in the USSR until 1938. - 3rd ed., Corrected. - M .: Mechanical Engineering, 1986 - 752 p., Ill. "

Until 1915, the Muromets scheme was advanced, the lag began in 1916. Only in 1917, having ceased to meet the increased requirements of aerodynamics, it became an insurmountable obstacle to improving the flight qualities of these aircraft and was finally outdated. The increase in power caused an increase in the fuel reserve, an increase in the size and weight of the aircraft. The speed hardly increased, the bomb load was continuously decreasing, reducing to a ridiculous figure: 150-200 kg of bombs with a total 7-ton mass of the ship. The value of "Muromtsev" series G and E as bombers was reduced to almost zero during a 4-hour flight. An increase in the mass of bombs by reducing the duration of the flight limited the range and deprived the aircraft of the ability to operate anywhere deep behind enemy lines.

Since Russia is the homeland of elephants, since Shavrov is modestly silent about what the mysterious scheme of "Muromets" was and why it is never used again. And why foreign bombers with the same engines flew farther, faster and carried more bombs. Nevertheless, against the background of Pyshnov's praises, this quote from Shavrov looks more than strange. How can you talk about an airplane - a masterpiece, which

instability with a constant time of 5,5 seconds did not interfere in the least with flying, setting records and fighting

... And if you also consider that

take into account the air flow from the wing at 30% of the angle of attack

, then Shavrov's quote looks like a vile slander against Sikorsky's aviation masterpiece.
I will no longer argue about whether THEM was a masterpiece or not. If you are not satisfied with my explanations, then so be it. Just name any other bomber of the First World War (one, - two, - four, etc. motor), the performance characteristics of which were worse than those of THEM.

[dauria]

Again a lot of words and there is no clear short answer to a clear simple question.
And empty chatter - yourself, yourself. Without me.

[Old electrician]

Again a lot of words and there is no clear short answer to a clear simple question

- to call a bomber of the First World War worse than IM. Do not know how to troll, do not tackle.

[su25]

Shavrov, of course, is an authoritative historian, but VS Pyshnov's work "From the History of Aircraft" provides a detailed analysis of the issues of MI stability.
Due to the fact that the stabilizer was carrying, and its area was 40% of the wing area, the aircraft should rather be considered a "bi-mono-tandem". Therefore, despite the position of the CM in the region of 90% of the MAR of the wing, it had quite satisfactory characteristics of stability and controllability.
Although,"If we took a MORE high-speed aircraft with the same position of focus and center of gravity, then the angular velocity of rotation of the velocity vector would be less, and the angular velocity of rotation of the aircraft would be higher, and such an aircraft would be unstable in terms of overload."
The reason for the great resistance of the MI was not so much its design as its design - the abundance of struts, braces, uncooled engines with radiators, and even "walkways" on the wing surface for accessing the engines in flight created the bulk of the resistance not related to lift.
In 1913, with low-power and light engines located on the wing, it would be quite difficult to provide such a large aircraft with a center of alignment within 20-25% of the MAR. Moving the cockpit far forward, as well as the use of a high landing gear for a classic take-off run "with a raised tail", was hampered by the prejudices prevailing in the flying environment - that, without seeing the wings and being in a high-positioned cockpit, the pilot would not be able to pilot the plane normally. As a result, the MI took off practically from a "three-point" position, like the An-2.
And only when, after 3 years of WWII, powerful engines and new achievements in aerodynamics appeared, IM became obsolete - which is natural for any model of military equipment at that time.

[John22]

Why don't you mention, as an example, the I-16 fighter, which had a c.t. almost aligned with focus initially. During the operation of the central heating unit. was, nevertheless, shifted forward.

[Old electrician]

Indeed, the I-16's longitudinal static overload stability margin varied somewhat in different series. But in none of the I-16 series did it have rear centering. Moreover. There was not a single I-16 with neutral centering. This is a well-known (for specialists) fact.

[wlkw]

Your comparisons seem to be correct, but not correct. Nevertheless, IM was the first, and the world aviation was in its infancy, but it developed rapidly. It is just right to compare planes not by year, but by half year. Comparing planes with a difference of a couple of years is too much.
Well, then, Tsarist Russia is not an aviation power at all, not at all. Against this background, MI is a success, even with "centering through the back seat", as described here.

[Old electrician]

Let's compare the performance characteristics of aircraft built in 1914-1915:
IM-B and IM-V - approximately ~ 1915 units were built in 36; 4 engines of 150 hp each; Vmax 100 km / h; cruising speed 85 km / h; takeoff weight 4650 kg.; typical bomb load 164-197 kg.; flight duration ~ 4-5 hours.
Voisin L (France) - about 800 built; 1 engine 70-80 HP; Vmax 105 km / h; cruising speed 96 km / h; takeoff weight 1200 kg.; typical bomb load 47-230 kg.; flight duration 3,3 hours.
Voisin LAS (France) - built in 1915 350 units; 1 engine 150-160 HP; Vmax 115 km / h; cruising speed 106 km / h; takeoff weight 1470 kg.; typical bomb load 47-230 kg.; flight duration 3,5 hours.
By the end of 1915, the Voisins were withdrawn from service in France as hopelessly obsolete. Until the end of the war, they were supplied to the Russian Empire under Lend-Lease. In 1917, they formed the basis of the Russian bomber aviation.
Gotha GI (Germany) - built in the second half of 1915, about 10 units; 2 engines, 150 hp each; Vmax 130 km / h; cruising speed 114 km / h; takeoff weight 2800 kg.; typical bomb load up to 300 kg .; flight duration 4,7 hours.
Check out the genius of Sikorsky!

[Ilya Shikhailo]

It is very "smart" to compare a four-engine with a single-engine. Judging by the correspondence with gwar.mil.ru, four 150-strong "Sunbeams", due to the frontal resistance, "ate" 150 kg of load each. Roughly speaking, a single-engine MI with an engine in the body would have 600 kg more load than a four-engine one, with equal weight and power of the power plant.
What does "typical load" mean? IM-B had bombs up to 500 kg. On subsequent aircraft, the load was eaten by an increase in the crew and an increase in armament. Each "Max" without water is 20 kg of weight, each "Lewis" - 11 kg, each person - 50-80 kg of weight. In terms of the number of trunks, MI were among the most "evil" during the whole WWI. Voisin L had a maximum speed of 230 kg, with two crew members and one or two machine guns. IM-V had the same 1-2 machine guns, with four crew members. Two people are at least 100 kg. Of all that I found in Muromtsy, the smallest maximum speed for bombs was at the IM Kievsky, 240 kg. This is with 7 crew members, 2 "Max", 2 "Madsen" and a 37-mm cannon. Gotha I also applies. Three people and one machine gun at a maximum speed of 300 kg. Are you really so lazy to adequately compare the data, or do you want to prove the wretchedness of Sikorsky even by comparing only one bomb load, maximum with half? And if we compare a single-engine IM in two people and two machine guns? It will pull ... not 500 kg of bombs, but at least 1100 kg. Or you can increase the range by one and a half to two times. Only Sikorsky, neither in the 14th, nor in the 15th, nor in the 16th, did not have a powerful engine. The project appeared in the 17th, engineer Kireev proposed a 600-horsepower four-stroke. Actually, in the correspondence for the 18th year, the benefit is indicated in the replacement of four "Sunbeams" with one Kireev engine as much as 1178 kg. "This is an additional 7,78 hours of flight, or 1178 kg of bombs." That is, in the presence of a normal engine, the 600-horsepower MI should have had either a flight duration of 11,78-12,78 hours, or a load of 1678 kg of bombs. So Sikorsky was an "under-engineer" or this aircraft engine building could not offer him anything other than installing four dead engines?

