Military Review

Combat aircraft. Failed brother of IL-2

74

Perhaps the most inveterate fans know the name of this man. aviation last century. However, despite the fact that the creative path of Vsevolod Konstantinovich Tairov turned out to be offensively short, this designer made his contribution to the formation of aviation in our country.


Tairov was, without exaggeration, the right hand of Nikolai Nikolaevich Polikarpov, many questions about the I-16 lay on him, and Tairov was personally involved in modernization projects.

In addition, Tairov created several rather interesting machines, one of which will be discussed now.

The year is 1938. Vsevolod Tairov, a student and assistant of Polikarpov, over whom the clouds were just beginning to thicken, as an initiative proposed to develop a single twin-engine armored aircraft. Heavy escort fighter or attack aircraft.


The aircraft was designed taking into account the creation of machines of the VIT type ("Air fighter tanks") And envisaged obtaining, due to the twin-engine scheme, both high speed and powerful weapons installed in the bow, practically along the axis of the aircraft. This made it possible to increase the accuracy and power of the salvo, since it did not require the use of synchronizers.

The idea initially liked both the Air Force and the People's Commissariat of the Aviation Industry. And on October 29, 1938, Tairov received the Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR No. 256, according to which he could start creating an aircraft. But not a heavy escort fighter, but a single-seat armored attack aircraft with two M-88 engines under the designation OKO-6.

True, in the requirements, the main targets of OKO-6 were called both tanks and enemy aircraft.

It is worth noting that the tactical and technical requirements were ... somewhat fantastic. The maximum speed is 650 km / h, the ceiling is 12 meters, the turn at an altitude of 000 meters is no more than 1 seconds, the climb of 000 meters in 16 minutes - in general, about such indicators with two M-8s producing 000 hp. everyone could dream, but nothing more. The engine was frankly weak for such requirements, although, of course, it was reliable and lightweight.

On July 29, 1939, the Resolution of the KO under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR "On the creation of a new prototype fighter aircraft in 1939-1940" was issued.

In accordance with this Resolution, the designer Tairov and the director of the plant # 43 Smirnov were to complete the aircraft and hand it over for state tests in October 1939. The second prototype was supposed to be ready in December of the same year.

Several did not have time. The first flight of OKO-6 took place on January 21, 1940.


The first test flights showed that the plane was not bad at all. Streamlined shapes, a small fuselage midsection, wing (area and span) like the British Hurricane of the first model - all this somewhat leveled out the weak M-88 engines, which actually gave 2000 hp.

And the armament was simply amazing: four ShVAK cannons.

Combat aircraft. Failed brother of IL-2

And the cockpit was very well booked. And although the M-88 engines were weak, they were more tenacious than their water-cooled counterparts.

I would like to tell you more about the armor. This, of course, is not the Il-2 armored box, to which the wings were attached, but it was also done very well.

Ahead, the cockpit was protected by an 8 mm thick armor plate. The side walls of the cockpit were made of 12 mm duralumin. Behind the pilot's head and back were covered with 13 mm thick armor plates. The bottom of the cockpit was also protected by 5-mm armor plates. In addition, 45-mm bulletproof glass was installed in the front of the lantern.

For that time - a very, very impressive car. Good aerodynamics.


To prevent the propellers from tilting the plane to the side with their reactive moment, the motors had counter-rotating propellers.

In the center section there were two protected gas tanks with a capacity of 365 liters each. In addition to them, the fuselage had a third gas tank with a capacity of 467 liters.

M-88 engines were able to accelerate the test aircraft weighing 5250 kg at the ground up to 488 km / h, and at an altitude of 7550 m - 567,5 km / h. OKO-5000 climbed 6 m in 5,5 minutes. The ceiling is 11 m. The flight range at a speed close to maximum was 100 km. The turnaround time at an altitude of 700 m was only 1 seconds. The landing speed did not fit into the terms of reference a little - 000 km / h.

The plane was not perfect: it turned out that the short machine with a single-fin tail unit has insufficient stability on the rise and turns. In addition, the plane was sloping towards the U-turn during the take-off run and take-off run.

Air Force Chief Smushkevich wrote in a letter to the People's Commissar of the Aviation Industry that the plane must be completed, as it is badly needed by the Red Army Air Force.

And it was decided to build a small series of 10 cars, but with a two-fin tail and M-88 engines.

In the summer of 1940, work was carried out to improve the flight characteristics of the OKO-6. A new, spaced two-fin tail was installed and the fuselage was slightly lengthened. M-88R gear motors of the same rotation were installed. The machine was named OKO-6bis, and then the Ta-1.

On October 31, 1940, the Ta-1 made its maiden flight.


Test pilot A.I. Emelyanov noted the stability of the machine on bends and along all three axes in flight. There was a tendency to stall at speeds below 300 km / h.

Management was distinguished by a greater load on organs than that of OKO-6. But buffing (tail oscillation by the air flow from the wings) was not detected, just as there was no flutter at speeds up to 565 km / h at an altitude of 4 m.

The plane could fly on one engine.

The maximum speed at the ground was 470 km / h, at an altitude of 4 m - 000 km / h and at an altitude of 575 m - 7 km / h, landing speed - 000 km / h. Time to climb 595 m - 135 minutes, and 5 m - 000 minutes. High-speed flight range - 6,3 km.

On January 14, 1941, during an unauthorized demonstration flight, not provided for by the test program, the right engine failed. Broken chain rods. Test pilot Yemelyanov landed the car in the forest. The plane was destroyed.

On January 31, 1941, factory tests were officially completed. Without waiting for the final conclusion, Tairov sent a letter to the Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars V.M. Molotov, the designer noted in a letter that two aircraft of his design completed 120 flights and showed very decent results.

It was noted that a practical ceiling of 10 m was obtained, the climb time of 000 m was 5000 minutes, and 6,3 m was 8000 minutes. Takeoff run - 11,6 m, mileage - 324 m. Speed ​​range - 406 km.

A few days after the departure of the emergency commission, V.K. Tairov wrote a letter to the chairman of the Council of People's Commissars V.M. Molotov, in which he noted that two copies of OKO-6 had completed 120 flights in total and demonstrated outstanding qualities.


As an argument, Tairov cited the testimonials of TsAGI test pilots, who noted the ease of control, which made the aircraft affordable for combat pilots with a minimum of time for retraining.

The aircraft was able to perform all aerobatics and fly on one engine up to an altitude of 4 m, inclusive.

Ta-1 had a good modernization prospect due to the installation of more powerful engines, which could appear over the next years. And in terms of armament, the Ta-1 was generally superior at that time to any fighter in the world.

At the same time Tairov actually complained that nothing was being done to introduce the aircraft into the series. His proposal was to build a series of 15-20 vehicles with subsequent military trials.

During. It was at this time, in December 1940, at a meeting of the top command staff of the Red Army that the question was raised that the Red Army Air Force does not currently have a high-speed aircraft with powerful cannon armament capable of destroying both aircraft and armored vehicles of the enemy.

The reaction, one might say, was instant. On January 25, 1941, by the Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR, Tairov was instructed to build and submit for testing the Ta-3 aircraft. The first version with M-89 engines (1250 hp), the second - with M-90 engines (1600 hp). The work should be completed, respectively, by May and October 1941 ...

It was also recommended to strengthen the armament.

On the first copy of the Ta-3, two ShKAS 7,62 mm machine guns were added to the four ShVAK cannons.




Or was the option with 4 12,7-mm Taubin machine guns (OKB-16 NKV) still under consideration. It was a variant of a heavy fighter.

