Military Review

Su-6 attack aircraft

Su-6 attack aircraft

In 1940, the Su-2 bomber (BB-1), designed by Pavel Osipovich Sukhoi, was launched into production. This aircraft was created under the program "Ivanov", which meant the creation of a single-engine, mass multipurpose aircraft capable of performing the functions of a reconnaissance aircraft and light bomber. From other Soviet aircraft of this class, the Su-2 was distinguished by advanced manufacturing technology and good visibility from the cockpit.


With all the advantages of the new aircraft, it was ineffective when used as an attack aircraft. To do this, it was necessary to strengthen the armament and increase security. Preliminary calculations have shown the impossibility of implementing this on the Su-2, without degrading the flight data. Therefore, it was decided to build a new aircraft.

In September, the conceptual design of an armored attack aircraft was presented to 1939, and in early March, the government included it in the pilot aircraft design for the 1940 year.
The design team of P. O. Sukhoi was instructed to: “Design and build a single-engine armored single-seat attack aircraft with an M-71 engine”.

The main difficulties in creating attack aircraft were associated with the lack of air-conditioning engines M-71. This 18 twin-cylinder star-shaped, engine, with rated / maximum power - 1700 / 2000 hp It was developed by A.D. Shvetsov and was a further development of the American Wright Cyclone R-1820.

The first version of the Su-6 was equipped with six ShKAS machine guns (of which 2 are synchronous). Intra-body payload was designed in the following versions:
a) bomb FAB-100;
b) 2 bombs FAB-50;
c) 18 bombs AO-10, AO-15 or А0-20;
d) 72 bomb caliber from 1,0 to 2,5 kg.
In addition, on the external suspension, attack aircraft could carry 2 bombs FAB-100 or 2 bombs FAB-250. Armor for the aircraft was designed in the form of "armored hull", which protected the cockpit from below. Bronespinka excluded the defeat of the pilot from behind, and bent armor plate covered the gas tank. Pilot protection from the sides - on the chest. Front booking was missing. The pilot's head and oil cooler in the original version also had no protection.

1 March 1941, test pilot of the plant No. XXUMX A.I. Kokin, lifted into the air the first prototype of the Su-289 aircraft. By May 6, the test program completed about ten flights, during which they discovered and eliminated a number of defects in the power plant and aircraft systems. Most complaints caused the engine.
In this regard, the test aircraft was delayed, and the outbreak of the war and the subsequent evacuation exacerbated the situation.

Su-6 was able to enter state tests only in January 1942. On the attack aircraft was strengthened weapons and booking.

Test pilots noted the ease of control, the best flight and flight characteristics of the aircraft compared with the Il-2 serial attack aircraft.
The following data was reflected in the act of state tests of the Air Force Research Institute:
- Maximum ground speed - 445km / h.
- Maximum speed at afterburner - 496 km / h.
- Maximum speed at the height of 2500 m - 491 km / h.
- Range at 0,9 maximum speed - 450 km.
- 2 gun caliber 23 mm
- 4 machine gun caliber 7,62 mm
- 10 PC-132 or PC-82 beams
Normal bomb load 200 kg, with the capacity of the bomb compartment - 400 kg.
There is a suspension under the wings of 2 bombs on 100 kg or 2 VAP-200,

According to the piloting technique, the aircraft is simple and accessible to medium-skilled pilots, has good stability and allows flying with an abandoned pen in all modes. However, it was noted that the review on taxiing is insufficient and therefore it is necessary to steer a snake. In the air, the review was rated as satisfactory.
Booking of the cockpit of the pilot and flashlight is carried out similarly to the IL-2. The back cover of the motor with units is reserved, the cylinders of the motor are not reserved.
The state test report also reported:
"... the Su-6 with the M-71 engine is at a maximum horizontal flight speed higher than the Il-2 AM-38 attack aircraft;
- after completing the mission (dropping bombs and PC-132), the Su-6 M-71 aircraft has a maximum speed of 483 km / h at a ten-minute afterburner. This speed makes the Su-6 difficult to reach for enemy fighters, having a slight speed advantage;
- consider it appropriate to build a small military series of Su-6 M-71 airplanes as being of interest at a relatively high maximum horizontal speed and having powerful cannon and rocket armament. "

Despite the successfully passed tests, the new attack aircraft in the series did not start.
At that difficult time for the country, mastering the production of a new attack aircraft and the engine for it would inevitably affect the pace of production of attack aircraft badly needed by the front.

However, the improvement of the aircraft continued. To improve flight performance, a boost engine M-6F was installed on the Su-71 with a nominal / maximum horsepower 1850 / 2200.

