Yefim Gordon and Bill Gunston OBE FRAeS

Midland Publishing

Soviet X-Planes

© Yefim Gordon and Bill Gunston, 2000.All illustrations supplied via authors unlessindicated otherwise.

ISBN 1 85780 099 0

First published in 2000 byMidland Publishing24 The Hollow, Earl Shilton,Leicester, LE9 7NA, England.Tel: 01455 847 815 Fax: 01455 841 805

Midland Publishing is an imprint ofIan Allan Publishing Limited.

North America trade distribution by:Specialty Press Publishers & Wholesalers Inc.11605 Kost Dam RoadNorth Branch, MN 55056, USATel: 651 583 3239 Fax: 651 583 2023Toll free telephone: 800 895 4585

Worldwide distribution (except North America):Midland Counties PublicationsUnit 3 Maizefield, Hinckley FieldsHinckley, Leics. LE10 1YF, EnglandTel: 01455 233 747 Fax: 01455 233737E-mail: midlandbooks@compuserve.com

All rights reserved. No part of this publicationmay be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,transmitted in any form or by any means,electronic, mechanical or photo-copied,recorded or otherwise, without the writtenpermission of the copyright owners.

Design concept and editorial layout© Midland Publishing andStephen Thompson Associates.

Printed by Ian Allan Printing LimitedRiverdene Business Park, Molesey RoadHersham, Surrey, KT12 4RG, England.

Title page:A view of the new Mikoyan 1.44.

2

S O V I E T X - P L A N E S

Contents

Glossary 4Notes 5Introduction 6

Alekseyev I-218 7Antonov LEM-2 9Antonov A-40, KT 11Antonov M 11Antonov 181 13Arkhangelskiy BSh/M-V 14Bartini Stal'-6, El, and Stal'-8 14Bartini Stal'-7 17Bartini WA-14 19Belyayev Babochka 22Belyayev DB-LK 23Belyayev FBI 25Belyayev 370, EOI 25Bereznyak-Isayev BI 27BerievS-13 29BICh-3 30BICH-7A 31BICh-8 32BICh-ll,RP-l 32BICh-14 34BICh-16 35BICh-17 35BICh-18 Muskulyot 36BICh-20 Pionyer 37BICh-21,SG-l 38BICh-22, Che-22 39BICh-24, (Che-24) 40BICh-26, (Che-26) 40BICh jet project 41BisnovatSK 41BOK-1,SS 44BOK-2, RK 46BOK-5 46BOK-7, K-17 48BOK-8 48BOK-11 48Bolkhovitinov S 49Chetverikov SPL 51Ejection-seat Test-beds 53Experimental landing gears 55Florov 4302 56Grigorovich I-Z 57Grokhovskii G-31, Yakob Alksnis, Strekoza 59Grokhovskii G-37, ULK 61Grushin Sh-Tandem, MAI-3 62Gudkov Gu-1 64Ilyushin IL-20 65

Kalinin K-7 66Kalinin K-12 69Kamov Ka-22 72Kharkov KhAI Aviavnito 3, Sergei Kirov . . . 74Kharkov KhAI-4 75Kharkov KhAI-2 76Kostikov 302, Ko-3 77Korolyov RP-318-1 80Kozlov PS 82Kozlov El 83LaGG-3/2 VRD 84Lavochkin La-7PVRD and La-9RD 84Lavochkin La-7R and '120R' 86Lavochkin '164' (La-126PVRD) and

'138' (130PVRD-430) 87MAI EMAI-1 89MAI-62 and MAI-63 90Mikhel'son MP 91MiG-8 Utka 92MiG I-250, MiG-13, N 94MiG I-270, Zh 96MiG-9L, FK 98MiG-15 Experimental Versions 100MiG-17 Experimental Versions 101MiG-19 Experimental Versions 103MiG Experimental Heavy Interceptors . . . 106MiG-21 Experimental Versions 110M1G-23PD, 23-01 118MiG 105-11 120MiG 1.44 121Molniya Buran BTS-002 125Moskalyov SAM-4 Sigma 126Moskalyov SAM-6 127Moskalyov SAM-7 Sigma 128Moskalyov SAM-9 Strela 129Moskalyov SAM-13 130Moskalyov SAM-29, RM-1 131Myasishchev M-50 and M-52 131Myasishchev 3M-T and VM-T Atlant 134Myasishchev M-17 Stratosfera 136Myasishchev M-55 Geofizka 138NIAILK-1 139NIAIRK, LIG-7 140NIAI RK-I, RK-800 141NikitinPSN 143Nikitin-Shevchenko IS-1 145Nikitin-Shevchenko IS-2 146Nikitin-Shevchenko IS-4 147OOSStal'-5 148Petlyakov Pe-2 experimental versions . . . 149Petlyakov Pe-8 experimental versions . . . 150

Polikarpov I-15 and I-153 with GK 151Polikarpov I-152/DM-2 and I-153/DM-4 .. 152Polikarpov Malyutka 153Rafaelyants Turbolyot 154Sukhoi Su-5,I-107 155SukhoiSu-7R 156Sukhoi Su-17, R 157Sukhoi T-3 and PT-7 158Sukhoi T-49 162Sukhoi P-l 164Sukhoi T-37 166Sukhoi T-58VD 168Sukhoi S-22I 169Sukhoi T-4, 100 170Sukhoi 100L 173Sukhoi 100LDU 174Sukhoi 02-10, or L02-10 175Sukhoi T6-1 176Sukhoi T-10 178Sukhoi P-42 180Sukhoi T10-24 180Sukhoi Su-37 181Sukhoi S-37 Berkut 182TsybinTs-l,LL 185TsybinRS 187Tsybin2RS 188TsybinRSR 189TsybinNM-1 190Tsybin RSR, R-020 191Tsybin RSR Derivatives 192Tupolev ANT-23,I-12 193Tupolev ANT-29, DIP 195Tupolev ANT-46, DI-8 197Tupolev Tu-2 Experimental Versions . . . . 198Tupolev Tu-4 Experimental Versions . . . . 199Tupolev Tu-16 Experimental Versions . . . 200Tupolev Tu-155 201Experimental Test-beds 202Vakhmistrov Zveno 205Yakovlev Experimental Piston-Engined

Fighters 208Yakovlev Experimental Jet Fighters 211Type 346 216EF126 218EF131 219Type 140 221Type 150 223

Soviet X-Planes in Colour.. .. 225

3

S O V I E T X - P L A N E S

Glossary

ADD Aviatsiya Dal'nevo Deistviya- Long Range Air Arm.