[da Vinci]

The advantage of IM is that it was the first domestic heavy aircraft with 4 engines. And that's all. The last domestic monster of the race "more weight, more motors" was "Maxim Gorky".

[Alexey RA]

Quote: da Vinci

The last domestic monster of the race "more weight, more motors" was "Maxim Gorky".

And K-7 Kalinin.

[Al356]

I remember that in the 20s, academicians from the Department of Aerodynamics tried to show Sikorsky in hindsight how to build airplanes according to science. However, their plane, calculated according to all the then rules (Comta, it seems) did not take off at all)

[Viking1966]

Honestly, I still do not understand what you were trying to prove? Are they a bad plane? Sikorsky stupid dilettante? Before the revolution was Russia in the opera with France, England, and Germany? Was there any aircraft building in Russia even before the revolution? What exactly? Or did you just have a desire to show off your knowledge of the history of aviation? Or will you argue with the fact that Ilya Muromets was a unique (whatever the worst or the best) aircraft of his time? Was it not an amateur Sikorsky who built the world's first helicopter, a flying boat? Or did others invent for him, and he only did "dark deeds", and called other people's inventions by his own name? Have you read the article itself? The author has rather critically described the creation of the aircraft and the problems with its construction and operation. And it is not necessary to recruit someone's work on the history of bomber aviation. As well as being a mediocrity to call the world-renowned genius aircraft designer "... a very successful businessman-adventurer ...". Well, or, if not mediocrity and mediocrity, name your planes, those in the creation of which you took part as a designer.

[Paragraph Epitafievich Y.]

Quote: Avis

By the middle of the war, it was surpassed by the much more compact bombers of the Allies and even the Germans.

This is understandable and indisputable, but .... why 'even'???
I would also understand 'even Italians', but really push German technogolics into the back rows ...))

[Reviews]

Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.

This is understandable and indisputable, but .... why 'even'???
I would also understand 'even Italians', but really push German technogolics into the back rows ...))

"Caproni-1 / -2-3" appeared almost simultaneously with the IM bomber; earlier than German heavy bombers, so no need to be so dismissive about pasta. And "even the Germans" because by the middle of the war they had problems with resources, which they overcame, but because of these problems the Germans were at first in the position of a catching-up side

[Paragraph Epitafievich Y.]

Quote: Avis

"Caproni-1 / -2-3" appeared almost simultaneously with the IM bomber; earlier than the German heavy bombers ... the Germans were at first in the position of the catching-up side

I agree, but I will note that the specification for "Campflucksoig" category 3 with a power plant of at least 200 hp. (and this in itself already meant the installation of two engines) was issued by the AOK (Army Ober Commando) already in March 1914. And in the summer, Oscar Ursinus already developed documentation for a twin-engine biplane, which later became Gota G. 1. Yes, initially there was no bomber functionality in the AOK specification, tk. bombers, the Germans in 1914 saw only zeppelins, but, as they say - a matter of technology. And he carried 300 kg of bombs, which, you see, is not much less than THEM.
Caproni Ca.1 / Ca.3 was tested in October 1914, the order for the first vehicles was received in December, and the bomber was received by the troops only in the summer of 1915, that is, at the same time when the "Goth" and AEG were at the Reich. So, I would not stress the leadership of the Italians.

[Reviews]

Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.

who later became Gotha G. 1.

"Later", "became" ... You never know who was who at first ...

the bomber entered the troops only in the summer of 1915, that is, at the same time when the "Goth" and AEG were at the Reich. So, I would not stress the leadership of the Italians.

And I would have continued to push. "Caproni" was originally a bomber, back in 1914 and entered at the same time, and "Goth" - an attack aircraft and barely had time to change roles. Well, like the U-2VS. :)

[Paragraph Epitafievich Y.]

Quote: Avis

"Caproni" was originally a bomber

I doubt it. Caproni created a multi-engine biplane in the spring of 1914 without any bomber functionality. The first two versions were not armed at all and did not have bomber equipment. A multi-engine airplane is inherently multifunctional, I suppose. Bombs and small arms were specified when the military became interested in the Caproni machine in the fall of 1914. Then there were bomb racks under a gondola for two bombs (or torpedoes), after which the army ordered 12 vehicles in December.

[Reviews]

Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.

the military became interested in the Caproni car in the fall of 1914. Then there were bomb racks under a gondola for two bombs (or torpedoes), after which the army ordered 12 vehicles in December.

Even so (now it's too lazy to check, I wrote from memory), one devil of Caproni, at least, did not lag behind and there is no reason to write about Italians so dismissively.

[Paragraph Epitafievich Y.]

Quote: Avis

and there is no reason to write so dismissively about Italians.

about the Germans too.

[Reviews]

Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.

Quote: Avis

and there is no reason to write so dismissively about Italians.

about the Germans too.

And no one wrote about the Germans. Read carefully.

[Paragraph Epitafievich Y.]

Quote: Avis

Read carefully.

You too.

[Reviews]

Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.

Quote: Avis

Read carefully.

You too.

Yes, that's what I do.

[Simargl]

Quote: Flood

What type of bomb?

Free falling. There are no planners yet.

Quote: Flood

How were you attached?

Under the belly and wing since 1914. But in the beginning - with your hands.
The suspensions were first for bombs up to 50 kg, but then they made a suspension for a 400 kg bomb.
They also threw darts.

Quote: Flood

After all, what are the design features of an outstanding aircraft?

A biplane built using dendro-fecal technology with elements of cannibalism.
Because of the latter - extremely low reliability, but the design is wildly tenacious. If RI had been industrially at least somewhat developed - ANT-20 "smoked on the sidelines" already in the 20s, and Sikorsky, perhaps, would not have pulled a puddle in search of self-realization, and helicopters began to operate in WWI.
Would, would, would ...

[Flooding]

Quote: Simargl

Free falling. There are no planners yet.

Thank you, the humor is appreciated.
But the question was addressed more to the author, who managed to write nothing about the plane itself.

[Ilya Shikhailo]

Planning bombs?

Guess where it was tested. Yes, in the Air Squadron. Also in versions with control and motor.
"Be RI industrially at least somewhat developed" - ummm, but where was it "not developed", except for tractors and cars? I remember that the tsarist "record" of 1870 aircraft per year (1916) was broken by the USSR only in 1931. Well, the planned capacity by the end of 1918 at the Republic of Ingushetia was about 10 aircraft and 000 aircraft engines. Taking into account the work on both aircraft engines and heavy aircraft, the ANT-15 "if it were not" would have been given a light in the 000s without any problems. Optional Sikorsky. There was also the Izhora plant, there was also Slesarev, there was also Grigorovich.

[Simargl]

Quote: Ilya Shikhailo

Well, the planned capacity by the end of 1918 at the Republic of Ingushetia was about 10 aircraft and 000 aircraft engines.

Could you give more details about this?
90% or more of the engines were purchased. Yes, the glider was local, but there are many forests in Russia - this is a fact.