But by this time, based on the experience of hostilities, a double version was already required. The twin-armored Su-6 attack aircraft with the M-71F engine were designed and built in 1942, and from June to August 20 30 brilliantly passed state tests from June to August. Su-1943 had excellent stability and controllability, was simple and pleasant to fly.

The aircraft was equipped with powerful wing mechanization (it had automatic slats and Schrenk guards), which made it possible to steadily perform maneuvers at high angles of attack. This was very important for a low-altitude battlefield aircraft. For the pilot to enter the attack in a limited space above the target, it was necessary to maneuver mainly in a vertical plane. Significantly improve the data of the Su-6 in comparison with the IL-2 without deterioration of maneuverability in the vertical plane succeeded by reducing the load on the engine power. Thus, the serial IL-2 with AM-38F with a wing load of 159 - 163 kg / m² had a vertical speed at the ground around 7,2 m / s, and Su-6 with a load of 212,85 kg / m² - 9,3 m / s.

Reservation Su-6 was significantly better than the IL-2. Due to a more rational distribution of sheet thicknesses, the total mass of armor was only 683 kg — 18,3% of the weight of an empty aircraft. The thickness of the armor in the cockpit shooter and in the area of ​​the propeller group were selected taking into account the influence of the structural elements of the aircraft (fuselage skin, bomb bay, etc.) on the geometry of the projectile impact from the armor with the most probable firing directions in real air combat. This approach made it possible to seriously reduce the weight of the armor with a significantly better protection of the crew and vital elements of the aircraft’s structure than that of the IL-2, which, with a total weight of 957 armor, kg, the air gunner didn’t have protection, and the most vulnerable from enemy fire were not sufficiently thick . The survivability of the attack aircraft was also increased by pressurizing the gas tank with exhaust gases and duplicating the control of elevators and heading. And the air-cooled engine itself was much more tenacious in the event of combat damage.

The plane had certain reserves in terms of enhancing body armor. Based on the experience of the hostilities, it was possible to replace the upper frontal armor of the hood with duralumin sheets, since this part of the aircraft practically did not come under fire.

Double Su-6 had very powerful weapons, it included two 37-mm guns НС-37 (90 rounds of ammunition), two ShKAS machine guns (1400 cartridges), a UBT defensive machine gun (196 cartridges in four boxes) in a BLISTER, 200 kg machine gun bombs and six PC-132 or PC-82. In addition, two bombs of FAB-100 could be suspended on the external sling.

Compared to the IL-2 variant, which was armed with 37-mm air guns, the Su-6 firing rate was significantly higher. This was due to the fact that the Su-6 guns were located much closer to the center of the aircraft. "Peck" when shooting, as it was on the IL-2, almost not felt. It was also possible to fire from a single gun. The plane deployed, but not so much. Such powerful weapons significantly increased the ability to combat armored targets.

At the state tests, the double Su-6 aircraft was highly appreciated, and in conclusion, according to the KA Air Force report, it raises the question of introducing the aircraft into the series.
Comparative data of the Su-6 and Il-2 aircraft are as follows:
The speed at the ground at Su-6 is more on 107 km / h, than at Il-2
The speed at the height of 4000 m more on 146 km / h than the IL-2
Practical ceiling more on 2500 m than IL-2
Flight range more on 353 km than IL-2

Su-6 with excellent maneuverability and speed indicators, could be successfully used to fight the enemy bombers and transport aircraft. For fighters, it also turned out to be a very difficult goal. This was confirmed in the 1944 year in trial air battles with the Yak-3 fighter.

By the time of the creation of the two-seat Su-6, the Air Force specialists already had a large amount of statistical data to analyze the causes of the loss of aircraft for various purposes, including attack aircraft. In the conclusions of the report of the 2nd Division of the Operations Directorate of the Air Force headquarters for loss analysis aviation (August 1943) it was noted that of all the flight performance, it is maneuverability that has a decisive influence on combat survivability when operating on ground targets. Similar requirements were put forward by specialists of the Air Force Research Institute. They paid special attention to the horizontal and vertical maneuverability of a promising attack aircraft, equipping it with an air-cooled engine, as well as increasing the effectiveness of armor protection while reducing the share of armor in flight weight.

The leadership of the Air Force believed that the Su-6 was the machine that Soviet aviation lacked. In his opinion, the NCAP had opportunities for the production of a series of M-71F engine and Su-6 aircraft.
The production of M-71F engines and Su-6 attack aircraft could be adjusted to existing capacities by reducing the production of M-82F and M-82FN engines and Il-2 attack aircraft. This could not greatly affect the overall situation at the front. In the rear (in the internal districts, in the Far East, in schools, at storage bases, etc.) a considerable reserve of combat vehicles has accumulated - about 20% more than in the army, and at the front there was an almost threefold superiority in forces Luftwaffe. The number of aircraft released at that time significantly exceeded the number of trained pilots for them.