A-VMF Aviatsiya Voenno-Morskovo Flota- Naval Air Force.

B Bombardirovshchik - as a prefix, bomber.BB Blizhnii Bombardirovshchik

- as a prefix, short range bomber.BBS Blizhny bombardirovshchik, skorostnoy

- short range bomber, high speed.bis as a suffix, literally from the French or Latin

'again' or encore, more practically, arethought or developed version, or evenMk.2. Designation used by only a few OKBs;e.g. MiG with their MiG-21 jet.

BOK Byuro Osobykh Konstruktsii- Bureau of Special Design.

BSh Bronirovanny Shturmovik- armoured attack aircraft.

cg Centre of Gravity.D Dalny - as a suffix, long range.DB Dalny Bombardirovshchik - long range bomber.GKAT Gosudarstvenny Komitet Aviatsionnoi

Teknniki - State Committee for AviationEquipment.

GKO Gosudarstvenny Komitet Oborony- State Committee for Defence.

GUAP Glavnoye Upravleniye AviatsionnoiPromysh-lennosti - Chief Directorate ofAircraft Industry.

GUGVF Main directorate of Civil Aviation.I Istrebitel - as a prefix, fighter, or literally

'destroyer' - see also I - Izdelie.I Izdelie - as a prefix, product, or item, used

by an 0KB to denominate an airframe priorto acceptance, see also I - Istrebitel.

KhAI Kharkovskii Aviatsionny Institut- Kharkov Aviation Institute.

KOSOS Konstruktorskii Otdel OpytnovoSamolyotostroeniya- Experimental Aircraft Design Section.

LB-S Legky bombardirovshchik-sparka- light bomber, two-seater.

LII Letno-Issledovatel'skii Institut - Ministry ofAviation Industry Flight Research Institute.

Nil Nauchno Issledovatel'skii Institut- scientific and research institute (of WS).

MAI Moskovskii Aviatsionii Institut SergoOrdjonitidze - Moscow Aviation InstituteSergo Ordjonitidze.

NKAP Narodny Komissariat AviatsionnoiPromyshlennosti - State Commissariat forthe Aviation Industry -People's Commissariat for Heavy Industry.

NKVD Narodny Komissariat Vnutrennikh Del- People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs,forerunner of the KGB.

OKB Opytnoye Konstruktorskoye Byuro- experimental construction bureau.

ON Osobogo Naznacheniya - as a suffix,personal assignment or special use.

PB Pikiruyushchii Bombardirovshchik- as a suffix, dive bomber.

RKKA Red Army.S Skorostnoy - as a prefix or suffix, high speed.SB Skorostnoy Bombardirovshchik

- high speed bomber.ShKAS Shpitalny-Komaritski Aviatsionny

Skorostrelny - rapid-firing aircraft machinegun (designed by Shpitalny and Komaritski).

ShVAK Shpitalny-Vladimirov AviatsionnayaKrupnokalibernaya - large calibre aircraftcannon (design by Shpitalny and Vladimirov).

SNII GVF scientific test institute.SPB Skorostnoy Pikiruyuschy Bombardirovshchik

- high speed dive bomber, also denominatethe TB-3/Polikarpov Zveno composite.

T Torpedonosyets, as a suffix, torpedo.T Tyazhelovooruzhenny - suffix, heavily armed.TB Tyazhyoly Bombardirovshchik

- heavy bomber.TsAGI Tsentral'nyi Aerogidrodynamichesky

Institut - Central Aerodynamic andHydrodynamic Institute.

TsIAM Tsentral'noye Institut Aviatsionnogo Motor-ostoeniya - Central Institute of Aviation Motors.

TsKB Tsentral'noye Konstruktorskoye Byuro -central, ie state, design bureau.

WS Voenno-vozdushniye Sily - air forces of USSR.ZOK Factory for GVF experimental constructions.

Airframe and Engine Design BureauxAccepted abbreviations to denote airframe(surname only used for the abbreviation) orengine design (first name and surname) ori-gin are as follows:AM Alexander MikulinAr Arkhangelsky, AleksandrACh Aleksei CharomskiiASh Arkadi ShvetsovBe Beriev, G MGr Grushin, PyotrGu Gudkov, Mikhail (see also LaGG)II Ilyushin, Sergei (we have chosen to use

the abbreviation IL in this work, to avoidconfusion with the roman numeral II).

Ka Kamov, NikolaiLa Lavochkin, SemyonLaG Lavochkin and GorbunovLaGG Lavochkin, Gorbunov and Gudkov

(see also Gu)MiG Mikoyan, Artyom and Gurevich, MikhailPe Petlyakov, VladimirPo Polikarpov, Nikolay - but only applied to

the U-2, which became the Po-2.Su Sukhoi, PavelTa Tairov, VsevolodTu Tupolev, AndreiVD Viktor DobryninVK Vladimir KlimovYak Yakovlev, AlexanderYer Yermolayev, Vladimir

4

S O V I E T X - P l A N E S

Notes

Russian Language and TransliterationRussian is a version of the Slavonic family oflanguages, more exactly part of the so-called'Eastern' Slavonic grouping, including Russian,White Russian and Ukrainian. As such it usesthe Cyrillic alphabet, which is in turn largelybased upon that of the Greeks.