[Ilya Shikhailo]

According to the plans of 17, from the spring-summer of 1917 to the autumn of 1918, the army needed to build about 10 aircraft and produce about 000 aircraft engines, plus purchase about 15 aircraft engines. In fact, given the increase in production, the annual capacity by the end of 000 should have been, in theory, more. That is, yes, we have one capacity in the summer of the 5000th, and in the fall of the 1918th it is completely different, and although we produced a certain amount of equipment, in fact the annual capacity at the end of the 17th would have been more. In fact, this would only be the preservation of a place among other participating countries - Germany in 18 produced 18 aircraft, France - 1918 aircraft, Britain - 14 aircraft, Italy - 123, Austria-Hungary - 24. In 652 Russia produced 32 aircraft, the leader - France - then released 536 aircraft. That is, the gap from the leader in the 6488th was 1989 times, in the 1916th it should have been ~ 1870 times or less. The gap is still significant, although it must be borne in mind that on the Russian front the aviation activity of the Central Powers was much lower than on the western one; at that time, in principle, we did not need so many planes. At the same time, among 7549 aircraft and 16 aircraft engines, I do not know if the needs of the Air Squadron and the fleet are taken into account.
With regards to serial models of aircraft engines, from what I dug:
Russian-Baltic Motor Plant - RBVZ-6 150 HP, MRB-6 140 HP
Daimler (Nizhny Novgorod) - 120 HP
Ilyin - Sunbeam Crusader 150 HP, Hispano-Suiza 200 HP
Anatra - Hispano-Suiza 200 HP
Aksai - Mercedes 168 hp
Partnership "Motor" - Mercedes 100 hp, 168 hp
DEKA - Mercedes 100 HP, 129 HP, 168 HP
Factory "Gnome" - "Gnome Lambda" 80 hp, "Ron" 80 hp
Salmson plant - 130 hp, 150 hp, 155 hp, in the 16th they produced (what% of the assembly from spare parts, perhaps 100%) 461 engines, reached the power of up to 100 motors in month to the beginning of 1917.
"Russian Renault" - 220-260 hp, modified to 250-300 hp, also a version for 170 hp. (as I understand it, stripped down).
There were also at least two new production of aircraft engines - at the automobile KZVS in Podlipki and an engineering plant in Kherson.
The Puzyrev plant in Moscow was supposed to manufacture an experimental 6-cylinder two-stroke rotary engine designed by K. E. Moroz, with a power of 50 hp. and weighing less than 25 kg.
The "Motor" plant, judging by the correspondence, was supposed to produce a two-stroke multi-fuel engine designed by engineer Kashirin. V6, two-stroke, 7,41 liters, 240 hp at 1400 rpm, weighing, apparently, about 120 kg. It was manufactured in V2 blocks of 80 hp, it was possible to assemble any number of such blocks if necessary - the fattest in PMV was, EMNIP, V16, here it will be 640 hp, although in theory more could be assembled. The feedback from the Engineer from "Motor" was very positive.
At RBMZ, engineer Kireev (creator of RBVZ-6) developed engines for 300 and 600 hp. at 1800 rpm, with a volume of 19,1 and 38,17 liters, respectively. The weight of a 600-strong man is 530-550 kg, for a 300-strong man, respectively, no more than 300 kg. Specific consumption for Kireev's project - no more than 0,19 kg per 1 hp. per hour., the commission of 1918 indicated that the engine would have such a flow rate at a higher compression ratio, and therefore at a higher power, because the fuel and oil consumption was considered the same as that of the Sunbeams at 150 hp. and Renault with 240 hp. - 0,25 kg. Single-row engines, in theory, the production of a 300-strong model RBMZ could master without problems, for the proximity of the design with the RBVZ-6. The 600-horsepower had one drawback - a very long shaft. But, remember the company "Sunbeam" and others - they used in-line engine blocks, there was a model of 450 hp. with three blocks, similarly, the RBMZ could, in theory, make an engine in three 300-strong blocks, with 900 hp. The German engineer Rumpler generally proposed a radial, which has as many as 7 in-line blocks from conventional aircraft engines, the total power of such a monster is 1000 hp. So, here RBMZ was not strongly limited.
Lieutenant Lyamin at the beginning of WWI, while in Holland, tested a supercharger of his design, in 1917 he proposed its use in aviation. When the Sunbeam Crusader was redesigned according to Lyamin's project, the number of revolutions fell from 2200 to 1500, while the power increased from 150 to 200 hp, a decrease in consumption was expected from an increase in pressure and an increase in efficiency, with a weight of 1,5-2 poods ( 24,57-32,76 kg). In fact, this meant the ability to overclock the same Kireev engines from 300 to 400 hp. and from 600 to 800 hp, at ~ 1200 rpm, and with a strong decrease in fuel consumption. There was also another supercharger designed by Becker, but I have no numbers. In total, with the proper set of circumstances, RI could well have reached 1910 hp motors by the end of the 1000s, if not more. Moreover, this is based on real engines, Kireev's engines are based on a real RBVZ-6, and Lyamin conducted quite specific experiments with engines.

[Simargl]

Quote: Ilya Shikhailo

According to the plans of 17

Plans, plans ...
In fact, almost everything was from foreign spare parts. Except, perhaps, V.V.Kireev's engines, which were made under 1017 units before 100 (all of them).

Quote: Ilya Shikhailo

By the end of the 1910s, RI could have reached 1000 hp engines.

Manually, with a file, Kireev could reach at least 10 hp, but the industry, in fact, did not pull 000.

Quote: Ilya Shikhailo

where was it "not developed", except for tractors and cars?

I repeat: even though the most important thing here is the tractor, it is nowhere but manual labor on the ground.
Do you understand what's the matter?
The tractor is the kind of thing that allows you to free your hands and direct them to the factories.
The tractor is the industry itself, including the motors.
A tractor is fuel, its production and logistics - everything connected with it. Industry again.
The tractor obliges to raise the level of education for its use and maintenance.
The tractor obliges to change the organization of work.
The tractor obliges to change the form of ownership ...
But this is just a tractor!
By the way! Do you know that not all the peasants could withstand the work at the factory?

[Ilya Shikhailo]

The localized production of French aircraft engines by 1916 was mainly based on domestic parts. Copies of Mercedes were on their own parts - well, because the engines were originally German. RBVZ-6 and MRB-6 too. Established a magneto plant, a bearing plant, and others.
"The industry did not pull 300" - the Germans mostly produced engines between 100 and 200 hp, and that means that Junkers with Rumplers wasted 500-1000 hp. drew?
"Tractor", "tractor" ... Well, how was it with the peasants in Germany? Was the soldier expelled to field work? By the way, did RI do that too, or not? Yes, if anything - the harvests of 16-17 years completely covered the consumption of bread, there was no "hunger".
In the Republic of Ingushetia, it was much easier with the tax than in Europe, 38 million horses are not khukhry-mukhry. Obviously, it's easier with tractors.
"For the needs of the army and agriculture" the capacity was set at 4000 tractors per year. Sormovsky, Kolomensky, Kharkov, Bryansk plants, Aksai in Nakhichevan-on-Don and others were engaged in the production of tractors during the war, Sormovsky alone until March 1, 1915 built 373 75-strong Holt, of which 150 were from imported components, the rest 223 - at its own facilities.
The form of the farm? In 1910-1917 the number of cooperatives increased greatly. Actually, they were one of the main buyers of agricultural implements and equipment.

[Simargl]

Quote: Ilya Shikhailo

Established a magneto plant, a bearing plant, and others.

What year was it laid? How much behind the others in quantity, quality and, in general, in the presence of the production itself?

Quote: Ilya Shikhailo

Well, how was it with the peasants in Germany?

So far, the output was 3 times greater than that of our peasant (due to the zone of risky farming, for example) - it is normal. But it's better to look at the best, probably, and not outsiders. Otherwise, it is possible before loincloths and gathering - how to speak with advanced technologies.

Quote: Ilya Shikhailo

By the way, did RI do that too, or not?

Well, how many %% of the rural population are there? RI made it easier: surplus allocation is not an invention of the "Reds", if that !!!

Quote: Ilya Shikhailo

RI with the tax was much simpler than in Europe, 38 million horses are not hukhry-muhry.

That's about half a million tractors ... or not? The tractor, if properly monitored and refueled, can plow without sleep.
38 million horses is not very good! How many people does it take to provide these 38 million horses? One man for two horses? And if these "horses" are in the tractor?
And horses also need sown areas that are subtracted from those that are needed for people!