The second Ta-3 was an anti-tank version. Its armament consisted of one large-caliber 37-mm ShFK-37 cannon, two 23-mm MP-6 cannons and two ShKAS machine guns.

By April 28, 1941, the conversion of the first copy of OKO-6 into Ta-3 was completed.


Compared to the Ta-1, the Ta-3 reduced sweep and increased the vertical tail area. Changed the doors of the main landing gear. The wheels in the retracted position began to protrude slightly outward.

The armament consisted of four ShVAK cannons (200 rounds per barrel) and two ShKAS machine guns with a total stock of 800 rounds.

The plane fell into the hands of test pilots of the flight research institute NKAP and from May 12 to July 10, 1941, the Ta-3 M-89 was tested. Leading test pilot Yu.K. Stankevich and test pilots N.V. Gavrilov, V.N. Grinchik, G.M.Shiyanov and A. B. Yumashev skated a complete program of state tests and gave the car very positive reviews.

With a flight weight of 6050 kg, the maximum speed at 7 m was 000 km / h. The flight range at a cruising speed of 580 km / h was 440 km. Service ceiling 1060 m.

The Ta-3 was characterized as a stable aircraft in flight, with a somewhat large load on the controls. Flight on one motor is possible.

The cockpit is spacious, the forward and upward visibility is good, the sideways are insufficient, the downward view is unsatisfactory.

During the tests, no major operational deficiencies of the aircraft were found.

The conclusions made by a group of LII pilots noted that the main positive qualities of the Ta-3 aircraft are:
- powerful small arms and cannon armament
- good booking for the pilot
- high survivability of the propeller-driven group due to the installation of two air-cooled motors
- the ability to produce all aerobatics
- with a loss of speed, there is no tendency to stall on the wing
- the ability to continue flying on one engine
- simplicity and ease of maintenance during operation.

The main disadvantages of the aircraft were:
- significant efforts on the control stick when landing
- heavy loads on the legs when flying on one motor
- poor design and manufacturing performance of the lantern
- poor visibility to the sides and back

The conclusion was the recommendation of the LII NKAP to release the Ta-3 in the attack aircraft version, with one 37-mm cannon, two 20-mm cannons and two 7,62-mm machine guns.

The war was already going on, the Germans were already demonstrating the effectiveness of their tank strikes.

On July 28, 1941, Tairov sent a memo to Shakhurin, in which he said that replacing weapons from four ShVAKs with an attack aircraft battery would not pose any difficulties and it was possible to equip aircraft in this version.

Foreseeing, most likely, problems with the M-89, which was eventually discontinued as unreliable, Tairov wrote that there were developments in equipping the Ta-3 with M-82 engines. The use of these engines can further increase the speed by 12-15 km / h.

Vsevolod Konstantinovich really wanted to see his plane on the battlefields, causing damage to the enemy. Therefore, the designer did everything to ensure that the Ta-3 went into series. For this Tairov asked Shakhurin to use plant No. 3 in Ulyanovsk for the production of Ta-127 and to relocate to Ulyanovsk the same plant No. 483, which was evacuated to Kuibyshev.

Shakhurin gave the go-ahead, but a terrible thing happened: on October 29, 1941, while flying to Kuibyshev, Tairov, in a group of aviation specialists, died in a plane crash in the Penza region.

As a result, the Ta-3 was left without the Chief Designer. Plus the relocation of factories. All this led to the fact that the design bureau of plant # 483 was able to finish the last version of the Ta-1942bis 3M-2 only by May 89.


It differed from the Ta-3 bis only in its enlarged wings and fuel reserves. The total weight of the aircraft increased to 6626 kg, the speed at the ground dropped to 452 km / h, at an altitude of 7000 m to 565 km / h. The ceiling has decreased to 9 m. Only the flight range has increased, to 200 km.

The last blow of the Ta-3 was struck by the engine builders. The M-89 was discontinued and the aircraft was left without engines. Attempts were made to equip the Ta-3 with the AM-37 and M-82A motors, but in the absence of Tairov, the OKB of plant number 483 was disbanded.

The case is simply unique. The Ta-3 went through a large cycle of thorough factory and government tests, which were generally completed successfully.

In addition, serious studies were carried out and ways were outlined for further improving the aircraft. Its further development was conditioned solely by the creation of more powerful engines.

But despite the fact that the need to adopt the Ta-3 into service was well understood not only by the leadership of the Air Force, but also by the NKAP, our Air Force never received this aircraft.

And here everything is, in principle, understandable. On the one hand, there was already Ilyushin's attack aircraft, which showed its effectiveness. On the other hand, the lack of engines in our country ruined more than one beautiful aircraft.

Armament tests showed that a pilot with good flight and shooting training on a Ta-3 with an anti-tank version of weapons guaranteed to hit a German armored personnel carrier of the Sd Kfz.250 type from the first approach under attack conditions in a side projection at a gliding angle of 20-25 degrees from a distance of 300- 400 meters. The probability of defeat was up to 0,96.

It was less likely to hit the Pz.III Ausf.G medium tank - no more than 0,1. But this is a tank.

If the Ta-3 was armed with four ShVAK, then it became a serious threat to unarmored or lightly armored vehicles. Sd Kfz.250 could be destroyed with a probability of 0,8 - 0,85, an He 111 aircraft on the ground - 0,94 - 0,96, a steam locomotive with a probability of 0,9-0,95.


The Ta-2 could hardly replace the Il-3 or compete with it, but it would be easy to supplement it. With a higher speed, twice the range and better survivability due to two motors, the Ta-3 could perfectly complement the Il-2 where it would be difficult for the latter to work.

That is, the Ta-3 could not only storm the enemy mechanized columns. But also to attack small enemy ships at a distance from the coast. Both the range and the battery of four guns allowed this.

Or, as a heavy escort fighter, the Ta-3 could well be useful in covering the same convoys from enemy torpedo bombers.

In general, this is the case when there was a plane, there was a need for it, but no one cared about it. A student of Polikarpov Tairov built a really decent car, it is a pity that the People's Commissariat of the Aviation Industry was not in place of the Deputy People's Commissar for new technology, whose duties would include the deployment of the production of Ta-3.

LTH TA-3bis

Wingspan, m: 14,00
Length, m: 12,20
Height, m: 3,76
Wing area, м2: 33,50

Weight, kg
- empty aircraft: 4 450
- takeoff: 6 626

Engine type: 2 х М-89 х 1 150 HP
Maximum speed km / h
- near the ground: 448
- at height: 595
Cruising speed at altitude, km / h: 542
Practical range, km: 2 065
Maximum rate of climb, m / min: 482
Practical ceiling, m: 11 000
Crew, prs: 1

Armament:
- one 37-mm gun ShFK-37
- two 20-mm ShVAK cannons
- two 7,62 mm ShKAS machine guns
Author:
74 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. mark1
    mark1 April 23 2021 05: 56
    +2
    The plane, of course, turned out to be good and was not late and the engines, in general, not a shortage ... - started playing, with a general benevolent attitude. But it would not be massive, according to the materials it is not even an I-185. The design of c.m., chromensil, duralumin, hoods, keel and wing consoles are made of electron (not very great for survivability)
    1. svp67
      svp67 April 23 2021 06: 03
      +4
      Quote: mark1
      But he would not be massive,

      And how MASS it should have been? It is clear, however, that the number of such aircraft should have been significantly less than single-engine ones.
      1. mark1
        mark1 April 23 2021 06: 05
        +5
        Pe-2, for example, 11 copies (I don't seem to be lying), IL-000 is more than 4, but in this case I don't think it is more than 6000
        1. svp67
          svp67 April 23 2021 06: 09
          +8
          Quote: mark1
          but in this case I don’t think more than 1000

          Given that the Tu-2 was produced during the war years 800 pieces, then apparently yes. I think we could have done it
          1. mark1
            mark1 April 23 2021 06: 15
            +3
            Yes, I did not take into account such a moment - parallel production with the Tu-2 would rather limit the production of both machines due to a shortage of engines and materials.
            1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
              Kote Pan Kokhanka April 23 2021 08: 37
              +7
              Hello!
              Personally, I do not agree with the Author about the Ta-3bis as the brother of the Il-2. Other performance characteristics and tasks. The closest in class to Tairov's aircraft is the Sukhoi heavy attack aircraft, which has not gone into production.