Given the high performance of the Su-6 in the design bureau designed high-altitude fighter.
After dismantling the armor, part of the weapons and defensive installation, the new aircraft was supposed to have excellent flight data.

Serial production of the M-71F would solve the question not only about launching the Su-6 attack aircraft into the series, but also about the production of the I-185 advanced fighter. In this case, there would be a situation where both strike and fighter aircraft were simultaneously re-equipped with equipment that is superior to the enemy’s in all defining parameters, which would most favorably affect the general course of the war. Meanwhile, the NKAP strongly resisted staging of the Su-6 series and the M-71F engine, motivating their position with a great technical risk when deploying their mass production in wartime conditions. However, it seems that it was not only that. Having relied on quantity, not quality, the leadership of the People's Commissariat was terribly afraid to make any more or less serious changes to the already streamlined production system for combat aircraft. In addition, agreeing with the proposal of the military, he would have to actually recognize the fallacy of the adopted technical policy of the NKAP, starting with 1940.

Due to the lack of suitable engines, Su-6 variants with M-82 and AM-42 engines were tested.
With an air-cooled engine M-82 with power 1700 hp Su-6 showed on tests higher characteristics than IL-2, but not as significant as with M-71-F.

The installation on the attack aircraft of the AM-42 fluid engine P.O. Sukhoi considered it a “step back,” as he repeatedly stated. However, such a plane was built and tested. Due to the unreliable performance of the propulsion system, the tests were delayed. By the time they graduated, an Il-10 attack aircraft with a similar engine was launched into mass production, and the relevance of this topic was lost.

Su-6 with AM-42 engine

The main reason for the refusal of mass production was the lack of production of the M-71 engine, under which it was originally developed. Su-6 had excellent data for its time, and without a doubt, if adopted, it would have quickly surpassed the illustrious IL-2. This plane would remain effective in the first postwar decade. Unfortunately this did not happen.

As a "consolation prize" for the creation of a two-seater attack aircraft SU-6 M-71F chief designer P.O. Sukhoi was awarded the State Prize 1 degree, which he transferred to the Defense Fund. But the high reward only "sweetened the pill."

Based on:
41 comment
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Vadivak
    Vadivak 21 November 2013 09: 21 New
    Ekaterina Ivanovna Zelenko, the only woman in the world who committed an air ram, Hero of the Soviet Union, 2 sorties, 40 air battles, 12 destroyed tanks and vehicles, and up to a battalion of German infantry fought on the Su-60. On September 12, 1941, being left alone (literally, by ordering the navigator to leave the plane) against 7 Messers, she did not get out of the battle, she shot down one, (she shot at point-blank range from 6 machine guns) and destroyed the second with a ram.
  2. Bongo
    21 November 2013 09: 43 New
    Su-2 is the only domestic aircraft that was well suited for use as an artillery spotter. Replacing him in this field Il-2, was for this purpose frankly ineffective. Surely, Su-6 as a scout and spotter would also not be bad.
    1. badger1974
      badger1974 21 November 2013 14: 38 New
      and unsuccessful on the same grounds as silt -2, but much worse because of the "star"
      1. m262
        m262 22 November 2013 00: 08 New
        Explain !, What kind of nonsense ??? fool
        1. badger1974
          badger1974 22 November 2013 01: 00 New
          Seryoga about the fact that he was a Su-2 plywood BB (near bomber) and a scout, looking at the general construction of the Su-6 (putting an iron trough in the plywood), we can assume that it is in the same direction as the Su-2, which is generally true
          1. Bongo
            22 November 2013 11: 36 New
            Volodya, almost any Soviet aircraft of that time used wood or plywood. This cannot be considered a disadvantage. The same Il-2 was half wooden, by the way, the Il-2 had serious problems with durability. When landing, the center section often broke. The Su-6, in addition to its higher flight data, was much better protected. The survivability of the air-cooled "star" is much higher.
            The same "old men" I-16s were more tenacious than the Yaks.
          2. tomket
            tomket 25 November 2013 21: 54 New
            LaGG-3 was wooden at the same time possessed fantastic durability and survivability.
            1. zyablik.olga
              zyablik.olga 8 December 2013 12: 23 New
              His glider was indeed very durable, but the liquid cooling engine is very vulnerable.
          3. Dedall
            Dedall 28 September 2017 00: 28 New
            But just the Su-2 was the first all-metal combat aircraft, adopted by the Red Army. Even in the old-fashioned "Model Designer" somewhere in 78 years it was written about this.
      2. Bongo
        22 November 2013 03: 40 New
        The review from the cockpit of the Su-6 was much better, besides, the aircraft itself had higher LTX.
  3. roma-belij
    roma-belij 21 November 2013 10: 38 New
    Sukhoi's planes have always been excellent, but the designer himself was not liked "at court", much inferior to Tupolev with his ambitions, which did not always have a positive effect on the aviation industry.
    1. 0255
      0255 21 November 2013 21: 50 New
      Quote: roma-belij
      Sukhoi's planes have always been excellent, but the designer himself was not liked "at court", much inferior to Tupolev with his ambitions, which did not always have a positive effect on the aviation industry.