The language is phonetic - pronounced aswritten, or 'as seen'. Translating into or fromEnglish gives rise to many problems and thevast majority of these arise because English isnot a straightforward language, offering manypitfalls of pronunciation!

Accordingly, Russian words must be trans-lated through into a phonetic form of Englishand this can lead to different ways of helpingthe reader pronounce what he or she sees.

Every effort has been made to standardisethis, but inevitably variations will creep in.While reading from source to source thismight seem confusing and/or inaccurate butit is the name as pronounced that is the con-stancy, not the spelling of that pronunciation!

The 20th letter of the Russian (Cyrillic) al-phabet looks very much like a 'Y' but is pro-nounced as a 'U' as in the word 'rule'.

Another example, though not taken up inthis work, is the train of thought that Russianwords ending in 'y' are perhaps better speltout as 'yi' to underline the pronunciation, butit is felt that most Western speakers wouldhave problems getting their tongues aroundthis!

This is a good example of the sort of prob-lem that some Western sources have suf-fered from in the past (and occasionally someget regurgitated even today) when they makethe mental leap about what they see approx-imating to an English letter.

MeasurementsIn the narrative, all measurements are given inImperial figures (of British FPSR - foot, pound,second, Rankine) and then decimal units(or SI - Système International d'Unités, estab-lished in 1960) second in brackets. The statesthat comprised the Soviet Union embracedthe decimal system from the earliest days, al-though it should be noted that power wasmeasured up to the Great Patriotic War, andbeyond, using the established Western horse-power measurement.

The following explanations may help:aspect ratio wingspan and chord expressed as a

ratio. Low aspect ratio, short, stubby wing;high aspect ratio, long, narrow wing.

ft feet - length, multiply by 0.305 to getmetres (m). For height measurementsinvolving service ceilings and cruiseheights, the figure has been 'rounded'.

ft2 square feet - area, multiply by 0.093to get square metres (m2).

fuel measured in both gallons/litresand pounds/kilograms.The specific gravity (sg) of Soviet fuelvaried considerably during the Warand conversions from volume to weightand vice versa are impossible withoutknowing the sg of the fuel at the time.

gallon Imperial (or UK) gallon, multiply by 4.546to get litres. (500 Imperial gallonsequal 600 US gallons.)

hp horsepower - power, measurementof power for piston engines.Multiply by 0.746 to get kilowatts (kW).

kg kilogram - weight, multiply by 2.205to get pounds (Ib).

kg/cm2 kilogram per square centimetre- force or pressure, multiply by 14.224to get pounds per square inch (lb/in2).

km kilometre - length, multiply by 0.621to get miles.

km/h kilometres per hour - velocity,multiply by 0.621 to get miles perhour (mph).

kW kilowatt - power, measurementof power for piston engines.Multiply by 1.341 to get horse power.

Ib pound - weight, multiply by 0.454 toget kilograms (kg). Also used for theforce measurement of turbojet engines,with the same conversion factor,as pounds of static thrust.

lb/ft2 pounds per square foot - force or pressure,multiply by 4.882 to get kilograms persquare metre (kg/m2).

litre volume, multiply by 0.219 to getImperial (or UK) gallons.

m metre - length, multiply by 3.28to get feet (ft).

mile Imperial length, multiply by 1.609to get kilometres (km).

m2 square metre - area, multiply by 10.764to get square feet (ft2)

mm millimetre - length, the bore of guns istraditionally a decimal measure (eg 30mm)and no Imperial conversion is given.

mph miles per hour - velocity, multiply by 1.609to get kilometres per hour (km/h).

Design and Illustration considerationsIn this work we have utilised our well-provenformat, aiming as always to provide a highlevel of readability and design.

A conscious decision was made to includeperipheral details where they appear on theoriginal illustrations; photographs have notbeen printed across the fold and cropping hasbeen kept to an absolute minimum.

Unfortunately, in this work, many of thephotographs received were copies of thosefrom official sources and proved to be lackingin definition and tonal range. Although no ef-fort has been spared to achieve the higheststandard of reproduction, priority for inclu-sion has, of necessity, been given to historicalsignificance over technical perfection.

5

S O V I E T X - P L A N E S

Introduction

For over 70 years from 1918 the world'slargest country was tightly controlled by a

tiny group of elderly men in The Kremlin, inMoscow. Their power was absolute. Theycould take giant decisions, and so couldmake giant mistakes. They also sometimesfound they had to choose between diametri-cally opposed objectives. While on the onehand aviation was a marvellous instrumentfor propaganda, trumpeting the achieve-ments of the Soviet Union, the underlyingtheme of Soviet society was of rigid secrecy.

Thus, when The Great Patriotic War beganon 22nd June 1941 the outside world knewvery little about Soviet aircraft. The knowledgewas confined largely to the mass-producedPolikarpov biplane fighters and Tupolevmonoplane bombers, and to the ANT-25monoplane designed to break world distancerecords. Only very gradually did it becomeapparent that the austere and sombre Land ofthe Soviets (this was the name of a record-breaking bomber) was home to an incrediblediversity of aircraft.

Other countries - the USA, France, Britain,Italy and increasingly Germany - had numer-ous aircraft companies from which flowedmany hundreds of different types of aircraft.They also had individuals who sometimesmanaged to create aircraft and even form tinycompanies, but the aircraft were invariablyconventional lightplanes aimed at the privateowner. Few people in what became calledThe West' would have dreamed that in Stal-in's realm individuals could even set theirsights on high-powered fast aircraft bristlingwith strange ideas.