              Su-8.
              1. mark1
                mark1 April 23 2021 08: 42
                +4
                Yes, he is not any attack aircraft at all, rather a fighter-bamber.
                1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
                  Kote Pan Kokhanka April 23 2021 10: 14
                  0
                  Quote: mark1
                  Yes, he is not any attack aircraft at all, rather a fighter-bamber.

                  Pavel Osipovich knew better what he was building.
                  1. mark1
                    mark1 April 23 2021 11: 18
                    +2
                    Pavel Osipovich is better, no doubt, but I'm talking about Vsevolod Konstantinovich, who, without a doubt, also knew better, just in those days such terminology (IB) was not in use.
                    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
                      Kote Pan Kokhanka April 23 2021 11: 44
                      +1
                      Quote: mark1
                      and Konstantinovich, who also no doubt knew better, just in those days such terminology (IB) was not in use.

                      In those years, fighters were already carrying bombs and missiles everywhere. If a Long-range fighter were stabbed to Sukhoi, then he would build a Long-range fighter. In our case, he was ordered a long-range attack aircraft, which he designed.
                      The story of Petlyakov's hundred square meters was still in everyone's memory.
                      1. mark1
                        mark1 April 23 2021 12: 02
                        +1
                        You stubbornly cling to Sukhoi, but I was not talking about his car at all, but about Tairovskaya (probably not quite correctly answered). If you want to talk about the Su-8, you can, but I think the more interesting machine was the Su-6
  2. svp67
    svp67 April 23 2021 06: 01
    +8
    And why is this aircraft a "brother of the Il-2" and not a Pe-3?
    1. Vladimir_2U
      Vladimir_2U April 23 2021 06: 16
      +4
      Quote: svp67
      And why is this aircraft a "brother of the Il-2" and not a Pe-3?

      Maybe because it had neither a bomb bay, nor a radio operator, and was created on the basis of an attack aircraft.

      The Ta-3 could perfectly complement the Il-2 where it would be difficult for the latter to work.
      Anti-aircraft guns would be nice to press, stopudovo.
      1. Aag
        Aag April 24 2021 16: 04
        +1
        The Ta-3 could perfectly complement the Il-2 where it would be difficult for the latter to work.
        Anti-aircraft guns would be nice to press, stopudovo.
        A question for everyone who is in the subject: as an aircraft with one crew member, and "unacceptable" (from the article) visibility down, forward and down, can you plan to perform assault missions?
        1. Vladimir_2U
          Vladimir_2U April 24 2021 16: 34
          +5
          Quote: AAG
          as an aircraft with one crew member, and "unacceptable" (from the article) visibility down, forward and down, can you plan to perform assault missions?
          For starters: the forward view is good
          The cockpit is spacious, the forward and upward visibility is good, the sideways are insufficient, the downward view is unsatisfactory.
          "Downward review" is unsatisfactory in comparison with a balloon, and in comparison with the Il-2 it is simply excellent, just remember the AM engine no. Side view is important, of course, but its insufficiency would be compensated, in my opinion, by the better maneuverability of Ta compared to the Il, and of the Il-2, the view to the side was also considered not excellent due to imperfect armored glass, in the memoirs it was written about the vents open for visibility. As for one crew member, fighters were very often involved in the attack to suppress the MZA. Obviously, Ta's salvo is much heavier than that of a Yak, LaGG or even La with decent armor and TWO engines.
          1. Aag
            Aag April 26 2021 17: 27
            +1
            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            Quote: AAG
            as an aircraft with one crew member, and "unacceptable" (from the article) visibility down, forward and down, can you plan to perform assault missions?
            For starters: the forward view is good
            The cockpit is spacious, the forward and upward visibility is good, the sideways are insufficient, the downward view is unsatisfactory.
            "Downward review" is unsatisfactory in comparison with a balloon, and in comparison with the Il-2 it is simply excellent, just remember the AM engine no. Side view is important, of course, but its insufficiency would be compensated, in my opinion, by the better maneuverability of Ta compared to the Il, and of the Il-2, the view to the side was also considered not excellent due to imperfect armored glass, in the memoirs it was written about the vents open for visibility. As for one crew member, fighters were very often involved in the attack to suppress the MZA. Obviously, Ta's salvo is much heavier than that of a Yak, LaGG or even La with decent armor and TWO engines.

            Thank you for your answer. Sorry, the "bell" did not work for almost a month.)) With the forward-downward review ... still at a loss (I don't "fly" on simulators)))). hi
            1. Vladimir_2U
              Vladimir_2U April 26 2021 17: 45
              0
              Quote: AAG
              With a forward-downward view ... still bewildered (I don't "fly" on simulators)
              Slightly lower in the article, the claim for the downward review is not voiced at all

              - poor design and manufacturing performance of the lantern
              - poor visibility to the sides and back


              Well, just compare the noses of Ta and Il, it makes sense for the pilot to move forward on Ta to increase the view, but not the slightest on Il.



              1. Aag
                Aag April 27 2021 08: 05
                +1
                "... Well, just compare the noses of Ta and Il, it makes sense for the pilot to move forward on Ta to increase the view, but not the slightest on Il ..."
                Convinced ...
                1. EMMM
                  EMMM 1 May 2021 23: 55
                  0
                  Yes, the Il-2 became a really serious machine only after the stern gunner appeared.
                  In any case, the wartime attack aircraft during "work" had low altitude and speed, and enemy fighters preferred to approach from behind and from above.
    2. Per se.
      Per se. April 23 2021 06: 54
      +5
      Apparently because the Ta-1 was originally made single, like the first serial Il-2. Honestly, as an attack aircraft, especially if it were in the first years of the war, the Ta-1 would have more repeated what the Germans had with the one-seater Henschel 129, if he hadn't added anything special to the Il-2 here.

      The Hs 129 was also armed with a 30 mm MK-101 or MK-103 cannon and even a 75 mm VK-105.
      As a heavy fighter, the MiG-5 would be much more interesting. In general, too, the Polikarpov Design Bureau has sprayed forces on many projects. Much more useful is the refinement of the I-16, on which at least a three-blade propeller was installed (the estimated speed increase plus 15 km / h). Better yet, if the I-17 had been fine-tuned, there was time for it, the engine was available, we would have received a light fighter with a motor-cannon, capable of adequately fighting the Bf 109.
      But what happened is natural in its own way.
      1. Dmitry V.
        Dmitry V. April 23 2021 15: 11
        0
        Quote: Per se.
        Ta-1 would have repeated what the Germans did with the one-seater Henschel 129, if he did not add anything special to the Il-2 here.


        The Ta-3's speed at the ground is at least a hundred times higher than that of the Il-2, + maneuverability, + climb rate - the fighters still have to arrive at the place of attack.
        In this case, 2 engines, + air-cooled remote control - that is, losses due to failure / damage to the remote control - can be minus.
        Even the I-153 had half the casualties in attack air attacks than the Il-2.
        1. svp67
          svp67 April 23 2021 19: 02
          +3
          Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
          Ta-3 has speed

          It was created as a fighter, but not as an attack aircraft.
          1. Dmitry V.
            Dmitry V. April 26 2021 09: 46
            +2
            Quote: svp67
            It was created as a fighter, but not as an attack aircraft.