      but now Poghosyan takes revenge on everyone for the Su-6 ... as well as the T-4 and T-4MS
    2. badger1974
      badger1974 22 November 2013 01: 01 New
      unloved "at court" - SHOT, it's strange not to know about it
      1. vtur
        vtur 23 November 2013 13: 40 New
        Quote: badger1974
        unloved "at court" - SHOT, it's strange not to know about it

        But what about, for example, Bartini? From love kept behind bars?
    3. Gamdlislyam
      Gamdlislyam 23 November 2013 22: 19 New
      Quote: roma-belij
      Sukhoi’s planes have always been excellent ...

      Dear colleague Roman, here you are not quite right. Pavel Osipovich did not always have successful designs, even from those that were mass-produced.

      Quote: roma-belij
      ... the designer was not liked "at court", much inferior to Tupolev with his ambitions

      Sukhoi P.O. left the "nest" of AN Tupolev, and he had enough ambitions. It was not for nothing that he created design bureaus twice from scratch, which he successfully managed (some of the designed machines reached mass series).
      And in the fact that he was not "loved" at court, "Sukhoi himself contributed to this. After the tragic death of Petlyakov V.M., in January 1942, Sukhoi P.O. was offered to lead the remaining without the head of the OKB and to start the production of Pe-2. For this it was necessary to go to Irkutsk to the aircraft plant, where the OKB was located. Sukhoi PO refused, and the war was going on and the planes were more important than the ambitions of the designer, even a brilliant one. After Petlyakov, the OKB was headed by Myasischev V .M.

      Quote: Author Sergey Linnik
      As a "consolation prize", for the creation of a two-seat attack aircraft SU-6 M-71F chief designer P.O. Dry was honored The State premiums of 1 degree

      Dear Sergey Linnik, although Sukhoi P.O. and was not "loved" at court, but in 1943 he received an award, but not the State one, but Stalin. Do not distort historical facts.
  4. pahom54
    pahom54 21 November 2013 10: 49 New
    Backstage behind-the-scenes intrigues in the Soviet and Russian aviation industry have always been and are today. A lot of excellent aircraft were developed and constructed, but the series often went not the best, but a pity ...
  5. Ulan
    Ulan 21 November 2013 11: 00 New
    I also consider the designer’s tragedy and loss for the Red Army Air Force that the best Soviet fighter of the Second World War - I-185 Polikarpov was not launched into the series.
    1. Vadivak
      Vadivak 21 November 2013 11: 06 New
      Quote: Ulan
      I also consider the designer’s tragedy and loss for the Red Army Air Force that the best Soviet fighter of the Second World War - I-185 Polikarpov was not launched into the series.