At the same time, the Soviet Union was farfrom being the earthly paradise that was orig-inally intended. It is said that power corrupts,and the record shows that anyone who 'stuckhis head above the parapet' was likely to getit cut off. It seems incredible that in 1936-40Stalin should have been able to unleash whatwas called The Terror, in which anyone whomight have posed the slightest threat - for ex-ample, any senior officer in any of the armedforces - was simply put through a show trialon invented charges and shot.

In the aircraft industry, time after time peo-ple who made mistakes, or in some way fellfoul of someone more senior, were simplydismissed or even imprisoned (and in a fewcases, executed). It is beyond question thatthis omnipresent air of repression did muchto counter the natural enthusiasm of count-less workers who longed for their country tobe the greatest on Earth, and a leader in ad-vanced technology. When one reads whathappened it seems remarkable that so manydiverse aircraft actually got built.

This book is the most comprehensive at-tempt yet to collect the stories of the moreimportant of these X-Planes (experimentalaircraft) into one volume. Of course, some ofthe strange flying machines featured werebuilt after the collapse of the Soviet Union, butwe did not want a ponderous title. Translationof the Communist state into an intenselycapitalist one has tended to concentrate themind wonderfully. Whereas 60 years agoSoviet designers could obtain funds for oftenbizarre ideas which a hard-nosed financialdirector would have considered an almost

certain non-starter, today Ivan at his modernkeyboard and screen knows that if he gets itwrong his shaky firm will go out of business.

Ironically, instead of being a closely guard-ed secret, the experimental aircraft and pro-jects of the Soviet Union are today betterdocumented than those of many Westerncompanies. The process of rationalizationhas seen almost all the famous names of theaircraft industries of the UK, USA and Francedisappear. In many cases, and especially inthe UK, their irreplaceable archives havebeen wantonly destroyed, as being of no in-terest to current business. We may neverknow what strange things their designersdrew on paper but never saw built. In con-trast, the Soviet Union never destroyed any-thing, unless there was a political reason fordoing so. Accordingly, though this book con-centrates on hardware, it also includes manyprojects which were built but never flew, andeven a few which never got off the proverbialdrawing board.

As in several previous books, Yefim Gordonprovided much information and most of theillustrations while Bill Gunston wrote the textand put the package together. The in-flightphotograph of the MiG 1.44 featured on thejacket is from a Mikoyan video. A special voteof thanks is due to Nigel Eastaway and theRussian Aviation Research Trust who provid-ed the remainder of the visual images.

Sukhoi S-37 experimental fighter.

6

A L E K S E Y E V I-2 1 8

SOVIET X-PLANESArranged principally in alphabetical order

AlekseyevI-218Purpose: To provide a high-performanceShturmovik, armoured ground-attackaircraft.Design Bureau: Semyon MikhailovichAlekseyev OKB-21, at Gorkii.

Born in 1909, Alekseyev graduated from MAIin 1937, and became one of the principal de-signers in the OKB of S A Lavochkin. Respon-sible for major features of the LaGG-3 andLa-5 family of fighters, he was head of detaildesign on the derived La-7 and La-9. In 1946he was able to open his own design bureau.He at once concentrated on twin-jet fighterswith nosewheel landing gear, getting the

I-211 into flight test on 13th October 1947.Whilst working on derived aircraft with morepowerful engines and swept wings, he workedin parallel on a family of multirole ground-attack aircraft.

The first of these was the I-218, or I-218-1.For various reasons, the most importantbeing the need for long endurance at low al-titude, Alekseyev adopted a powerful pistonengine. He adopted a pusher layout, with thetail carried on twin booms.

A single prototype was completed in sum-mer 1948, but in August of that year OKB-21was closed. (A contributory factor was Yakov-lev's scathing comment that Alekseyev's jet

fighters were copies of the Me 262.) At closurethree derived aircraft were on the drawingboard. The I-218-Ib (I-219) had a revised crewcompartment, tailwheel landing gears andswept vertical tails. The I-218-11 (I-221) was anenlarged aircraft with a conventional fuselageand tail, powered by a Lyul'ka TR-3 turbojet,which was being developed to give 4,600kg(10,141 Ib) thrust. The I-218-III (I-220) was avariation on the 218-11 with a very powerfulpiston engine (he hoped to get a DobryninVD-4 of 4,000hp, as used in the Tu-85 but with-out the turbo). Alekseyev was sent to CAHI(TsAGI) and then as Chief Constructor tothe OKB-1 team of former German (mainly

Alekseyev I-218

7

A L E K S E Y E V I - 2 1 8

I-218 inboard profile

Junkers) engineers to produce the Type 150,described later under OKB-1.

No detailed documents have been discov-ered, but the I-218 was a modern all-metalstressed-skin aircraft designed to a high(fighter type) load factor. The wing com-prised a centre section and outer panelsjoined immediately outboard of the tailbooms. It was tapered on the leading edgeonly, and on the trailing edge were fitted out-board ailerons and six sections of area-in-creasing flap. The tail booms projected farin front of the wing, and carried a conven-tional twin-finned tail with a fixed tailplanejoining the fins just above the centreline of thepropeller.

The forward fuselage contained a com-partment for the pilot and for the aft-facinggunner. Like some highly-stressed parts ofthe airframe this was made of the new 30-KhGSNA chrome-nickel steel, and it wasthick enough to form a 'bathtub' to protectagainst armour-piercing shells of 20mm cali-bre. The windows were very thick multilayerglass/plastics slabs. The engine, mounted on

the wing, was a Dobrynin VM-251 (in effect,half a VD-4, with three banks each of fourcylinders) rated at 2,000hp. It drove an AV-28contra-rotating propeller arranged for pusherpropulsion, comprising two three-blade unitseach of 3.6m (11ft l0in) diameter.