            And what of this, that the aerial platform was created as a fighter?
            There were 2 opposite approaches - not armored high-speed and armored with the loss of flight data (speed and maneuverability) and a lot of intermediate options. The concept of a substantially armored Il-2 turned out to be not the most successful - it suffered significantly greater losses than the unarmored I-153 - and this at the beginning of the war, when the saturation of MZA in the Wehrmacht troops was 3-4 times less than in 1944.

            The concept of a tactical attack aircraft or aircraft of direct support of ground forces implies the ability to deliver and use weapons with the greatest efficiency. Single-engine fighters could carry a combat load and combat training of pilots of the Red Army, even before the war, it included practicing strikes against ground targets.
            Twin-engine fighters, could carry both additional armor and effective weapons
            Harikane was created as a fighter ... Hawker Typhoon ... Pe-2 ... I-153 ... FW-190 (Schiachtflugzeug) ... MiG-15 ... Su-7 was created as a fighter - which did not interfere with the use these aircraft are effective strike aircraft.
            In some structures, load-bearing elements for external suspensions (bombs, PTB, RO) are initially laid or reinforced later.

            In my opinion, the most successful attack aircraft were the WF190F-3

            and F4 Corsair

            Both are with double star radial motors.
            1. svp67
              svp67 April 26 2021 10: 58
              0
              Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
              And what of this, that the aerial platform was created as a fighter?

              At least the fact that this "platform" carried a lot of excess weight, not necessary for the attack aircraft and had little space to accommodate bomb and missile weapons, especially in the internal compartments
              1. Dmitry V.
                Dmitry V. April 26 2021 16: 25
                +2
                Quote: svp67
                At least the fact that this "platform" carried a lot of excess weight, not necessary for the attack aircraft and had little space to accommodate bomb and missile weapons, especially in the internal compartments


                Sergei misunderstood your idea.
                What is "superfluous" in the design of a fighter?
                The most compact structure in terms of dry weight is the fighter.
                As a profile engineer, designer / aircraft technologist, I will outline the logic of designing profile aircraft:
                Fighter: overload 9, powerful engine, minimum weight (minimum combat load 2x50 kg or 2x100 kg, overload 2x250 kg bombs), high wing loading (small wing area), minimum safety factor, slats to reduce the bend radius, flaps, for decrease in travel speed (relatively high landing speed), chassis with ducts of minimum strength.
                Attack aircraft (single-engine single): overload 4-6, the same engine, strengthening of the spar may not be required (since the requirement for max overload is reduced), LARGE WING AREA, to increase the combat load (possibly due to detachable consoles), medium load on the wing , it may be necessary to strengthen the landing gear, blowers, crutch wheels, more developed flaps (slotted flaps) or brake grilles, which reduce the dive speed. Plus, you will have to put additional tanks in the fuselage or in the wing console - since external suspensions will greatly affect aerodynamics and require additional fuel and oil to maintain the same range. (well, or reduced range).
                What we see "superfluous" in the design of a fighter when converting into an attack aircraft is only the slats (not such a weighting structure).

                But for an attack aircraft, hardening will be required - to add to the reinforcement of the structure of several hundred kg:
                - into the glider (reinforcement of the center section and side members),
                - in the chassis (dutik with greater load, greater thickness, greater weight,
                - wing hardening (external suspension),
                - partially armored cabin (like FW-190 assault versions)
                That is, just converting a fighter into a shock one is quite possible (simplified - by strengthening the airframe and center section), you get a bearable attack aircraft.
                And a strike aircraft designed as an attack aircraft - it is no longer possible to redesign in terms of safety margins - it will turn out to be a useless fighter.
                By the way, this is very evident in the development of the assault versions of the FW-190
                1. svp67
                  svp67 April 26 2021 17: 31
                  -1
                  Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
                  Fighter: Overload 9

                  Here. The aircraft must perform piloting with overloads that the attack aircraft does not experience, which entails reinforcement of the structure, that is, excess weight unnecessary for the attack aircraft.
                  1. Dmitry V.
                    Dmitry V. April 27 2021 09: 06
                    +1
                    Quote: svp67
                    Here. The aircraft must perform piloting with overloads that the attack aircraft does not experience, which entails reinforcement of the structure, that is, excess weight unnecessary for the attack aircraft.


                    Not quite so - the wing spar and center section are calculated for DYNAMIC overload 9.
                    For a fighter with two 250 kg bombs under the wing, this STATIC load will probably be close to the ultimate strength of the structure. Conversion of this static load into a dynamic one depends on the distance of the force application (let's say the bomb to the bomb rack) from the center of rotation and the direction of the force vector application. So usually the application of force in the form of a 250 kg load at a distance of 1500 mm will also require strengthening the fighter's wing.
                    as in this case - for the pylon mount of the engine on the wing, there is a jump in the mass forces Qcr - similarly, the mount of the bomb leads to a jump of forces at the point of attachment of the bomb rack.
                    https://poznayka.org/s61935t1.html здесь попроще расчет.

                    Please note that rarely any aircraft returned to base with bombs, without even finding a target, the crew was forced to drop the bombs - because the dynamic load (touching with a vertical speed of more than 1,5 m / s during landing), especially on a dirt strip, would lead to breakage of the wing spar, landing gear and detonation of the aircraft with their bombs. Rarely did pilots return with bombs and land - it was required to have high flying skills - attack aircraft and bombers sometimes did this - fighters, never, just wings and landing gear could not withstand vertical overload.
                    So the fighter has the ability to bring the strength of the airframe to the bomb load by reinforcing individual elements, while the attack aircraft does not.
                    1. svp67
                      svp67 April 27 2021 09: 25
                      0
                      Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
                      So the fighter has the ability to bring the strength of the airframe to the bomb load by reinforcing individual elements,

                      But because of this, he does not become a stormtrooper. No wonder, apparently for a long time there was such a class as a fighter-bomber
                      1. Dmitry V.
                        Dmitry V. April 27 2021 09: 42
                        0
                        Quote: svp67
                        But because of this, he does not become a stormtrooper. No wonder, apparently for a long time there was such a class as a fighter-bomber


                        And what is an attack aircraft? Aircraft strike aircraft with cannon and machine gun armament for strikes against ground targets of varying degrees of armor.

                        The RZ was considered an attack aircraft - a biplane with rifle-caliber machine guns and up to 500 kg of bombs.
                        The Ta-3, armed with 4x23 mm cannons, is an aircraft with very powerful cannon armament, good payload capacity, capable of carrying up to 500 kg of bombs.
                        Who can forbid him to be a strike aircraft (well, if it's customary - an attack aircraft)?

                        If the P-38 was used as a strike aircraft, then the Ta-3 was definitely superior, if not in speed, then in armament!

                        Ta-3 would quickly reach the target - quickly overcome the barrage, and go away from the target, the fighters would not have time to attack it, and freed from the bomb load, it would become a very serious opponent for enemy fighters with competent actions. That is, the Ta-3 pilot could choose to leave the battle due to the speed advantage or to get involved in the battle.
          2. The comment was deleted.
        2. Elturisto
          Elturisto April 23 2021 20: 22
          -2
          Why would he have a hundred more speed at the ground? They attacked targets from a low level flight, and even in a circle. And when attacking from the couch, you need a hundred more speed ...
          1. Dmitry V.
            Dmitry V. April 26 2021 14: 46
            0
            Quote: ElTuristo
            Why would he have a hundred more speed at the ground?