      I fully support your opinion. M-82 was already ready then.
      1. Kibb
        Kibb 23 November 2013 16: 14 New
        Vadim, good time. Can I ask a question? R-38, in my opinion, is the only sensible twin-engine fighter at that time. How can one explain its failure in Europe, then it proved to be quite good against allegedly overly maneuverable 00?
        And I can once again add my plus to your assessment of I185
    2. doxtop
      doxtop 9 August 2017 09: 59 New
      Well ... there are several reasons:
      1) I think ... and probably the most important thing is Yakovlev’s protectionism. Now much has been written on this, therefore, therefore I will not repeat myself.
      2) The insufficiently adjusted M-71 engine and, all the more, its more forced version of the M-71F. Although the engine passed 100-hour factory tests and 50-hour state tests, it was notable for excessive sensitivity to operating conditions and had a number of serious childhood illnesses, such as overheating of the rear cylinders, burnout of valves, a tendency to ignite the fuel supply system, etc.
      3) The need to rebuild production systems at aircraft factories from the construction of "wooden" aircraft to all-metal ones. This is the retraining of a huge number of people and the need to increase the quality of production, etc.
      4) Lack of "free" production sites. The existing major aircraft factories were engaged in the production of “other” products, while the aircraft repair and remaining factories required major overhauls.
      There were other reasons. However ... if it’s good to brainwash and try to analyze the situation, then if the release order had still been issued, it would have been possible to eliminate the “childhood” diseases. Especially when you consider that in a real combat situation, units of other serial engines survived without overhaul or bulkhead to 80-100 hours of operation.
      At the end of 1943, it was already possible by partially curtailing the release of the "obsolete" Yak-1, Yak-7, LaGG-3, etc. start production of I-185. Well, as for the working personnel ... then the people are still accustomed to "high technology" technologies :)
      BUT! There is one thing but! If we are talking specifically about the Su-6 with the M-71 and M-71F engines, then we must also remember that in the mid-end of 1944 the Su-8 already flew and passed the tests! And if there was really no special reason for deploying the release (to replace the IL-2) of the Su-6 attack aircraft, then you could think about adding to the existing IL-2 with the addition of the existing Il-8 heavy attack aircraft.
      The Su-8 (especially with the M-71F engines) possessed probably really almost outstanding characteristics, namely: “Slaughter” weapons in the form of at least 4 NS-37s, and later, the NS-45 in general. In addition to them are 8 wing ShKAS. Plus to the rifle - 600 kg. bomb load in the normal version and 1400 kg in the "overload". Or 6 (in overload up to 10) PC 82 or ROFS-132.
      In addition, the attack aircraft was not only very well booked (from a distance of more than 200 meters it held a 20 mm "German" projectile), but also had high speed - at ground tests of 480 km / h. at an altitude of more than 550 km / h. And on top of that, for its size it was a fairly maneuverable aircraft. A turn at an altitude of 1000 meters was carried out in 25 seconds. (true when released from a bomb load).
      In general ... as they say, “If it weren’t for“! ”But alas ... history, as you know, does not tolerate the subjunctive mood.
      Respectfully! :)
  6. strel212
    strel212 21 November 2013 11: 22 New
    A good airplane for its time
  7. Argon
    Argon 21 November 2013 11: 43 New
    The article is quite informative, but in my opinion, the premises and conclusions are fundamentally wrong. The Su-6 in the one-weight version seemed to be the realization of the "cherished" dream of the Red Army Air Force of an attack fighter. A vehicle capable of performing the functions of a fighter after a bomb-assault strike (at one time a victim This idea was the Il-2, becoming a single-seater, and perhaps only the Germans managed to realize it with their FW-190F). But even with the M71 the six did not have enough power-to-weight ratio. In the case of the two-seater Su-6, one should not perceive it as a competitor to the Il-2mu , rather as a full-fledged participant in the competition along with the Il-8 and Il-10, the Il-10 was chosen as the winner as requiring the least amount of effort to deploy a series, with comparable flight characteristics. Some confusion is caused by the reference to the NKAP, they say, he could not, did not want to. Yes, the NKAP never decided what to release, during the war it was decided at a meeting of the State Defense Committee, and was approved by Stalin personally. Regarding the number of aircraft produced at that time in the USSR, one should take the number of aircraft produced and the number of With far from the same. For example, from release 43g, almost a quarter rotted at the sites, and not being accepted by the military representatives (various defects, incompleteness). The possibilities for mastering the M-71 in a series at the Perm plant are also rather illusory, since there they were in full swing to mind of the M-82 and it was possible to complete this process only after the war on La-11. Without belittling the merits of the Su-6, it should be admitted that the rejection of its serial production was at least justified, as a maximum optimal.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Vadivak
      Vadivak 21 November 2013 22: 19 New
      Quote: Argon
      Opportunities for the development of the M-71 in a series at the Perm plant are also quite illusory, since there they brought the M-82 to mind

      In the autumn of 82, the M-1940 successfully passed bench tests, i.e. it was ready for a 1700 hp series. / But Stalin's favorites built 1100 hp locomotives The engine was jammed IMHO of course, but the story of its installation on the piano indirectly confirms this, in 1942 there were M-82s in warehouses and there were no aircraft under them what was it?
      1. Gamdlislyam
        Gamdlislyam 23 November 2013 22: 34 New
        Quote: Vadivak
        In the autumn of 82, the M-1940 successfully passed bench tests, i.e. it was ready for a 1700 hp series. / But Stalin's favorites built 1100 hp locomotives The engine was jammed IMHO of course, but the story of its installation on the piano indirectly confirms this, in 1942 there were M-82s in warehouses and there were no aircraft under them what was it?