Quote: Ilya Shikhailo

"For the needs of the army and agriculture" the capacity was set at 4000 tractors per year.

We just remembered about half a million equivalent tractors ... 4000 - not a lot ...

Quote: Ilya Shikhailo

The form of the farm? In 1910-1917 the number of cooperatives increased greatly. Actually, they were one of the main buyers of agricultural implements and equipment.

Here !!! Only "has increased greatly" - this number is important, because it may turn out that there were 3, but now it is 120 ... with 100 million individualists ...

[Proxima]

Quote: Flood

The largest bomber of its time. Consequently, it carried a record bomb load.

Unfortunately, Muromets did not break records for a long time. The Germans launched the production of heavy bombers of the Riesenflugzeug class. For example, a six-engine giant like Siemens-Schuckert R. VIII had a wingspan of 48 m. and carried a bomb load of 5,5 tons! True, he did not have time to fight, but who fought, the indicators are also impressive. For example, such a colossus as the Staaken R6 in January 18th laid three monophonic bombs. Such characteristics Muromets never dreamed of. But this is not upsetting. The underdeveloped industry of the Russian Empire did not produce aircraft engines at all! The author reasonably drew attention to this. By the way, thanks to him for a very interesting story!

[Reviews]

Quote: Proxima

The underdeveloped industry of the Russian Empire did not produce aircraft engines at all!

RBVZ-6

[Proxima]

Quote: Avis

Quote: Proxima

The underdeveloped industry of the Russian Empire did not produce aircraft engines at all!

RBVZ-6

If formally, then they did it. We made as many as 45 pieces! (plus 5 experienced). Chickens are laughing, to be honest.

[Reviews]

Quote: Proxima

Quote: Avis

Quote: Proxima

The underdeveloped industry of the Russian Empire did not produce aircraft engines at all!

RBVZ-6

If formally, then they did it. We made as many as 45 pieces! (plus 5 experienced). Chickens are laughing, to be honest.

I do not remember how many RBVZ-6s were produced in absolute terms, but they were produced and the production went on stream. And you wrote "not at all", which is not true.

[Paragraph Epitafievich Y.]

Quote: Avis

RBVZ-6

As far as I remember, RBZ-6 were installed only in a combination of 2 x 2 with bidmores or Renault (series G)
Question - RBVZ built several training twin-engine versions of IM with sunbeams. Why not develop the twin-engine trend, which in 1915 was obvious and priority for front-line aviation for the Reich, AVI and the Entente? Why are these monstrous devices useless for war? They were used more often as reconnaissance observers rather than bombers.

[Reviews]

Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.

Why not build on the twin-engine trend

Because there were no powerful motors. The alphabet, damn it. As soon as Sikorsky received more powerful engines, he immediately began to make a twin-engine aircraft. But that was already in the USA ...

They were used more often as reconnaissance observers rather than bombers.

Nonsense. No more often than other bombers from any period of history. It was simply stupid not to use its range for deeper reconnaissance than light airplanes would have. And the attitude towards him as a scout is the general's leap forward at the beginning of the war. Then it even dawned on them that "IM" was not only and not so much a scout.

[Paragraph Epitafievich Y.]

Quote: Avis

Because there were no powerful motors.

So why, with a shortage of engines, build a four-engine monster with such a modest bomb load?

Quote: Avis

As soon as Sikorsky received more powerful engines, he immediately began to make a twin-engine aircraft

And why is salmson, for example, "not powerful"?

[Reviews]

Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.

So why, with a shortage of engines, build a four-engine monster with such a modest bomb load?

For starters, the PMA load was greater than that of any other aircraft. Further production is a complex of factors. Why in Prussia were our radio exchanges in plain text?

And why is salmson, for example, "not powerful"?

The fact that it is not powerful. You really don't know the characteristics of the Liberty 400?

[Ilya Shikhailo]

Salmson? Ummm, with them we also built. Only there was not enough power. 400 horses from two to 200 is nothing. IM-E had four Renault 220-260 hp each, that is, 880-1040 hp, IM-J had four Russian Renault in the project, 250-300 hp each, that is 1000 -1200 hp, and Sikorsky designed the C-28 for 4x400 and 4x600 hp, 1600 and 2400 hp. Your version with two "Salmsons" is 2-2,5 times weaker than the actually flying MIs, and the design ones are 3-6 times weaker.

[Proxima]

Quote: Proxima

For example, such a colossus as the Staaken R6 in January 18th laid three monophonic Bombs.

Small amendment, laid down to the quarters of London. Each bomber was carrying one one-ton bomb. Although at "normal" distances, this type of bomber could take up to 2,5 tons of bombs.

[Paragraph Epitafievich Y.]

Quote: Proxima

Although at "normal" distances, this type of bomber could take up to 2,5 tons of bombs.

Not a fig. The Zeppelin-Staaken P6 could take up to a maximum of 2 tons - this was already an overload option.

[Paragraph Epitafievich Y.]

Quote: Proxima

how the Staaken R6 in January 18 th of the year laid three monochromatic bombs on the neighborhoods of London.

Emnip, a year earlier, in February 1917.

Quote: Proxima

For example, a six-engine giant like Siemens-Schuckert R. VIII had a wingspan of 48 m and carried a bomb load of 5,5 tons!

He did not "carry" anything. He never even took off.

Quote: Proxima

the figures are impressive.

The claims are not impressive. You can also declare 10 tons. Of those who managed to fight, it seems, the Zeppelin five-engine R.XIV was the most heavy-duty - 4 tons (!). It seems that five of the seven built managed to fly in the war.

Quote: Proxima

Such characteristics Muromets never dreamed of.

Well, Muromets never dreamed of a variable-pitch propeller and an electric drive for the bomb release, well now. Since the end of 1915, IM was already a hopeless outsider, unfortunately.

[mr.ZinGer]

Many comments, including yours, are much more informative and interesting than the article.
And thanks to the author only for the raised topic.
This is a typical case for VOs where comments are more interesting than source material.

[Reviews]

Quote: SAG

Written by

... cheeky and vulgar. And with a minimum of information, and often distorted.

he had a weakness (...) longing for (...) gigantomania.

Is he talking about C-XVI or C-XX, or what?

As, however, all "Sikorsk" before "Vityaz" were very compact. The first successful aircraft of Sikorsky in emigration - the S-29 - was a fairly large aircraft, but, at the same time, it did not stand out in the total mass, i.e., it was not a giant. And after that, there were such kids as S-38 and S-39. Where is here and what "got across the throat in emigration"? In addition, the large flying boats S-40 and S-42 were very popular.

4 motors placed one after the other

The tandem arrangement of engines was only on the second configuration of the Vityaz (and only in several flights) and on the unsuccessful small series Ilya Muromets-D (created already during WWI). On all the others, the engines were in a row, and not one after another.

engines were most often obtained cannibalistically - by disassembling damaged aircraft

Most often - by import of "Argums" (at first), "Sanbeams", "Renault" and "Salmsons" (after the beginning of the war) and own production (when the production of RBVZ-6 was established). But, of course, good "Argus" were rearranged from broken / decommissioned cars to new ones. It would be foolish to throw such motors.

The reasons are predictable - a lack of engines and a high accident rate.

The emergency rate of "IM" was not high by the standards of that time. He even held combat strikes very well. Not all damaged vehicles could be repaired, but, except for one shot down, all the rest returned to their territory despite the damage.

cavalry Mamantov

Mamontova, damn it!

[Reviews]

And here is the "Meller-2", the engine of which crashed the "Vityaz".