            For a technically educated person, it is obvious that with an increase in speed, the probability of hitting a moving target decreases exponentially, the time it takes to reach the target, the time spent in the zone of action of MZA and hand-held firearms decreases.
            The higher the speed, the faster the evolutions are performed - slide, turn, slide - anti-zenith maneuvers on the way to the target.
            Quote: ElTuristo
            Then they attacked the targets from a low level flight, and even becoming in a circle.

            You have an extremely primitive understanding of WWII stormtrooper tactics. There are more than 30 memoirs of stormtrooper pilots for the militer - try it out. At least read Begeldinov.
            Attack aircraft approach the target at altitudes of 1200-1500 m (otherwise the target cannot be detected), after which they built a maneuver for approaching the target, at the stage of reaching the target (entering the air defense zone) from a gentle dive or
            - for well-protected targets, it was possible to approach from a low-level flight (100-150 m) making a slide in the target area for a safe BOMB.
            - BOMBING is not performed from low-level flight, usually the height of the safe dropping of bombs by attack aircraft is 200-300 m (with a fuse delay). Then there is an exit from the air defense zone and climb.
            If the strike is not from one approach, setting in a circle at an altitude of 800 m and a new approach to the target from a GENTLE dive.
            So the losses of attack aircraft at the stage of reaching the target and retreating from the target, due to the low speed and maneuverability, are twice as high as that of the unarmored I-153.
            We read Begeldinov
            And in front of "ILami" there is a wall of ruptures, fiery flashes. The presenter leaves to the right. I repeat the maneuver, bypassing the barrage. Torn down, one falls, hit by a shell or machine-gun burst, "IL". Immediately behind him is the second. "Who is this, who ran into?" - the thought flashes. But now there is no time for that, now the main thing is a combat mission, in which the life of all the other pilots of the group, including mine, is at stake.

            Rusakov was shot down. The remaining stormtroopers are in the thick of the rifts. The density of the fire is growing. Falls on its side, another "IL" falls. “Eighth,” I manage to catch his number with my eyes. “It's Petko,” I think. Two more "ILs" break down, fall, leaving a smoky trail.

            I look around. There was no one around, Gorbachev's link that remained intact, emerging from the attack, went towards the airfield ...

            Well, where is the "shaving" - in your illiterate fantasies?
            Quote: ElTuristo
            And when attacking from the couch, you need a hundred more speed ...

            Reducing the speed of approaching the target and retreating from the target - for some reason, the MiG-15 was considered quite suitable for this aircraft in the USSR Air Force.
      2. svp67
        svp67 April 23 2021 19: 01
        0
        Quote: Per se.
        Apparently because the Ta-1 was originally made single

        He was never planned as a stormtrooper. It was made as a heavy fighter, an analogue of the BF-110
    3. The leader of the Redskins
      The leader of the Redskins April 23 2021 07: 00
      +7
      Well, some authors, since Soviet times, believed that if this aircraft was in service, a battery of 4 ShVAK would become a "scythe death" for the Wehrmacht's tank columns.
      Although I personally read about him for the first time, if I am not mistaken, in the "model constructor", where he accompanied an article about the twin-engine fighters of the USSR.
      1. Alexandra
        Alexandra April 23 2021 12: 44
        +5
        The "Oblique Death" battery of 4 ShVAK could only become for armored personnel carriers and trucks. The ShVAK shells did not penetrate the side and stern armor of the Pz.III and Pz.IV tanks.

        In general, it is utter nonsense to try to put only one 3 mm cannon on the Ta-37 twin-engine aircraft. As if based on the theory of aerial shooting, they could not calculate that one SHFK-37 is not enough to disable a tank with a high enough probability of cannon fire in an assault approach. The probability of 0,1 is not serious.

        Polikarpov is an intelligent man, he used two 2 mm cannons on VIT-37. The estimated probability of being hit by cannon fire from VIT-2 into the side of the same Pz. III Ausf G already 0,16, Pz. 38 (t) Ausf C 0,4.

        Alas, VIT-2 never went into production. But it could, back in 1939. By June 1941, there could have been more than a thousand.
      2. Passing
        Passing April 23 2021 14: 27
        +2
        Quote: Leader of the Redskins
        a battery of 4 ShVAK would become a "scythe death" for the Wehrmacht's tank columns.

        To begin with, you need to fly to the tank column, and not in kamikaze mode, but on a regular basis, and with this trouble, there is no gunner, there is almost no armor, the only hope is for two engines, but they are also without armor, unlike the IL-2. Let me remind you that 50% of all Il-2 sorties were damaged.
        In addition, the high speed for this attack aircraft is a minus and not a plus, because it could not get away from the 109f, and the effectiveness of the fire drops greatly from the speed.
        The result is a suicide aircraft like the Il-2, while it has two engines and an all-metal (aluminum deficiency) design.
        The plane is not needed, because it is better to have two tenacious Il-2s that sometimes hit, than one of dubious survivability Ta-1, which does not hit.
        1. sivuch
          sivuch April 23 2021 16: 46
          +3
          Wow - almost no armor. Is it necessary to book the entire fuselage by all means? at its speed, it can only be attacked from behind and from above, but just behind 13 mm of armor. Are the engines not armored? The M-88's survivability was quite decent and the plane flew without lowering on the same engine (in contrast to the same Il-2). so who has higher survivability - single IL-2 or single Ta, is still a very big question. Ta will have a better chance of leaving Frederick.
          And it will be exactly Ta that will hit, since the firing accuracy of the fuselage cannons will be 3-4 times higher than that of the wing cannons. Even when the experienced IL-2 simply swapped the ShKAS guns and machine guns (the guns were placed closer to the fuselage, and the machine guns farther), the accuracy of firing from the guns increased by 20%. In addition, the forward-downward visibility was, although not ideal, but much better than that of the IL-2.
          Another clear advantage of Ta is its versatility. Il could catch up with only a piece, Ta - any bomber.
          1. Passing
            Passing April 23 2021 18: 23
            +2
            Quote: sivuch
            Is it necessary to book the entire fuselage by all means?

            All critical components - pilot, tanks, engine. As they tried to do in IL-2. And as they did not even try to do in Ta.
            Quote: sivuch
            at its speed, it can only be attacked from behind and from above

            Where is anti-aircraft fire directed from the ground? Forehead and sides at an angle. What's in his forehead? 8mm and glass> 40mm. 8 mm is not enough even for a rifle caliber, it will be sewn from a couple of hundred meters.
            However, on the ground, the main enemy of attack aircraft is tens of thousands of 20mm automatic rifles such as flak-30 and so on, which pierced 9mm at 1 km.
            In the air, most messers already in 41 had a 15mm machine gun, along with 7,62, with 43g they refused from 7,62 altogether. aimed shooting was carried out from hundreds of other meters, at such a distance these 13 mm of armor are sewn with a large caliber at a time.
            The IL-2 has thicker glass> 50mm, and the front engine protects the pilot (not every hit to the engine = downing), and the general reservation of everything important, gave ricochets at moderate angles of fire, even from large caliber.
            And in Ta the pilot lives until the first projectile, either from the ground or from the air. This is not armor, this is a fig leaf. The tanks seem to be protected, but for a large caliber this does not work. The engine is in theory more resistant to damage, and there are two of them, but the meaning is lost, because the pilot is vulnerable to everything.
            Quote: sivuch
            Ta will have a better chance of leaving Frederick.