        Dear colleague Vadim, you well know the story of the M-82 moror. He was brought to mind only in 1946.
        M-71 also began to produce before the war, and managed to release about 200 pieces. With the outbreak of war, the People's Commissar Shakhurin, by his order, stopped the production of the M-71, considering the more promising M-82. He (Shakhurin) sent in the autumn of 1941 an order to the chief designers about installing this motor on his cars. Alas, nothing came of this. The engine was with a bunch of diseases. And only by uniting the efforts of KB Mikulin and KB Lavochkin (which was threatened with disbandment) did they manage to bring the propeller-engine installation to an acceptable level and launch La-5 in a series in the second half of 1942.
  8. AlexA
    AlexA 21 November 2013 12: 01 New
    Quote: Argon
    ). The possibilities for mastering the M-71 in a series at the Perm plant are also quite illusory, since there they brought M-82 to mind at full speed

    I worked in the late 60s at OKB-19, where the M-71 was created. It was created before the war, but was too forced and turned out to be unreliable. The technologies that were objectively mastered at Plant No. 19 did not make it possible to ensure the parameters incorporated in the engine. The valves were on. Therefore, I-185 was not brought. There was no motor. And then A.D.Shvetsov decided to slightly reduce the thermal tension of the structure, thereby ensuring the required reliability. So the M-82 (ASH-82) appeared. But that is why it had a slightly lower power. However, it allowed to equip aircraft with La-5, La-7, Tu-2 machines. A colleague is right: M-72, and then M-73 (for TU-4) were brought only after the war.
    1. jjj
      jjj 21 November 2013 18: 07 New
      ASH-82 after the war worked hard on Mi-4 and IL-14. Good reliable engine
    2. Herosw
      Herosw 28 January 2020 15: 46 New
      In general, the M-82, differed from the M-71, with the number of cylinders 14 versus 18, and the stroke of the piston 155 versus 175 mm.
  9. badger1974
    badger1974 21 November 2013 13: 36 New
    it is not yet known how in the 41st the "rags" from the Su-6 would have flown without fighter cover and in ground attacks, because the skin itself was veneer, which really did not hold minor "blows" on fighters, let alone an attack aircraft, a very big question with many advantages, my personal opinion was that the Il-2's decision was correct, the only thing in the Il-2 is a shooter outside the armored hull, in the Su-6 he was originally in the armored trough, which increased the survivability of the device when attacking fighters
    1. svp67
      svp67 21 November 2013 13: 38 New
      Quote: badger1974
      it is still unknown how in the 41st the "rags" from the Su-6 would have flown without fighter cover

      Well, I think I185 in this matter could say their "weighty" word ...
      1. badger1974
        badger1974 21 November 2013 14: 45 New
        with the presence of an appropriate engine, for which Polikarpov's calculation was, yes, but it was constantly brought up to the 45th year, so the I-185 became an I-200 with a "crowned" engine m-35, better known as the useless MiG-1 ( MiG-3)
        1. Argon
          Argon 21 November 2013 16: 50 New
          Dear badger1974, try henceforth, to be more attentive to what you write. Su-6 (single) entered state tests in January 42, the skin, the tail of the Il-2 fuselage from the end of 41 was also veneered, and in the middle of the end of 42 and the wing The I-185 was presented at the GI in the middle of 42, both with the M-82 engine and the M-71, and the I-200 was tested at the end of 39. I would like to add (LEAVING THE SUBJECT) that the point in the fate of the I-185 (undoubtedly, an outstanding machine) did not put the engine, but an all-metal wing, or rather duralumin deficiency. The wooden La-5 looked much more preferable than the I-185 (m82) with comparable flight characteristics (although, of course, the "Madrid yard" at MAP played its role) On the other the sides on La-5F, in terms of the experiment, put the M-71-the mass increased, the rate of climb slightly increased, the speed did not actually change, and the VPH became much worse.
          1. Vadivak
            Vadivak 21 November 2013 22: 04 New
            Quote: Argon
            with comparable LTX

            Well, I do not agree. The bench was losing the I-185 in everything

            La-5 with the M-82 engine runs for a long time on take-off from 10 to 11 seconds. Takeoff is not particularly difficult. All aerobatics are performed with increased control loads. The plane slowly picks up speed. The turn of the aircraft is smeared, 23-24 seconds, it is not very sensitive to pulling the handle, only with a large pull the plane begins to swing from wing to wing and fall into the inside.
            When performing a combat turn from the ground at an initial speed = 480 km / h on the instrument and the end of the figure at a speed = 220 km / h on the instrument, the car gains 850 m in height.
            Aircraft rate of climb in the nominal mode is weak.
            Efficiency and throttle response is different. Ailerons have more than the elevator and, especially, than the rudder.
            Calculation of landing is complicated by poor visibility of the landing strip due to which increased attention is required at landing.
            The car in the air is heavy and slightly different for the better from LaGG-3. La-5 looks a little like a perfect airplane.

            And now And 185 with the M-82
            The transition from other fighter aircraft to the I-185 is simple and does not cause any difficulties for pilots.
            The aircraft is easy to fly in flight, very stable and without any vagaries. The take-off and landing is extremely simple.
            The advantage of the aircraft is its extremely high maneuverability on verticals, due to its good rate of climb, which makes it possible to conduct air combat with enemy fighters, which is not always possible on Yak-1, Yak-7B and La-5 aircraft.