How could a motor "fall out of ..." if it was not inside the plane? Inside the farm - yes, but somehow it doesn't feel like "fell out of the airplane".

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

Whether it is the army. True, the initial design was damp, and the flying giant required very specific control training. Therefore, the Muromtsy were able to start bombing in earnest only by February 1915.

In fact, initially a fighter was molded from Ilya Muromets, and therefore there were problems with its use.

[Reviews]

Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka

In fact, initially a fighter was molded from Ilya Muromets, and therefore there were problems with its use.

Actually, this is complete nonsense. Sikorsky originally made a passenger plane, then converted it into a bomber jacket. This is military initially have seen in it a Zeppelin fighter (and not just a fighter) and experimented with "Hotchkiss" on the foreground. But then even these dolboldyatlov realized that they had invented the garbage: the dispersion of shells is monstrous, the speed does not much exceed the airship speed, so the "IM" will not be able to chase them and hit them.
"Problems with the use" are associated with the spraying of ships on the fronts - like, one ship per army, and not bringing them into squadrons.

[mark1]

Quote: Avis

Inside the farm - yes, but somehow it doesn't feel like "fell out of the airplane".

You better consider the picture. It may just fall out, but the farm, probably with a high degree of probability, was hooked with a screw.

[Reviews]

Quote: mark1

Quote: Avis

Inside the farm - yes, but somehow it doesn't feel like "fell out of the airplane".

You better consider the picture. It may just fall out, but the farm, probably with a high degree of probability, was hooked with a screw.

This is you better (and not "better") read my text. You can five times to be sure.

[mark1]

Do you do casuistry? It happens...
Study, study ... - do not get distracted!

[John22]

I completely agree. The author is condescending and familiar in relation to the Russian genius. The author forgot that Sikorsky was in the forefront of Russian aircraft designers and in many ways went on an independent and experimental path. "Adventurer" began to build aircraft for his own money and his family. And the fact that in Russia it was necessary to prove the obvious is the merit of the tsarist regime, not Sikorsky

[Reviews]

In-in, just like that.

[Real Pilot]

And then Igor Sikorsky left for America and never returned.
Gave them helicopters ...

It is a pity that in the 90s we shared our minds so generously with our "partners". It remains to be hoped that some of our compatriots trained in Russia and who left for a long dollar will return ...

[Free wind]

2 cylinders on top, apparently fuel tanks. And so interesting to read.

[ankir13]

Wow, 76 Muromets were built, this is impressive, just like 76 SU-57s, which will soon be ...

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

Quote: ankir13

Wow, 76 Muromets were built, this is impressive, just like 76 SU-57s, which will soon be ...

What is the meaning of irony?
By the way, the SU-57 made 101 cars that fought until the age of 42!

[NDR-791]

Quote: Kote pane Kohanka

By the way, the SU-57 made 101 cars that fought until the age of 42!

Eeee ... Who are you talking about ??? Or what?

[Reviews]

Quote: NDR-791

Quote: Kote pane Kohanka

By the way, the SU-57 made 101 cars that fought until the age of 42!

Eeee ... Who are you talking about ??? Or what?

Об этом: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/T48_(%D0%A1%D0%90%D0%A3)#%D0%92_%D0%A1%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D0%A1%D0%BE%D1%8E%D0%B7%D0%B5

[NDR-791]

Not about something else. T48 fought until the 45th, and about 1000 of them were made. That's why I ask that something does not beat - either years or brand or quantity. At first I thought it was some kind of unit from the late 30s to early 40s, which for some reason I had never heard of. So I ask, because in such numbers nothing is familiar.

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

... At first I thought it was some kind of unit from the late 30s to early 40s, which for some reason I had never heard of. So I ask, because in such numbers nothing is familiar.

In SU-57, 101 Komsomolets artillery tractor was redesigned by imposing a 57mm anti-tank gun on it.

[NDR-791]

ABOUT! I know that. I just didn't know that it was officially called the Su-57. I thought I had no name.

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

Quote: NDR-791

ABOUT! I know that. I just didn't know that it was officially called the Su-57. I thought I had no name.

Interestingly, at whom the hand rose to the NDRu minuses for this comment to stick? After all, the tail will dry out like a hamster's, small and fat with sparse hairs !!!

[Constanty]

SU self-propelled installation!
sou abbreviation Sukhoi (Pavel Osipovich Sukhoi) - airplane!

[Paragraph Epitafievich Y.]

Quote: NDR-791

I just didn't know that it was officially called the Su-57.

And it’s not surprising. For nonsense. The ZiS-30 was never called that.

[Paragraph Epitafievich Y.]

Quote: Kote pane Kohanka

In SU-57, 101 Komsomolets artillery tractor was redesigned by imposing a 57mm anti-tank gun on it.

Have you composed it yourself? This SPG based on the T-20 has never been called that. Su-2-1 or ZiS-30.

[Alex013]

This is SU 2-1., SU 57 is different
https://topwar.ru/158316-lend-lizovskaja-samohodka-su-57-t48.html

[Ros 56]

And how does the author know what was in Sikorsky's head when he conceived and built his planes. Very presumptuous fabrications.
Sikorsky is the first figure in the aircraft industry of the Russian Empire.
An article at the level of a bazaar woman, and that is not so, and this is not a commercial. And this is a contradictory statement:
"It was a breakthrough aircraft at the time of its creation. An excellent concept of application, real significant combat successes. And - only 300 sorties. By the standards of some Englishmen or Germans - chickens, to be honest, laugh.", Causes only a condescending smile. It is immediately obvious that the comrade does not understand what mastery in a combat situation was like in those days.first in the world four-engine bomber. It is still necessary to test and test it for good. Not only is the plane damp, but where can you get a competent and qualified technical staff?
In general, I will repeat the article, so-so, crude and not well-considered.

[Reviews]

I agree with everything except this:

Quote: Ros 56

And how does the author know what was in Sikorsky's head when he conceived and built his planes. Very presumptuous fabrications.

Memories of his contemporaries have survived, and Igor Ivanovich himself left his memoirs.
For example:

at the exhibition, I. I. Sikorsky was interviewed, very characteristic and interesting for understanding his ideas. To the correspondent of the newspaper "Auto" (1912. No. 22) Sikorsky said that at the present time he was engaged in the development of "an airplane for long flights. I don't see anything particularly new in it. This airplane will serve as a continuation of the series of my current devices and will be able to lift one ton (61 poods) of payload in the form of stores per 1000
* Aero and car life. 1912. No. 8, p. 14.
miles of continuous flight and six people - The device will be built so that passengers can move freely in the gondola without changing the balance of the airplane, and so that two pilots can control it simultaneously. The speed of the airplane will be low - only one hundred versts per hour. " Igor Ivanovich also said that "after testing the new apparatus, he is going to build airplanes with several motors on each, with a large carrying capacity ..." And then later another interview (Voice of Moscow. 1912. No. 82). May the reader forgive us for our immoderation, but, by God, we should read it in full. “I consider aviation to be an important and perfect means of communication, which in the near future will be able to compete in all respects with the methods of communication that we have used so far (ship, train).

[Simargl]

Quote: Ros 56

It is immediately obvious that the comrade does not understand what it was like in those days, the development in a combat situation of the world's first four-engine bomber.

The author rather understands.
But you, even having read it in full, did not understand that the problem of the aircraft was not so much in "breakthrough" technologies and "unparalleled" design, but in the backwardness of the RI industry, where it was not realistic to get any suitable materials.
The article clearly states: the plane, despite its size and self-self, is assembled according to the cannibalistic dendro-fecal technology, and in spite of this it lived for quite a long time.