            It makes no sense to compare near-zero values. If there is no one to drive off the tail, then if not from the first run, then from the second the end is inevitable.
            Quote: sivuch
            since the firing accuracy of fuselage cannons will be 3-4 times higher than that of wing cannons

            This is true for the same aiming error. And it is very different for these aircraft due to different speeds. IMHO, the problem at that time was not at all in the accuracy of the guns, but in aiming (estimation of range, corrections, etc. "by eye"), For example, 1500 Me262 shot down ridiculous 150 aircraft, and on targets on the ground they had near-zero efficiency.
            Quote: sivuch
            Another clear advantage of Ta is its versatility.

            As a bonus, not bad, only the bonus should be attached to something substantial.
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine April 23 2021 20: 58
              +2
              Quote: Passing by
              All critical components - pilot, tanks, engine. As they tried to do in IL-2. And how did they not even try to do in Ta

              The pilot, the cooling system, the lubrication system, the consumable fuel tank, those relatively small parts of the aircraft, hitting which immediately puts it out of action. how not were able to do in the IL-2 since the protection was smeared all over the fuselage, and the weight reserves are extremely small.
            2. LastPS
              LastPS April 25 2021 11: 38
              +2
              The lack of reservation of the front hemisphere could be corrected, if necessary, according to the results of military tests. Attack aircraft did not go on missions alone, but with fighter escort, so against the conditional Frederick any light bomber / attack aircraft / heavy fighter feed, tairov still looks good in view of its twin-engine power, relative to Il. Versatility in this case is a good bonus - it would be possible to make a night fighter like a bofighter and a long-range escort fighter.
            3. sivuch
              sivuch April 25 2021 17: 25
              +1
              In fact, the attack of ground targets by fighters is a routine of World War II, often with single-engine and water-cooled engines. If everything were so sad, this practice would not have happened. But specifically with Ta, everything was quite well. The pilot was already covered from almost all sides. Little 8mm? can be brought to the desired 13, and this will require only 40-50 kg of additional mass. For a 6t machine - minuscule, remove 10-15 shells from each cannon. But, most likely, this would not have been required. And from the sides, the pilot is covered with self-propelled engines.
              Engines do not need to be booked - we have already written. Oil coolers? It is desirable, but their area is small enough. Fuel tanks in the center section, i.e. more or less covered.
              It is on the IL-2 that it is necessary to arm both the engine and the water radiator and the top tanks. Moreover, the engine, of course, covers the pilot, but it also significantly spoils his view.
              Il-2, it was also at first single-seater and with the advent of the rifleman, it cannot be said that the losses decreased significantly. But Ta's power-to-weight ratio was much higher, so it could gain speed or / and altitude much faster.
              Initially, the car was just a station wagon. For example, in the air defense of Moscow, with its speed (and at high altitudes), rate of climb and powerful weapons, it would be the right place.
      3. svp67
        svp67 April 23 2021 19: 05
        +1
        Quote: Leader of the Redskins
        Well, some authors, since Soviet times, believed that if this aircraft was in service, a battery of 4 ShVAK would become a "scythe death" for the Wehrmacht's tank columns.

        Alas, I would not.
        The best machine for this would be Polikarpov's Vit-2 or SPB planes
        1. The leader of the Redskins
          The leader of the Redskins April 23 2021 19: 15
          +1
          This remark is not to me, but to Soviet authors. When I read the monograph on Il - 2, I began to doubt in the memoirs of many commanders, these are those who described how our illusions directly smashed the enemy to the left and to the right.
          It turns out that the attack aircraft was strict in control and with disgusting sights.
  3. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I April 23 2021 07: 34
    +9
    1. "Oh, if only ... but if mushrooms grew in your mouth! Then there would be not a mouth, but a whole vegetable garden!" ... 2. "Stop crying and sobbing for Dunya not to remember it!" .. ...
    Why did the Author feel nostalgia for ... specifically for Tairov's plane? Was he the only one and the best? And how many planes "sunk into oblivion", not having time to "be born", only having time to "be born" and in "infancy" ... excellent, good, so-so and unsuccessful? Wasn't there, for example, a twin-engined heavy attack aircraft Su-8? And what are the reasons for the Author's enthusiasm for the "battery" of 4 20-mm Shpitalny cannons, created on the basis of a 12,7-mm machine gun and having a weak shot with a projectile having weak armor-piercing qualities? Even in the version with the 37-mm cannon, let's try to compare the Ta-3 armament with the Su-8 armament .......
    1.The offensive armament of the Su-8 according to the project included a ventral battery of two ShFK-37 cannons (80 rounds) and two UBK machine guns (500 rounds), eight ShKAS machine guns (5200 rounds) in the wing consoles, six PO-132 and 400 kg bombs (overload 1600 kg).

    Defensive armament consisted of an UBT machine gun (200 rounds) on the upper turret for firing backwards in the upper hemisphere and one ShKAS machine gun (500 rounds) in a hatch mount for firing backwards in the lower hemisphere.
    2.The experienced attack aircraft had a slightly enhanced armament: in the ventral battery there were four 11P guns (in the NS-37 series) of caliber "> 37 mm OKB-16 (200 rounds), in each wing console there were four ShKAS machine guns (2400 rounds) , on the upper turret UTK-1 - machine gun UBT (200 rounds) and in the hatch defensive installation LU-100 - machine gun ShKAS (700 rounds). Bomb and missile weapons remained unchanged.
    3 ..... At the end of April, the aircraft was transported to plant No. 289, where, during the aircraft modifications, the NS-37 guns were replaced with NS-45 OKB-16 guns of the caliber "> 45 mm with 200 rounds of ammunition."

    With a normal flight weight "> 12 kg, the maximum speed of the Su-413 8M-2f at the ground was 71 km / h (with afterburner 485 km / h), at an altitude of 515 m - 4600 km / h. The ascent time to a height of 550 m is 4000 minutes. Landing speed is 7,26 km / h. The maximum flight range at an altitude of 138 m with an overload flight weight (1000 kg of bombs) at a speed of 600 km / h reached 335 km, and with a normal flight weight (1500 kg of bombs) under the same conditions - 600 km.

    So ... Let the Author regret the "lost" Ta-3 ... (Has the right!); and I will be about the "ruined" Su-8! crying
    1. val43
      val43 April 23 2021 09: 26
      +4
      So maybe the author regrets him too. How do you know? Just an article about Ta.
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I April 23 2021 11: 26
        +1
        I have already said: there are a lot of "failed" planes! If everyone is "sorry", then there will not be enough "pity"! There are aircraft that more objectively did not go into production! About some of these we can say: do not go, so do not go ... well, roll with them! And there are planes that were very much needed and were in a high degree of readiness but did not go due to some annoying misunderstandings ... Here are 2 twin-engine heavy attack aircraft (Ta-3 and Su-8), and it could be 3, and 4 .... About all "regret"? So, all the same, only 1 type would be adopted! So what is "sorry"? Of the Ta-3 and Su-8 attack aircraft, in my opinion, the Su-8 was more needed, with slightly higher characteristics ...
    2. mark1
      mark1 April 23 2021 12: 39
      0
      Do you regret the "four-engined long-range dive bomber?" In this case (Su-8) we have a hefty, heavily armored front-line bomber, if you reduce the armor, you get the Tu-2 - a more adequate product. It is also not worth lamenting about the Ta-3 - even in the case of a series, its use would be expensive for the USSR and it would not replace the Il-2.
    3. Alexandra
      Alexandra April 23 2021 12: 53
      +3
      A good dinner spoon. In the summer of 1941, twin-engined attack aircraft with 37 mm cannons could play. Therefore, one should regret VIT-2. Had that been in the series in 1939, then by the summer of 1941 the Red Army Air Force would have had over a thousand of these machines, mastered, with proven tactics of combat use. Part of them would have died on the airfields on June 22, 1941, but the other part would have had time to be noted in the June and July battles and, if used correctly, would have knocked out additional several hundred German tanks. And without these several hundred German tanks, and with the continued production of new VIT-2, the "scoundrel Guderian" back in September 1941, there would have been chances to be defeated.
    4. Hagen
      Hagen April 23 2021 13: 53
      +4
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      So ... Let the Author regret the "lost" Ta-3 ... (Has the right!); and I will be about the "ruined" Su-8!