The I-218 was intended to have heavy for-ward-firing armament, such as four NR-23guns each with 150 rounds or two N-57 (30rounds each) and two N-37 (40 rounds each).In addition provision was to be made for up to1,500kg (3,307 Ib) of bombs or other stores,carried mainly under the fuselage, or six132mm (5.2in) rockets or 16 RS-82 rocketscarried under the wings.

For defence, the backseater could operatea remotely-sighted system controlling anNR-23 cannon on the outer side of each tailboom. Each of these powerful guns was fedfrom a 120-round magazine, and was mount-ed in a powered barbette with angular limitsof ±25° vertically and 50° outwards. Avionicsincluded 12RSU-10 radio, RPKO-10M radio-compass, RV-2 radar altimeter and SPU-5intercom.

Though the I-218 was built there is no posi-tive evidence that it flew, apart from the factthat the specification does not include theword 'estimated' for the flight performance.The fact is, in 1948 such aircraft were regard-ed as obsolescent. A rival, also abandoned,was the IL-20, described later.

DimensionsSpanLengthWing area

Weights (unknown except)Normal loaded weightMaximum

PerformanceMax speed, at sea levelat 2,000m (6,562 ft)

Take-off runLanding runTime to reach 5,000 mService ceilingRange

16.43m13.88m45m2

9,000kg10,500kg

465km/h530km/h520m600m5min6,000 m1,200km

53 ft M in45 ft &A in484.4ft2

1 9,840 Ib23,1 48 Ib

289 mph329 mph1,706ft1,969ft16,400ft21,650ft746 miles

Above: I-218 model.

Left: Alekseyev's ground-attack aircraft projects, from the top -I-218-IB,I-218-IIandI-218-III.

8

A N T O N O V L E M - 2

Antonov LEM-2Purpose: To investigate the maximum loadthat could be carried by an aeroplanepowered by a single M-l 1 engine.Rivals included the Grokhovskii G-31 andKhAI-3, both described later.Design Bureau: Oleg K Antonov, Kiev.

The idea was that of L E Malinovskii, Directorof the Civil Aviation Scientific-Technical Insti-tute (hence the designation). AviAvnito andOsoaviakhim (the Society of Friends of Avia-tion and the Chemical Industry) providedfunds in 1936, enabling the Kiev (Ukraine)constructor to create his first powered air-craft. The single example built was given theOKB designation of OKA-33, because it wastheir 33rd design. The flight-test programmewas opened by test pilot N I Ferosyev on 20thApril 1937. Results were satisfactory.

The LEM-2 was predictably almost a flyingwing, based on the aerodynamics of ProfV N Belyayev, with a PZ-2 aerofoil modifiedfrom the common CAHI (TsAGI) R-l l . TheM-l 1 five-cylinder radial, rated at l00hp, wasmounted on the front in a long-chord cowl-

ing, driving a two-blade carved-wood pro-peller of the type mass-produced for the U-2(later called Po-2). Construction was almostentirely wood, with ply skins of varying thick-ness. The wing comprised a centre sectionand two outer panels with long-span but nar-row ailerons. The inboard part of the winghad a chord of 6.7m (22ft) and so was deepenough (1.47m, 4ft 1 0in) to house the payloadof 1,280kg (2,822 Ib). The payload compart-ment between the spars measured 2.4 x 1.5 x1.2m (7 '101 /2"x4 ' l l "x3 ' l l " ) . In the LEM-2built the pilot was the only occupant, thoughit was the intention that a production aircraftshould have provision for 11 passenger seats.Access to the main payload space was to bevia large doors in the leading edge ahead ofthe front spar, but these were absent from theLEM-2 built. There was also a door in theupper surface behind the cockpit. The twin-finned tail was carried on two upsweptbooms attached at the extremities of the wingcentre section. Landing gears comprised twomain wheels (the intended spats were neverfitted) attached to the centre-section end ribs,

and a skid under the trailing edge.Development of aircraft in this class was

soon discontinued, it being decided theywere of limited practical use. In fact, espe-cially with slightly more power, they couldhave been used in the USSR in large numbersin huge regions devoid of roads and railways.

Dimensions

Span

Length

Wing area

Weights

Weight empty

Maximum loaded

Performance

Maximum speed

Cruising speed

Service ceiling

Intended range

27.6m

10.6m

81.4m2

1,640kg

2,920 kg

117km/h

l00km/h

1,500m

900km

90 ft &/> in

34 ft 9M in

876ft2

3,61 6 Ib

6,437 Ib

72.7 mph

62 mph

4,920ft

559 miles

9

Antonov LEM-2

A N T O N O V L E M - 2

Two views of the LEM-2, OKA-33.

Front and side views of KT assembled on tank.

10

A N T O N O V A - 4 0 , KT / A N T O N O V

Antonov A-40, KTPurpose: KT, Kryl'ya Tanka, flying tank, ameans for delivering armoured vehicles todifficult locations by fitting them with wings.Design Bureau: Oleg KonstantinovichAntonov, at Kiev.

From 1932 the Soviet high command studiedall aspects of the new subject of airborne war-fare, including parachute troops and everykind of aerial close support of armies. Onenovel concept was fitting wings (with or with-out propulsion) to an armoured vehicle. Sim-ple tests were carried out with small cars andtrucks, converted into gliders and towed bysuch aircraft as the R-5 and (it is believed) aTB-1. There was even a project to fit wings toa T-34, weighing 32 tonnes, using a pair ofANT-20b/s as tugs !