[Reviews]

Quote: Simargl

The article clearly states: the plane, despite its size and self-self, is assembled according to cannibalistic dendro-fecal technology

... and this is complete nonsense. Clearly spelled out. As in the diagnosis of a psychiatrist.

[Simargl]

Quote: Avis

... and this is complete nonsense.

I can explain myself, but you?

[Reviews]

Quote: Simargl

Quote: Avis

... and this is complete nonsense.

I can explain myself, but you?

So you are the author of this, if I may say so, "article"? Then, "I have no more questions."

[Simargl]

Quote: Avis

So you are the author of this, if I may say so, "article"?

Are you discerning (or not?)!
I signed up as Andrey, and the author is Timur.
In addition, you are logical: I responded to the reaction to my writing, not the author ... I only supported the author ...

[Reviews]

Quote: Simargl

I signed up as Andrey, and the author is Timur.

Who knows you, militant profane ... Maybe it's a pseudonym.

my scribble

The key is highlighted. For self-criticism - respect.

I only supported the author ...

... with which I cannot congratulate. We got into bad company.

[Simargl]

Structurally, what can you "shout" at me with? Or so - "samdurak"?

[Reviews]

For this? :)

The article clearly states: the plane, despite its size and self-self, is assembled according to cannibalistic dendro-fecal technology

Well, when you write something meaningful, then demand something. While I see the attempts of a third grader who has read "udaff.com".

[Simargl]

Quote: Avis

Well, when you write something meaningful, then demand something.

I don't even know where to start.

Quote: Avis

... and this is complete nonsense.

If you have already said, then you have understood what, I think?
No?

Cannibalistic - the engines on the plane were put on the mark "what is there." Including because of the power of the engines, their number - the plane is so large.
I don’t even know how many aircraft were equipped with new engines, at least after construction.
Dendro-fecal - almost completely wooden glider is covered with not the most suitable material ...

[Reviews]

Quote: Simargl

I don't even know where to start.

Out of nowhere. Anyway, you won't say anything smart:

Dendro-fecal - almost completely wooden glider is covered with not the most suitable material ...

What I was talking about - "shut up, you will pass for the clever one." These were 99% of the then aircraft: a wooden power set covered with fabric; in places - plywood.

[Private SA]

I visited the factory where Sikorsky built his Russian Knights. There between workshops
air defense missiles stood on pedestals. Honor and praise to both Sikorsky and Zvorykin.
I bow.

[Reviews]

Quote: Private SA

I visited the factory where Sikorsky built his Russian Knights.

"Vityaz" existed in a single copy.

[Private SA]

And "Ilya Muromets", who spent 33 years on the stove, isn't it "Russian Knight"?

[Reviews]

Quote: Private SA

And "Ilya Muromets", who spent 33 years on the stove, isn't it "Russian Knight"?

Understood nothing Less metaphors. If you are talking about the types of aircraft, then "Ilya Muromets" is not a "Russian Knight".
Here is the "Russian Knight" (previously - "Grand", "Grand Baltic"):

Existed in one copy, in three configurations.

And here is one of the options "IM". The rest were not very different from him to the untrained eye.

113 boards were built.

[bionik]

Marcel Plya, Polynesian, during the First World War, served as a mechanic-shooter on one of the biplanes of the Ilya Muromets series in the Imperial Air Force. Knight of St. George's Crosses III and IV degrees.

[Bolt cutter]

Marcel Pla, Polynesian

Fighting comrades considered him "a negro from the French circus" He repaired an aircraft that received about 70 holes in flight (!), For which he was awarded an award.

[Reviews]

Quote: Bolt Cutter

Fighting comrades considered him "a negro from the French circus"

S

the ship was appointed chief minder Marcel Pla (half-French, half-Negro), he was sent by one of the dignitaries, for whom he served as a chauffeur.
© "comrade" Sergei Nikolskoy

[Bolt cutter]

He was a French citizen, but not a Negro Polynesian. And about the circus, they probably joked so unusual, all the same in Russia.

S

U!

[Reviews]

Quote: Bolt Cutter

He was (...) not a Negro Polynesian.

And who calls him that, besides you?

And about the circus, probably were joking so unusual all the same in Russia.

his considered

CONSIDER
4. (Sov. Count) someone with something with inf. Display some n. conclusion about someone-n., to form an opinion about someone-something-n., to admit, to believe.
"Pushkin considered drama the highest form of art." Chernyshevsky.
"Alexander considered it his duty to love his uncle." Goncharov.
"Today I must regard you as a slanderer and an intriguer." Turgenev.
"And he considers us to be no one." Griboyedov.
© Ushakov's Explanatory Dictionary

TELL JOKES
1. Fun and fun to talk, to act for fun, entertainment.
2. To say or act not seriously, for the sake of a joke.
3.with neg. To act rashly, thoughtlessly, carelessly.
4. over someone. Mock, mock, joke.

S

Sapienti sat.

[Bolt cutter]

Sapienti sat.

In vino veritas, in this case.

[Reviews]

Quote: Bolt Cutter

Sapienti sat.

In vino veritas, in this case.

And, of course ... Well, all the same, try not to drink for a while. At least before writing posts in the forums. Maybe you will stop confusing the meanings of words.

[Bolt cutter]

Teach someone else - there are also commentators.

[Reviews]

Quote: Bolt Cutter

Teach someone else - there are also commentators.

There is a category of subjects whom "to teach is only to spoil", but they will continue to write nonsense about the "French circus".

[Bolt cutter]

Forest, teacher bath leaf.

[Undecim]

An article of the "Speed-Info" level, to which, judging by the placement of such publications, the site seeks.
Pearl type "4 motors arranged one after the other" pull for the Shnobel Prize.

[Constanty]

The crew of Joseph Bashko decided to leave in February 1918. The original target was Smolensk. But "Muromtsy" were considered emergency vehicles for a reason - the plane barely made it to Bobruisk. They sat right in the clutches of the Polish troops. Those, however, treated the pilots favorably - the personnel are still rare. Therefore, the crew of Basko, together with the bomber, joined the ranks of the armed forces of the young Polish state.

Perhaps Bashko would have stayed there, but by May the situation had developed in such a way that the unit to which our hero's "Muromets" was assigned decided to disarm in front of the Germans.

After a successful strategic reconnaissance flight along the route Stara Jablonna - Velbark - Nidzica - Torun - Plock - Mlawa - Nidzica - Velbark and returning via Warsaw on March 18, 1915, Lieutenant Joseph Stanislavovich Bashko

was promoted to captain and aircraft commander Ilya Muromets. - Kievsky number 150.
Initially, he operated from a base in the Polish Jablonná near Warsaw (with success, for example, the air raid on Dzialdowo on April 7, 1915, when he bombed the railway station and photographed the damage inflicted), then from May 1915, 150 and 151 Baska and Ozersky gave rise to a separate field detachment No. 1, which operated for the benefit of the 3rd Army in the Lvov region.

On July 5, 1915, the plane of Field Detachment 150 Ilya Muromets. - Kievsky under the command of Captain Bashko conducted the first air battle with enemy aircraft - three German Branndenburg aircraft were repulsed, 1 aircraft was shot down. For bravery shown in battle, Captain Bashko was awarded the Order of St. Gregory, 4th degree.

February 22, 1918 the plane Ilya Muromets. - Kiev No. 182, piloted by Colonel Bashko, landed due to bad weather conditions in Bobruisk, at that time occupied by units of the 1st Polish corps of General Dovbor-Musnitsky (In another version In early March 1918, "Ilya Muromets" number G-36 was at the EWK base in Vinnitsa. Faced with the threat of capture of the base by the Germans, Colonel Pil. YS Bashko evacuated the plane to the airport in Bobruisk on March 6, 1918. On the basis of the order of the commander of the 1st Polish corps No. 185 and protocol No. 306 Colonel Joseph Stanislavovich Bashko was admitted to the personnel of the Corps, and by order No. 227/18 of April 15, 1918, his RBWZ S-25 Ilja Muromiec G-2 Kijowski was entered in the inventory book of captured aircraft.