            In horizontal speed, the I-185 has a great advantage over domestic aircraft, as well as enemy aircraft ...

            The plane develops speed along the horizon from evolutionary to maximum speed very quickly in comparison with LaGG-3, Jla-5 and Yak. has good pickup.

            Aerobatics performs easily, quickly and energetically, similar to the I-16 ...

            I think that the I-185 plane with motor M-71 or M-82, armed with 3 guns "ShVAK", meets all the requirements for combat work ...

            The I-185 is the best fighter aircraft in terms of simplicity of control, speed, maneuver (especially on the vertical), armament and survivability.

            The front-line pilots of this aircraft are looking forward to the front. "

            Regiment Commander Captain Vasilyak
            1. badger1974
              badger1974 21 November 2013 22: 54 New
              Vasilyaka-fighter, died, exactly like his friend, attack aircraft Vitruk
          2. badger1974
            badger1974 21 November 2013 22: 51 New
            dear Argon, in the same caution, dare I notice how to build it without producing it? the trains went to the East of the country, it’s shameful for you not to know what kind of work was given, but on the account of the Su-6 it was like the post-war Su-9, Su -15, -the current ma after Stalin's dry was really inspired, and then after MiG- can you tell me why? because it was the last (this is not for the Su-27)
          3. badger1974
            badger1974 22 November 2013 01: 06 New
            Look at the pictures, the Su-6 was originally a two-seater, it was like a copy of the Su-2, and there were no special design "movements", but with the "plywood" yagda got up - I can't tell you
        2. svp67
          svp67 23 November 2013 20: 24 New
          Quote: badger1974
          Accordingly, the I-185 became the I-200 with the "crowned" engine m-35, better known as the useless MiG-1 (MiG-3)

          Polikarpov’s attitude to I200 is known - he worked it out and put it in reserve, concentrating all the main efforts on the I180 and I185 ...
  10. OneMoreDay
    OneMoreDay 21 November 2013 14: 07 New
    About the consolation prize, about the people's commissar, deja vu, as if I were reading a book about Sukhoi again.
    Guys, tell me what has to do with this "would you have to actually admit the erroneousness of the adopted technical policy of the NKAP, starting in 1940"? Why were 5 engines installed on the La-82, and not 71? Having bet on the undelivered on time to engine condition, KB itself doomed its plane. Where were the 71st to be produced? - Plant No. 19 produced 82. So everything is objective, subjective is only the desire to create an attack aircraft on 71 engines
    1. Vadivak
      Vadivak 21 November 2013 22: 11 New
      Quote: OneMoreDay
      Why engines began to be put on La-5 82

      But Lavochein wasn’t doing business when his piano production office was closed, KB engineers without his participation but with tacit consent themselves stuck on the LaGG M-82 which was at the factory, Shvetsov did not know where to put the engine and offered it to all aircraft designers and the oil cooler was brazen stole from Yakovlev, who was going to produce his fighters at this plant. And when the Shop flew, then the chief designer, a very talented man, came in handy ...
      1. OneMoreDay
        OneMoreDay 22 November 2013 13: 00 New
        I’m not talking about who is in business and who is not. It was just an attempt to put on La (gg) 71st, but refused because of problems with the engine
        1. Gamdlislyam
          Gamdlislyam 23 November 2013 23: 12 New
          Quote: OneMoreDay
          I’m not talking about who is in business and who is not. It was just an attempt to put on La (gg) 71st, but refused because of problems with the engine

          Dear colleague Yuri, I propose to read the monograph by Gennady Serov "The birth of La-5 or the development and refinement of the M-82 engine during the Second World War" Aviation and cosmonautics. - 2005. - No. 2-4, 7-10. Everything is detailed there for the M-82 and M-71 engines.
          1. OneMoreDay
            OneMoreDay 25 November 2013 11: 41 New
            Thank you, colleague, I read the monograph at
            I know the answers to my questions and there is also an opinion. My questions are addressed to those who believe that the Su-6 did not take place solely because of the malicious intent and the near mind of some individuals. I just wanted to find the answers. Maybe in a hurry slurred voiced, since I have to explain.
            Well, I’ll voice my opinion: I consider it normal for Sukhoi Design Bureau to make an airplane with the best LTH, but they relied on M (AS) -71, it was a risk, in the conditions of tight deadlines (to fine-tune the engine) and limited resources of the country (plant No. 19 could not stand idle in anticipation of the 71st) they were actually left without a motor.
          2. The comment was deleted.
    2. Gamdlislyam
      Gamdlislyam 23 November 2013 22: 49 New
      Quote: OneMoreDay
      About the consolation prize, about the People's Commissariat, déjà vu, as if I’m reading a book about Sukhoi again. Guys, tell me what to do with this, “would you actually have to admit the erroneousness of the adopted technical policy of the NKAP, starting in 1940?” Why were 5 engines installed on the La-82, and not 71? Having relied on an engine that had not been brought up to condition in time, the design bureau itself doomed its plane. Where should the 71st be produced? - Plant # 19 produced 82. So everything is objective, subjective, only the desire to create an attack aircraft on 71 engines