The KT was the only purpose-designedwinged tank actually to be tested. The chosentank was the T-60, specially designed for air-borne forces. Antonov designed a large bi-plane glider and flight controls to fit over thetank. The work was delayed by the Germaninvasion of 22nd June 1941, but the prototype

was ready for test in early 1942. The selectedpilot, S N Anokhin, did a quick course in tankdriving and was then towed off by a TB-3.He managed to land without injuring himselfor overturning the tank, which was drivableafterwards.

The glider was officially designated A-T,and A-40 by the Antonov OKB. It comprisedrectangular biplane wings joined by verticaland diagonal struts with wire bracing. Bothwings were fitted with ailerons, joined by ver-tical struts. The upper wing also had twospoiler airbrakes, while the lower wing hadfull-span flaps which the pilot (who was thetank driver) could pull down manually priorto the landing. At the rear was the twin-finnedsemi-biplane tail, attached by two bracedbooms. Construction was of wood, mainlyspruce. The covering was fabric, with ply-wood over the booms and some other areas.The airframe was lifted by crane over the tankand secured by latches. The towrope fromthe tug was attached to the tank, and cast offby the tank driver when close to the target.The intention was that he should glide down

steeply, lower the flaps and then, when aboutto touch the ground, pull a lever to jettison theglider portion. The tank would then be leftready for action. The tank's tracks were dri-ven through an overdrive top gear to assisttake-off and smooth the landing.

Though the single test flight was success-ful, Anokhin, an outstandingly skilled pilot,found his task extremely tricky. He doubtedthe ability of ordinary 'tankers' to fly theloaded tank and bring it down to a successfullanding. In any case, the real need was to flyin T-34s, and there seemed to be no practicalway of doing this.

Antonov M

Purpose: To create a superior jet fighter.Design Bureau: No 153, Oleg K Antonov, Novosibirsk.

In 1945 Antonov was impressed by the German He 162, and consid-ered it a good way to produce a simple fighter for rough-field use pow-ered by a single turbojet. In spring 1947 his staff had completed thedesign of the SKh (later designated An-2), and he quickly schemed afighter to be powered by a single RD-10 (Soviet-made Junkers Jumo004B) above the fuselage. He tested a tunnel model, but on 6th April1947 received an instruction from NKAP (the state commissariat foraviation industry) to design a fighter with two RD-lOs. By this time hehad recognized that jet engines not only made possible unconven-tional new configurations for fighters but might even demand them.He quickly roughed out the Masha, abbreviated as the 'M'. A A Batu-mov and V A Dominikovskiy were appointed chief designers, with11 Yegorychev in charge of construction. Design was virtually com-plete when in late 1947 the NKAP instructed OKB-153 to redesign theaircraft to use the RD-45, the Soviet-built copy of the Rolls-Royce Nene.Apart from the forward fuselage, the redesign was total. Followingtunnel testing of models, and free-flight testing of the E-153 (whichwas used as both a detailed full-scale wooden mock-up and a towedglider), construction of the M prototype went ahead rapidly. In July1948, when the prototype was almost ready, and Mark L Gallai wasabout to begin flight testing, the project was cancelled. The La, MiGand Yak jet fighters were thought sufficient. (In 1953 Antonov againschemed a jet fighter, this time a tailed delta powered by an AL-7F, butit remained on paper.)

The original 1947 form of the Masha featured side inlets to the RD-10 engines buried in the thick central part of the wing. Outboard were

Model of the 1947 jet fighter project.

broad wings tapered on the leading edge with squared-off tips carry-ing swept fins and rudders. Beyond these were small forward-sweptailerons. The main wing had leading-edge flaps and aft spoilers. Hav-ing studied side doors to the cockpit, Antonov settled for a slidingcanopy. Armament comprised two VYa-23 and two B-20. This arma-ment remained unchanged in the M actually built, which had a singleRD-45, rated at 2,270kg (5,000 Ib) fed by cheek inlets. The wing was re-designed as a round-tipped delta, with the swept vertical tails posi-tioned between two pairs of tabbed elevons.

Antonov considered that the final M ought to have been allowed tofly. He considered it would have dramatically outmanoeuvred anycontemporary competition, and could later have had radar and amore powerful engine.

11

DimensionsSpanLength, excluding tankWing area

WeightsWeight (airframe)

with T-60

PerformanceTowing speed

18.0m12.06m85.8m2

2,004 kg7,804 kg

120km/h

59 ft3/ in39ft63/4in923.6ft2

4,41 8 Ib1 7,205 Ib

74.6 mph

A N T O N O V M

12

Dimensions (data 194 7)SpanLength

Dimensions (data 1948)SpanLengthNo other data.

10.8m10.6m

9.3m10.64m

35 ft 5 in34 ft 914 in

30 ft &/, in34 ft \Q3/, in

Definitive M, 1948

The E-153 glider.

Original scheme for M, 1947

A N T O N O V 1 81

Antonov 181Purpose: To explore the Custer channel-wing concept.Design Bureau: Oleg K Antonov, Kiev,Ukraine.

Little is known about this research aircraft,other than what could be gleaned by walkinground it on 18th August 1990 and reading theaccompanying placard. Its one public outingwas on Soviet Day of Aviation, and the venuethe airfield at the village of Gastomel, nearKiev. The configuration was instantly recog-nisable as being that of the 'channel-wing' air-craft proposed by American W R Custer inthe mid-1950s. The key factor of this conceptwas powered lift gained by confining the pro-peller slipstream in a 180° half-barrel of aero-foil profile. Custer claimed the ability to takeoff and climb almost vertically, or to hover,whilst retaining full forward speed capability.Resurrecting the Custer concept was aston-ishing, as the claims for the channel-wing air-craft were soon shown to be nonsense, andinstead of 1958 being the start of mass-pro-duction of the CCW-5 series version thewhole thing faded from view. It was thus to-tally unexpected when the '181' appeared atan Open Day hosted by the Antonov OKB. Itwas not just parked on the grass but tieddown on a trailer. Visitors were able to climbon to this and study the aircraft intimately, butthere was nobody to answer questions.