Aircraft RBWZ S-25 IM-G-II ​​Kiev version No. 182 (serial number G-36) was the only example of 4 Beadmore engines with a capacity of 125 kW (170 hp) each. This aircraft had the best characteristics among all "Muromtsy". Until May 22/23, 1918, this aircraft was in the Air Corps Division (Oddziale Awiacyjnym Korpusu).
Faced with the threat of the disarmament of the Poles by the German army, Ilya Muromets took off on May 26, 1918 and headed for Moscow. Having covered about 230 km, the plane made a forced landing in Yukhnovo (according to other sources, in the village of Zhelaniya), about 100 km from its destination. The entire crew (pilot-colonel Ya. S. Bashko, captain Skuratovich, Tromshchinsky and Vyzhikovsky) were arrested. The Poles managed to escape and through Murmansk they reached France to the army of General Jozef Haller. After the repair, the aircraft was used by the aviation of Soviet Russia for air transportation.

[Constanty]

I also found such a description of "Polish Murom"

In combat division No. 3 at the Stankovo ​​airport, four "Muromts" were based - "Kievsky", XI, XIII and XV. The latter was out of order and was unfit for flight. The first IM –XII and XIII flew away. One landed in Kiev, the other in Borisov, where he was burned when the Germans approached. Only Kievsky remained.

We flew out on February 22nd. On board, in addition to the commander - Colonel Bashko, were: cap. B. Moiseenko and motorists - F. Groshev and I. Grigoriev. They were supposed to fly towards Smolensk, intending to leave the area occupied by enemy troops. When they flew over Minsk, the city was already occupied by the German cavalry corps. Two German fighters flew over it, but the Ship did not attack. Bad weather - snow and low cloud ceilings made Bashko after 2 hours. and 20 minutes. departure for an emergency landing in Bobruisk. They landed in a meadow near the city, 450 km from Vinnitsa.

General Dovbor-Musnitsky declared neutrality in the face of revolutionary unrest, but when the corps was attacked by the Red Guard, he defeated it and took Bobruisk along with the fortress. When the Kievsky landed, Colonel Bashko was arrested, allegedly on charges of bombing Polish troops. The rest of the crew were released and received passes to travel to Russia (reached Smolensk). On behalf of the commander of the 3st Aviation Corps, Lieutenant Colonel Abakanovich Bashko was released. The "Combat Aviator" surrendered to the Polish command and on March 1918, 185 flew to the Pukhovichi airport near Bobruisk to the Polish airbase, where the detachment's planes were assembled. The next day, he entered service at the branch, which was included in order No. XNUMX from the I Aviation Corps.
Bomber "Kievsky" - No. 182 was put into its state.
Thus, the Ship was obtained, which, thanks to the Breadmore engines (170 hp), had the best characteristics among all the Muromtsev produced.
In March 1918, Bashko made two demonstration flights with a duration of 2 hours. 15 minutes. On May 3, he flew over Bobruisk with Lieutenant Colonel Abakanovich during a corps survey conducted by General Dovbor-Musnitsky. Kievsky did not participate in combat flights.
In the face of the approaching German troops in May 1918, the 1st corps tried to break through to the south of Russia.
On May 21, the command of the German army presented General Dovbor-Musnitsky with an ultimatum demanding the disarmament and demobilization of the corps. Conditions are accepted.
On May 22, Lieutenant Colonel Abakanovich ordered the destruction of all aircraft and auxiliary equipment so that they would not be captured by the Germans or the Bolsheviks.
Basco, however, decided to save Kievsky. On May 23, at 2 am, he secretly flew out of the airport, located 4 km from the railway station already occupied by the Germans. Poles flew with him: the captain. P. Skuratovich, 2nd Lieutenant E. Tromshchinsky and a technician - a military official. I. Vyzhikovsky. The target was Moscow (according to other sources, Murmansk).
After departure in order No. 268 Lieutenant Colonel Abakanovich wrote: “they arbitrarily flew in the Kievsky airship in an unknown direction and from 23 May they should be considered deserters and excluded from the aviation register.
Thus ended a short, only three-month episode of "Muromets" in Polish aviation.

The Kievsky flight took place in difficult weather conditions. The ceiling of the clouds rose to 3200 m. Despite the perfect engines that allowed them to reach an altitude of 4000 m, they could not fly higher. They flew according to the compass readings. In addition, Colonel Bashko, who did not sleep for two nights, tired of the constant stress, fell asleep at the tiller, and no one could replace him.
After five and a half hours of flying in the clouds, when the plane was already near Moscow, they began to descend. At an altitude of 500 m, when they had not yet seen the ground, two left-hand engines suddenly stopped working. He turned off the right and, not knowing where, was forced to land. While descending at an altitude of 250 m, they were greeted by heavy rain. When "Kievsky" was at 100 meters, Bashko saw the village and to the right of it a good landing field. I made a U-turn, the plane got lost and crashed into a huge hundred-year-old spruce. He passed out. He woke up only when his bulldog, who always accompanied him on flights, licked his face. Fortunately, he and the others were only injured. When the crew unearthed the remains of the plane, the local council of the Diputats (Council of People's Delegates) arrested them on suspicion of espionage. They were escorted to Moscow, and there, in early June, Bashko was released from custody - “as an officer of worker-peasant origin” (Bashko, Belarusian, was born into a peasant family).
The Poles miraculously managed to escape from the arrest of the Moscow headquarters of WCzK, and then through Murmansk to reach France.

Until now, in Russian-language publications, one can find erroneous information that Bashko fled from Polish captivity (!). In addition to the obvious facts, this is contradicted, for example, by awarding him with the Polish Commander's Cross of the Order of Polonia Restituta, 3rd degree.
It is also reported that he voluntarily (?) Joined the Krasnovo Voyenno-Air Fleet (Air Fleet of the Red Fleet).

In February 1938, Basho was appointed commander of the Latvian Air Force. It was probably then that he received the aforementioned Order of the Renaissance from the Polish government. In May 1940, a month before the annexation of Latvia to the USSR, he was awarded the rank of general.
According to Russian sources, “in August he was dismissed from service for health reasons, in 1940 he lost his sight due to his injuries, so he did not participate in the Great Patriotic War. During the occupation, he refused to cooperate with the Germans. "
He died of natural causes on May 31, 1946 at the age of 58.

Lieutenant I. Bashko - the commander of the "Kiev" number 150 and in the wheelhouse of the "Ship"

Colonel Bashko - standing at the extreme engine - Bobruisk, May 1918.

Colonel Jazepas Basko during service in the Latvian aviation

[Paragraph Epitafievich Y.]

Quote: Constanty

In February 1938 Basho was appointed Commander of the Latvian Air Force

Basho ???
Well, then the "Commander of the Japanese Air Force"

[Constanty]

The translator translated the spelling Basko that's it.
My mistake is that I didn't catch her earlier
Jazeps (Jezups) Basko

Here as the commander of the plane "Ilya Muromets".

[Paragraph Epitafievich Y.]

Do not be offended, camerade, I am friendly teasing) I understand that the difficulties of translation.

[Pagis]

Latvian, by the way

[motorized rifle]

Lieutenant Joseph Stanislavovich Bashko

It is strange why the "lieutenant", he, what, was listed in the naval department? And if so, why was it awarded the title of "captain"?