      Aircraft engine M-71 was produced at the factory number 19 in Perm. The release was discontinued on the basis of the order of the People’s Commissar of the Aviation Industry Shakhurin.
      It (the engine) was put on La-5 in 1943 - read here
      Dear colleague Yuri, approximately in 2003-2004 a very good monograph was published in the Aviation and Cosmonautics magazines about the history of the creation of the M-82 (M-71) engine and all the intercourses with it. There are also links to specific orders and instructions.
  11. Black Colonel
    Black Colonel 21 November 2013 16: 13 New
    The mechanization of landing gear cleaning on the Su-6 scheme is interesting - with a rack rotation 90 degrees around the axis, which gave less drag compared to the IL-2. It is also important that the shooter was PROTECTED. It is a pity that such a machine did not participate in battles
    1. badger1974
      badger1974 22 November 2013 01: 13 New
      sorry, of course, but it would be the chassis that would be the tragedy of the Su-6-like attack aircraft, if you carefully read the memoirs of the IL-2 pilots
  12. 0255
    0255 21 November 2013 21: 55 New
    In general, many American deck aircraft of World War II are similar to the Su-2 and Su-6.
    1. badger1974
      badger1974 22 November 2013 01: 07 New
      but unlike similarity, they were all-metal, and not all-wood
    2. The comment was deleted.
  13. bublic82009
    bublic82009 22 November 2013 00: 11 New
    It has long been known that the good, terrible enemy of the new and better. this is understandable, it was necessary to make a lot of weapons with good parameters.
  14. Achtaba1970
    Achtaba1970 22 November 2013 15: 08 New
    Mosquito was also wooden
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 22 November 2013 20: 43 New
      Quote: Achtuba1970
      Mosquito was also wooden

      Well ... it’s true the tree was a little different repeat
      She still doesn’t have balsa pine veneer.
      Although in my opinion even Hornet was made of wood
  15. unknown
    unknown 24 November 2013 11: 39 New
    IL-2 - armored, but with a minimum combat load

    Pe-2- supposedly high-speed, supposedly diving, supposedly generally a bomber

    Yaks (in all versions) - weakly armed, low-altitude, tenacious

    But released in thousands of series. So wars are won.
    1. Herosw
      Herosw 28 January 2020 16: 00 New
      According to your statements, you can say what you are. You can make simple and logical answers to all your statements, but it will not affect you in any way.
  16. Mushroom
    Mushroom 9 January 2014 19: 56 New
    Quote: badger1974
    unloved "at court" - SHOT, it's strange not to know about it

    No need to say stupid things. Disgraced and unloved by Stalin Polikarpov, no one shot him
  17. Mushroom
    Mushroom 9 January 2014 20: 00 New
    Quote: ignoto

    Pe-2 - supposedly high-speed,

    False. No one called him speedy. As a heavy fighter converted into a bomber, he had a very suitable speed.

    supposedly diving

    False. The Pe-2 dived and bombed from a dive. The fact that there was little bombardment from the dive did not have a relation to the plane.

    supposedly generally a bomber

    All clear. No further questions
  18. mehmeh
    mehmeh 5 December 2014 10: 20 New
    It is interesting here in Israel how technology is adopted, who decides who evaluates the effectiveness? Does anyone even know? And then we have some kind of fraud and Shoigu and Putin, with all due respect, are not experts. Ever intrigues and fraud are some kind of state order ((
  19. Litsvin
    Litsvin 21 December 2015 01: 56 New
    Yes, our fellow countryman, Belarus P.O. Sukhoi, built a magnificent attack aircraft. But officials from the military industry ruined him, trembling for his own skin. IL-2 is just a cleaver compared to the Su-6.
    Once I had a chance to meet with a relative of my friend who worked in the Sukhoi Design Bureau after the war. He said that the reason for the "resignation" of the Su-6 was even the backstage game - a stronger lobby for the designer Ilyushin, based on his personal connections among the party members. Sukhoi was then still a young designer who did not have such connections. Although he was always supported by Tupolev. If the Su-6 went into production instead of the Il-2, then how many lives of the pilots could have been saved, because it really was a machine that was an order of magnitude superior to the Il-2.
    Well, never mind, gold will always shine in the sun - after the war, all the best aircraft fighter-interceptor-attack-multipurpose aircraft were made by Sukhoi P.O. or his students and heirs. Glory to our compatriot Belarus !!!