The '181' was dominated by its two Custer-inspired channel wings, with aerofoil liftingsurfaces curved round under the propellersso that they were washed by the slipstream.Whereas the Custer CCW-5 had pusher pro-pellers above the trailing edge, the Antonovaircraft had tractor propellers above the lead-ing edge. They were driven via shafts andgears by a 210hp Czech M-337A six-cylinderaircooled piston engine. Apart from this theaircraft appeared conventional, though thetail was of 'butterfly' configuration to keep itout of the slipstream, and of exceptional sizein order to remain effective at very low air-speeds. Beyond the channel wings weresmall outer wings with ailerons. The nosewas fighter-like, with a large canopy over theside-by-side cockpit, and the tricycle landinggear was fixed. The nose carried a long in-strumentation boom, and there was a dorsalantenna, presumably for telemetry. Thewhole aircraft was beautifully finished, andpainted in house colours with the Antonovlogo. It bore Soviet flags on the fins, and civilregistration SSSR-190101.

Construction of this research aircraft musthave been preceded by testing of models.These must have given encouraging results,which were not reproduced in the '181'. Co-author Gunston asked Antonov leaders aboutthe '181' and was told that it had been a seri-ous project, but perhaps ought not to havebeen put on view.

Three photographs of the An-181

13

DimensionsSpanLength

Wing area (total projected)

Weights

Weight loaded (normal)(maximum)

Performance

Maximum speed (placard)Range (placard)

7.3m7.31m7.0m2

820kg900kg

820 km/h750km

23 ft m in

23 ft 11% in75ft2

l,8081bl,9841b

510 mph

466 miles

A R K H A N G E L S K I Y B S H / M - V B A R T I N I S T A L ' - G , E l A N D S T A L ' - S

Arkhangelskiy BSh/M-VPurpose: To destroy enemy armour.Design Bureau: A A Arkhangelskiy (Tupolevaide), with G M Mozharovskiy andIV Venevidov, Factory No 32, Moscow.

The idea was that of Mozharovskiy-Venevi-dov, who called their project the Kombain(combine) because of its versatility. Theywere long-time specialists in aircraft arma-ment, among other things being responsiblefor all the early gun turrets in the Soviet Union.Arkhangelskiy increased their political powerand got them a separate design office andfactory for what became called the BSh (ar-moured assaulter, the same designation asthe Ilyushin Stormovik) and also KABV (com-bined artillery-bomber weapon). The eskiz-nyi proekt (sketch project) was submitted on29th December 1940, long-lead materialswere sanctioned on 25th January 1941 andthe project was confirmed at the NIl-WS byAIFi l in on 12th March 1941. Despite being(on paper) superior, it was terminated in theevacuation of the designers from Moscow toKirov later in 1941, all effort being put into theIlyushin aircraft (which was built in greaternumbers than any other aircraft in history).

The whole emphasis in the M-V project wasgiving the pilot (the only occupant) the bestpossible view ahead over the nose. Whereas

the engine of the IL-2 Sturmovik blocked offthe view at a downwards angle of 8°, the M-Vaircraft gave the pilot a downwards view of30°. This is because the engine (the l,625hpAM-38, the same as the IL-2) was behind thecockpit. The tail was carried on twin boomsand the landing gear was of the then-novelnosewheel type. Many armament schemeswere planned, including one Taubin 23mmgun and four ShKAS, or four ShVAK, allmounted on pivots to fire diagonally down.Up to 500kg of bombs could also be carried,mainly to comprise AO-20 or AO-25 fragmen-tation bomblets.

On the basis of written evidence this air-craft would have been a better tank killer thanthe Ilyushin machine. The drawback was that

when the Ilyushin suffered heavy attritionfrom German fighters a backseater was put into defend it, and this would have been diffi-cult with the BSh/M-V.

DimensionsSpanLengthWing area

WeightsEmptyMaximum loaded

PerformanceMaximum speedTime to climb to 1, 3, 5 kmMinimum landing speed

14m11.26m27.0m2

3,689kg5,130kg

532 km/h4.8,9.7, 19.2 min120 km/h

45 ft 11 in36 ft 11 in290.6ft2

8,1331b1 1,310 Ib

331 mph

74.6 mph

Bartini Stal'-6, El, and StaP 8Purpose: High-speed research aircraft withfighter-like possibilities.Design Bureau: SNII, at Factory No 240.

One of the few aircraft designers to emigrateto (not from) the infant Soviet Union wasRoberto Lodovico Bartini. A fervent Commu-nist, he chose to leave his native Italy in 1923when the party was proscribed by Mussolini.By 1930 he was an experienced aircraft de-signer, and qualified pilot, working at theCentral Construction Bureau. In April of thatyear he proposed the creation of the fastestaircraft possible. In the USSR he had alwayssuffered from being 'foreign', even though hehad taken Soviet citizenship, and nothing wasdone for 18 months until he managed to en-list the help of P I Baranov, head of the RKKA(Red Army) and M N Tukhachevskii (head ofRKKA armament). They went to Y Y Anvel't, adeputy head at the GUGVF (main directorateof civil aviation), who got Bartini establishedat the SNII (GVF scientific test institute). Workbegan here in 1932, the aircraft being desig-nated Stal' (steel) 6, as one of a series of ex-