      I agree with you! In general, I think that in order to perform the tasks assigned to the attack aircraft, in the absence of an engine with a capacity of 2200-2500 hp, in any case it had to be twin-engined. And the Su-8 would be the most appropriate for the assigned tasks. But Sukhoi was unable to fight Ilyushin and Yakovlev. I believe that all the possibilities to launch the Su-8 into production even before the Battle of Kursk were real. From what is in the books and on the net, it can be concluded that the main problems were the delays with motors and tests. In addition, the People's Commissariat took the path of increasing the mass production of the Il-2 due to the cheapness, quality of the aircraft itself and the quality of its combat missions. I don't think Stalin made the decision to close the Su-8 project exclusively himself. It was not done there without undercover fuss in the NKAP. I think so.
  4. val43
    val43 April 23 2021 09: 29
    -1
    The aircraft was designed taking into account the creation of machines of the VIT type ("Air Tank Destroyer") and provided for obtaining, due to the twin-engine scheme, both high speed and powerful weapons installed in the nose, practically along the axis of the aircraft.
    The novel provided WHAT? "More careful, more careful" (c)
  5. Undecim
    Undecim April 23 2021 09: 56
    +8
    For some reason, none of those writing about "failed brothers" and "shot down by their own" did not bother to consider the possibilities of the Soviet aviation industry of the pre-war and war period, its quantitative and qualitative characteristics. Then many questions about "failed and ruined brothers" will disappear by themselves.
    1. Alexandra
      Alexandra April 23 2021 13: 02
      +1
      From 1936 to 1941, the Soviet aviation industry produced 6656 SB alone, which were clearly no simpler than the Ta-1 / Ta-3. But Ta-1 / Ta-3 clearly did not have time to start the war. One must regret the VIT-2 "shot down by its own", which by the summer of 1941 was in time, and in large numbers, if he went to the series at the plant number 22 in 1939.
  6. iouris
    iouris April 23 2021 10: 47
    +2
    "Alternative history" or "fantasy" for us are the most important of the historical genres.
    1. Elturisto
      Elturisto April 23 2021 20: 26
      -1
      Why are you so this is a child ...
  7. SID
    SID April 23 2021 11: 03
    +2
    The author writes:
    To prevent the propellers from tilting the plane to the side with their reactive moment, the motors had counter-rotating propellers.

    I look at the pictures and see that the propellers are set to rotate in one direction - counterclockwise when looking at the course.
  8. dgonni
    dgonni April 23 2021 12: 31
    +1
    Buried this plane, again a motor deficit.
    Only a zealous optimist can call the M-88 reliable at the age of 39.
    It was brought to a more or less reliable state by the middle of 42!
    87b were more or less reliable.
    M-89 by the end of 42 in the format of direct injection and 1560hp power was also brought.
  9. mmaxx
    mmaxx April 23 2021 13: 06
    +2
    Yes, okay ... We all know. It was Yakovlev who killed him. He harassed all competitors.
    1. Dmitry V.
      Dmitry V. April 26 2021 15: 43
      +1
      Quote: mmaxx
      It was Yakovlev who killed him.

      Quote: mmaxx
      He harassed all competitors.

      Yakovlev did not have a simple character - he kept Polikarpov in Novosibirsk in the reception room of the party committee and did not deign to accept him during the day ...
      1. mmaxx
        mmaxx April 26 2021 17: 33
        0
        Well I said I ruined it.
  10. motorized rifle
    motorized rifle April 23 2021 13: 54
    0
    The plane could fly on one engine.

    - the ability to continue flying on one engine

    On January 14, 1941, during an unauthorized demonstration flight, not provided for by the test program, the right engine failed. Broken chain rods. Test pilot Yemelyanov landed the car in the forest. The plane was destroyed.

    It seems that he was not able to fly on one motor.
    The side walls of the cockpit were made of 12 mm duralumin.

    Only this, the verdict at the end of 1941.
    In order for the plane to "become on the wing" it had to be brought up, the planes of our opponents, and the allies, were brought up for years, and then the beginning of 1941, the Germans would have burned these 12mm sides, alas. Again, there was no clear concept of the use of attack aircraft, the same IL-2, of which there are a lot of memories of the pilots. So, if these aircraft were used to attack ground targets, and especially tanks that were well covered by both aviation and FOR, they would have suffered significant losses, especially since there seems to be nothing about booking engines, so it was not there? Then he, as an attack aircraft, is not wealthy.
  11. Dmitry V.
    Dmitry V. April 23 2021 14: 15
    +1
    The Ta-2 could hardly replace the Il-3 or compete with it, but it would be easy to supplement it. With a higher speed, twice the range and better survivability due to two motors, the Ta-3 could perfectly complement the Il-2 where it would be difficult for the latter to work.


    The survivability of a twin-engine high-speed attack aircraft is at least twice that of a single-engine one.
    Taking into account the use of air-cooled engines (withstanding the impact of 20 mm projectiles, without igniting, while maintaining operability (the combat survivability of the I-153 and I-15bis in assault actions was estimated about two times higher than the Il-2 armored attack aircraft with a liquid-cooled engine), accordingly, for a twin-engine attack aircraft with air-cooled motors, it was even higher.
    An expensive plane, but the losses would be 2 times lower, as well as the loss of flight personnel.

    It is interesting that four non-synchronized ShVAK cannons provided excellent accuracy, and the weight of a second salvo of about 5,44 is an excellent result! With the installation of ShKAS machine guns, the weight of the second salvo increased to 6,02 kg.
    Ta-3 (anti-tank version) one 37-mm Sh-37 cannon (40 rounds), two 23-mm MP-6 (PTB-23) belt-fed cannons (200 rounds) and two ShKAS machine guns (800 rounds), weight second salvo 7,28 kg.
    The armament version has four MP-6 cannons - 8,41 kg.

    The design of the suspension of the Ta-3 weapons made it possible to replace it with a suspension with a different weapon in the field, which made it possible to change the purpose of the aircraft.

    for the Ta-3 aircraft, plant # 483 by April 1, 1941 ordered plant # 32 to develop and build three more variants of small arms and cannon batteries (in addition to the already tested battery of four ShVAK cannons) and an outboard missile system. On assignment, one of the new batteries was to include a 37 mm Sh-37 cannon and two ShVAK cannons, the other - four 23 mm PTB-23 cannons, and the third - six AP-12,7 heavy machine guns.

    http://alternathistory.com/supersamolet-dlya-krasnoj-armii/

    The prototype aircraft (OKO-6bis) was equipped with a bomb rack for external suspension of FAB-250 or FAB-500 bombs and wiring for bomb dropping control. Structurally, the aircraft made it possible to carry out bombing from a steep dive (no mechanism for bringing the bomb out of the propeller was required) and launching missile shells from a removable podfezulyazh suspension (4 pieces RO-82)
    Landing speed OKO-6bis was acceptable for testing - 144 km / h. (results of testing of the 8th department of TsAGI). The Ta-3 has 140 km / h. (with 25% remaining fuel and no ammunition for cannons and machine guns, and 150 km / h - with a normal flight weight).