[Reviews]

Quote: motorized infantryman

Lieutenant Joseph Stanislavovich Bashko

It is strange why the "lieutenant", he, what, was listed in the naval department? And if so, why was it awarded the title of "captain"?

He just, like any officer, grew up in rank, starting with a lieutenant. Afftyr simply pulled "data" from different periods of his career. Bashko generally rose to the rank of colonel in WWI.
And, in general, at that time in aviation, yes, people from all branches of the military, including the navy, went. And also, for example, the esaul flew on "IM". :) Quite officially so called, without altering it into a captain.

[Niko]

It is a pity that in Russian-language literature on this topic, everything usually ends at the beginning. The first success and .... ???? How did the heavy aircraft industry develop further? It developed well, but not with us, apparently that's why we are not writing anything about it. Thank you for the good comments on the article, from which you can really imagine how the idea of ​​a heavy bomber developed.

[Reviews]

Quote: Niko

It is a pity that in Russian-language literature on this topic, everything usually ends at the beginning. The first success and .... ????

... and COMTA, and then the Junkers concession in Fili, and then TB-2 and ANT-4 ... Everything is known, it was never hidden, except that it was hushed up under the USSR (this is about Junkers). There would be a desire to know ...

[John22]

Yes, in the USSR nothing was hidden - it was simply hushed up. About Sikorsky and other designers before revolutionary times. Information about Sikorsky was presented in a negative light. True information appeared only for his 100th birthday in 1989. Only at the beginning of the 21st century were books about his work published. Sikorsky was not familiar with Tupolev, and in the Soviet film Wings, it is shown that Tupolev is a direct genius in relation to Sikorsky. And Tupolev studied at Junkers' designs at the plant in Fili. They tore from the West everything they could. And their designers were crushed with proletarian hatred. Such were the times and such is our HISTORY.

[Reviews]

What is this set of words?

[Ilya Shikhailo]

Tupolev and Polikarpov worked with Sikorsky. Where does the information about "was not familiar" come from?

[Cartalon]

https://youtu.be/p3mJMhFiHCk

[123456789]

I am sure the time will come and it will become known about the role of Sikorsky in the fate of the Su-57
PS If I will be honored for a memoir

[Aleks2000]

I read somewhere that "Tsar-Plane:" is just the "Russian Knight", the predecessor of Muromets.

Is it true???? who knows.

(and. everything that cunning saboteurs from the media call "TsAR" usually works very badly ....)

[Narak-zempo]

It is a pity that you cannot load the Tsar Cannon with the Tsar Bomb and shoot towards the non-zalezhnykh.

[su25]

It is possible, but half of the Kremlin will be demolished for sure;)

"The Tsar Bell has never rung
And the cannon-king never fired.
The people loved them for their size
And raised to the top of the pedestal.

Show yourself in practice skillfully,
Not royal, it looks like this is the case. "

Oleg Smirnov

[Narak-zempo]

Quote: su25

"The Tsar Bell has never rung
And the cannon-king never fired.
The people loved them for their size
And raised to the top of the pedestal.

Show yourself in practice skillfully,
Not royal, it looks like this is the case. "

Oleg Smirnov

But the Tsar Bomba was really tested.

[Aleks2000]

Yeah. They just charged it with some% of the tests, I didn't fit into the plane completely (sort of), and then they proudly reported it ... and never used it afterwards ...

you can still remember the king of the tank, the king of the rocket and the king - a volumetric explosion ...

[Narak-zempo]

Ну и что?
Even in such an unfinished form to throw in Kiev will not seem a little.

[Aleks2000]

Oh, how cruel you are ...
Although she, like many other Tsars, is already dumb ... Not only on Kiev, but also on the Duma ...

[Narak-zempo]

Quote: Alex2000

Oh, how cruel you are ...
Although she, like many other Tsars, is already dumb ... Not only on Kiev, but also on the Duma ...

And what do you have against the Duma?
Yes, this is a relic of the times when it was necessary to portray "democracy" to the West.
But now, thank Gd, there is no such need, and it has become a purely decorative body that approves the decisions of the national leader. It poses no danger.

[Timofey Astakhov]

"thousands of them will be destined to burn Hamburg, Dresden, Magdeburg,"
not understood. Are you in any way worried about the unfortunate Germans?

[Narak-zempo]

It would be useful to remember more often with a "kindly quiet word" those through whose fault the outstanding RUSSIAN designer Sikorsky became "American".

[su25]

And the first in this list should have been his patron - M.V. Shidlovsky, Chairman of the Board of the Joint Stock Company of the Russian-Baltic Carriage Works. This gentleman, during the confusion of 1917, managed to pull off a series of machinations, after which RBVZ became virtually bankrupt. Like Sikorsky, a significant part of whose fortune was invested in the shares of his "native enterprise".
Shydlouski's grip is also characterized by such an episode. Initially, the army was not happy with IM and was going to completely abandon this aircraft. Shydlovsky convinced the "higher authorities" that the military was using the aircraft incorrectly. He achieved the creation of the "Air Squadron" and personally led it, having received the rank of major general. As a result, an amusing scheme turned out: Major General Shidlovsky ordered (at the expense of the Military Department) aircraft from the manufacturer Shidlovsky - and everyone was happy. Isn't this the secret of the absence of any serious development of the type of IM for all the years of its production?

[Narak-zempo]

What does Shidlovsky have to do with it?
What does he have to do with the Bolsheviks?

[su25]

And where does the Bolsheviks have to do with it? It was not they who bankrupted RBVZ and deprived Sikorsky of work and funds. And it seems that there were no Bolsheviks among his creditors. And few people believe in unsubstantiated tales about "execution lists". Indeed, one "priest's son" - Sikorsky - emigrated and became the "king of helicopters". Another "priest's son" and colleague on RBVZ - Polikarpov - remained and became the "king of fighters". Under the same Bolsheviks.

[Narak-zempo]

Quote: su25

Indeed, one "priest's son" - Sikorsky - emigrated and became the "king of helicopters". Another "priest's son" and colleague on RBVZ - Polikarpov - remained and became the "king of fighters". Under the same Bolsheviks.

Sikorsky did not develop his helicopter in prison under the threat of being shot.

[Basarev]

Motor hunger has not yet been overcome, it has also spread to other troops - helicopters, navy, even tanks - are we still rape the ancient B2 by accident?

[Kostadinov]

Quote: Narak-zempo

It would be useful to remember more often with a "kindly quiet word" those through whose fault the outstanding RUSSIAN designer Sikorsky became "American".

It was only through his own fault that he became an American. Who wanted to stay (Tupolev) and planes better than Sikorsky did. So no one is to blame him for running away and leaving his homeland.

[su25]

Quote: Simargl

Free falling. There are no planners yet.

But they could very well! The book "Sikorsky" by V.R.Mikheev and G.I.Katyshev provides information about the project of a remotely controlled glider, which is towed behind the MI, filled with explosives. The control was carried out with the MI via a cable running along a cable. It was supposed to be used against enemy fighters attacking from the rear hemisphere. Difficult to classify, but it looks like this was the first draft of an air-to-air guided weapon.

[Yuri Chvanov]

"Memoirs of the Participants" ... what are they?

[alatanas]

"Serial Giant"?
There are only 4 actually flying.
Big series ...

[EvilLion]

In a couple of years, even Italians built such aircraft. In large series, but in general the efficiency of the "Muromets" in terms of the ratio of the delivered bomb load and engine consumption turned out to be just bottom. The very idea of ​​such an aircraft in the conditions of a shortage of engines was flawed.

And I love "Ilyusha" so much, it is so good to kick bulkokhrustas on it, only 80 miserable aircraft powered by imported engines and 10 times fewer combat aircraft during the entire war than England, Germany, and France.