    Unsuccessful engine M-89, could have been replaced with M-82
    3. In addition to the tested propeller group for motor "89", there is a developed interchangeable V-group for motor "82", when installed, Vmax increases by 12-15 km.
    http://alternathistory.com/supersamolet-dlya-krasnoj-armii/

    The Ta-3bis - with limited armament, with enlarged wing consoles (with additional tanks) and a flight range of more than 2000 km - could have turned out to be an excellent high-speed tactical reconnaissance aircraft, which were so lacking and all types of aircraft were used for these tasks: IL-2 attack aircraft, Pe-2 bombers, fighters - each of which did not fully meet these tasks.

    In the version of weapons with a 37 mm cannon, the Ta-3bis attack aircraft could go much deeper than the Il-2 and single-engine fighters into the operational rear of the enemy and conduct a free hunt for rolling stock and convoys, complicating the supply and movement of the enemy in the daytime.

    It is a pity that the tragic death of the aircraft designer stopped the improvement of such a promising machine as the Ta-3bis.
    1. Vovk
      Vovk April 23 2021 15: 21
      +1
      Many believe that if the USSR Air Force had Ta-1 / Ta-3 / VIT-2, then German tank columns would be easy prey.
      We forget one thing, during the war, different countries made attempts to create an anti-tank aircraft with cannon armament. I will give the most obvious examples of single-engine aircraft.
      Great Britain - Hurricanes with Vickers Class 'S' 40mm gun.


      Fascist Germany - Ju-87 37 mm cannon

      USSR - Il-2 ShFK-37 / Il-2 NS-45


      And what happened, but nothing good ... The British with the Hurricanes 40mm were the first to realize that it was a dead-end path ... in the conditions of developed air defense, cannon anti-tank aircraft were extremely low effective.
      What was an effective means among single-engine aircraft against tanks?
      1) In 1941-42. the use of Ju-87 dive bombers, but this required experienced crews and the absence of serious enemy air defense and fighter cover.
      2) In 1943-45. IL-2 with PTAB.
      3) In 1944-45. P-47 with PHAR / Hawker Typhoon missiles with RP-3 missiles.
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine April 23 2021 20: 33
        +7
        1. Tank columns have never been easy targets. Even for a sky rider with a couple tons of napalm.
        2. None of the types of aircraft listed were that effective against tanks beyond the scope of the memoirs.
        3. The work of the WWII aircraft is not to destroy tanks, but to reduce the mobility of tank formations by putting pressure on the rear and repair units. Well, intelligence, of course.
      2. Dmitry V.
        Dmitry V. April 26 2021 08: 51
        0
        Quote: Vovk
        2) In 1943-45. IL-2 with PTAB.
        3) In 1944-45. P-47 with PHAR / Hawker Typhoon missiles with RP-3 missiles.


        The missile hitting accuracy between us and the British is 1-3% - not a very effective weapon against tanks.
      3. Dmitry V.
        Dmitry V. April 26 2021 16: 34
        0
        Quote: Vovk
        Many believe that if the USSR Air Force had Ta-1 / Ta-3 / VIT-2, then German tank columns would be easy prey.


        To do this, air superiority was needed, like the Allies in Normandy in 1944 - overwhelming! What the Red Army Air Force did not have until 1945
        The numerical superiority of the Red Army Air Force in the air was leveled out by the inability to control and concentrate forces, the technical obsolescence of 3/4 of the aircraft fleet, and the lack of tactical developments.
    2. Saxahorse
      Saxahorse April 24 2021 01: 13
      0
      Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
      The survivability of a twin-engine high-speed attack aircraft is at least twice as high as that of a single-engine

      However, during tests, when one engine failed, the plane immediately fell into the forest. There are serious suspicions that most of the stated performance characteristics are inflated.
      1. Dmitry V.
        Dmitry V. April 26 2021 16: 39
        0
        Quote: Saxahorse
        However, during tests, when one engine failed, the plane immediately fell into the forest. There are serious suspicions that most of the stated performance characteristics are inflated.


        The plane was just picking up speed after takeoff, the pilot did not have time to feather the propeller, when the engine cut off - he fell towards the inoperative engine, the altitude is too low.
        This is now an engine failure on takeoff - standard simulator procedure.
        And in those years, it strongly depended on the pilot's flight and flight time - if he took off without permission (if this is really so), what can be added about the pilot's flight discipline?
  12. Grossvater
    Grossvater April 23 2021 14: 44
    +2
    I have been hearing the mantra about the great survivability of air-cooled engines for a very long time. From the point of view, to get out of the battle and bring the pilot home, probably, just probably, yes.
    Although the fuel and oil system has not gone anywhere and, by the way, the oil system is more developed than that of liquid refrigerators.
    But here's what to do with the engine's performance after even bullet hits.
    What, change engines after every flight? Or fly on the beaten in anticipation of a wedge ?!
    Recently, it was worth it to scold IL 2 fashionably, but at least it is clear that the armor is not pierced, which means that the contents of the armored box are guaranteed to be intact. Refueled, charged, hung up and forward, the next flight.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine April 23 2021 20: 05
      +1
      Some kind of strange question.
      Quote: Grossvater
      From the point of view, to get out of the battle and bring the pilot home, probably, just probably, yes.
      Although the fuel and oil system has not gone anywhere and, by the way, the oil system is more developed than that of liquid refrigerators.
      But here's what to do with the engine's performance after even bullet hits.
      What, change engines after every flight? Or fly on the beaten in anticipation of a wedge ?!

      Either you change the DVO, or just buy a new plane with JOE. And a new pilot, in most cases.
      Quote: Grossvater
      the contents of the armored box are guaranteed intact. Refueled, charged, hung up and forward, the next flight.

      There are no guarantees, of course. And about fast pit stops - whether the engine is working normally or not is clear, regardless of its type.
  13. Denimax
    Denimax April 23 2021 18: 28
    +2
    And so it is clear that the twin engine lost to the single engine. Motors were very much needed then, and this is a high-tech part of the aircraft. Airplane gliders can be stamped in the "barracks", and the engine needs a factory.
    1. Aag
      Aag April 24 2021 15: 40
      +2
      Quote: Denimax
      And so it is clear that the twin engine lost to the single engine. Motors were very much needed then, and this is a high-tech part of the aircraft. Airplane gliders can be stamped in the "barracks", and the engine needs a factory.

      It is also worth counting the amount of scarce aluminum alloys required for the production of each of the aircraft. ((
      Again we run into economic opportunities ...
      1. Denimax
        Denimax April 24 2021 22: 22
        +1
        This also includes. Maybe it would be better to send engines and sheet aluminum under Lend-Lease, it will fit more into the hold of the ship, and not the Hurricanes?
  14. DimanC
    DimanC April 23 2021 19: 07
    +1
    Interestingly, where are the terrible phrases that again Yakovlev is to blame?
    1. stepka_razin
      stepka_razin April 24 2021 06: 36
      -1
      here is not Yakovlev, here the party's policy is called - "the USSR won in the Second World War, not thanks to, but in spite of"
      In general, this is the case when there was a plane, there was a need for it, but no one cared about it. A student of Polikarpov Tairov built a really decent car, it is a pity that the People's Commissariat of the Aviation Industry was not in place of the Deputy People's Commissar for new technology, whose duties would include the deployment of the production of Ta-3.

      So the scribbler works out the order
  15. The comment was deleted.
  16. Protos
    Protos April 28 2021 15: 30
    0
    When the TA-3 was put into production, it would have repeated the fate of the Me-110.