perimental aircraft with extensive use of high-tensile steels in their airframes. After suc-cessful design and construction the Stal'-6was scheduled for pre-flight testing (taxi runsat increasing speed) in the hands of test pilotAndrei Borisovich Yumashev. On the very firstrun he 'sensed the lightness of the con-trols., .which virtually begged to be airborne'.He pulled slightly back on the stick and theaircraft took off, long before its scheduleddate. The awesomely advanced aircraftproved to be straightforward to fly, but the en-gine cooling system suffered a mechanicalfault and the first landing was in a cloud ofsteam. Yumashev was reprimanded by Barti-ni for not adhering to the programme, buttesting continued. Yumashev soon becamethe first pilot in the USSR to exceed 400km/h,and a few days later a maximum-speed runconfirmed 420km/h (261 mph), a nationalspeed record. One of Bartini's few friends inhigh places was Georgei K Ordzhonikidze,People's Commissar for Heavy Industries. InNovember 1933, soon after the Stal'-6 (by thistime called the El, experimental fighter) had

shown what it could do, he personally or-dered Bartini to proceed with a fighter de-rived from it. This, the Stal'-8, was quicklycreated in a separate workshop at Factory240, and was thus allocated the Service des-ignation of I-240. Hearing about the Stal'-6'sspeed, Tukhachevskii called a meeting at theMain Naval Directorate which was attendedby many high-ranking officers, includingheads from GUAP (Main Directorate of Avia-tion Production), the WS (air force), RKKAand SNII GVF. The meeting was presided overby Klementi Voroshilov (People's Commissarfor Army and Navy) and Ordzhonikidze. Atthis time the fastest WS fighter, the I-5,reached 280km/h. The consensus of themeeting was that 400km/h was impossible.Many engineers, including AAMikulin, de-signer of the most powerful Soviet engines,demonstrated or proved that such a speedwas not possible. When confronted by theStal'-6 test results, and Comrade Bartini him-self, the experts were amazed. They called forState Acceptance tests (not previously re-quired on experimental aircraft). These began

14

BSh-MV

B A R T I N I S T A L ' - G , A N D S T A L ' - S

Top: Stal'-6.

Centre: Three views of the StaP-6.

Bottom: Inboard profile of Stal'-6.

15

B A R T I N I S T A L ' - G , A N D S T A L ' - 8

in the hands of Pyotr M Stefanovskii on 8thJune 1934 (by which time the fast I-16 mono-plane fighter was flying, reaching 359km/h).On 17th June the Stal'-6 was handed to the NilWS (air force scientific research institute),where it was thoroughly tested by Ste-vanovskiy and N V Ablyazovskiy. They did notexceed 365km/h, because they found that athigher speeds they needed to exert consider-able strength to prevent the aircraft fromrolling to port (an easily cured fault). On 13thJuly the landing-gear indicator lights becamefaulty and, misled, Stefanovskii landed withthe main wheel retracted. The aircraft was re-paired, and the rolling tendency cured. Vari-ous modifications were made to make thespeedy machine more practical as a fighter.For example the windscreen was fastened inthe up position and the pilot's seat in theraised position. After various refinements Ste-fanovskii not only achieved 420km/h but ex-pressed his belief that with a properly tunedengine a speed 25-30km/h higher than thismight be reached. The result was that fighterdesigners - Grigorovich, Polikarpov, Sukhoiand even Bartini himself - were instructed tobuild fighters much faster than any seen hith-erto. Bartini continued working on the StaP-8,a larger and more practical machine than theStal'-6, with an enclosed cockpit with a for-ward-sliding hood, two ShKAS machine gunsand an advanced stressed-skin airframe. Theengine was to be the 860hp Hispano-SuizaHS12Ybrs, with which a speed of 630km/h(391 mph) was calculated. Funds were allo-cated, the Service designation of the Stal'-8being I-240. This futuristic fighter might havebeen a valuable addition to the WS, but Bar-tini's origins were still remembered even inthe mid-1930s, and someone managed to getfunding for the Stal'-8 withdrawn. One reasonput forward was vulnerability of the steamcooling system. In May 1934 the I-240 wasabandoned, with the prototype about 60 percent complete.

Everything possible was done to reducedrag. The cantilever wing had straight taperand slight dihedral (existing drawings incor-rectly show a horizontal upper surface). Thetwo spars were made from KhMA (chrome-molybdenum steel) tubes, each spar com-prising seven tubes of 16.5mm diameter atthe root, tapering to three at mid-semi-spanand ending as a single tube of 18mm diame-ter towards the tip. The ribs were assembledfrom Enerzh-6 (stainless) rolled strip. Ailerons,flaps and tail surfaces were assembled fromsteel pressings, with Percale fabric skin. Theflaps were driven manually, and when theywere lowered the ailerons drooped 5°. Barti-ni invented an aileron linkage which adjustedstick force according to indicated airspeed(this was resurrected ten years later by theCentral Aero-Hydrodynamic Institute as their

own idea). The fuselage was likewise basedon a framework of welded KhMA steel tubes.Ahead of the cockpit the covering comprisedunstressed panels of magnesium alloy, the aftsection being moulded plywood. In flight thecockpit was part-covered by a glazed hoodflush with the top of the fuselage, giving thepilot a view to each side only. For take-off andlanding the hood could be hinged upwards,while the seat was raised by a winch andcable mechanism. Likewise the landing gearwas based on a single wheel on the centre-line, with an 800 x 200mm tyre, mounted ontwo struts with rubber springing. The pilotcould unlock this and raise it into an AMTs(light alloy) box between the rudder pedals.For some reason the fuselage skin on eachside of this bay was corrugated. The wheelbay was normally enclosed by a door whichduring the retraction cycle was first opened toadmit the wheel and then closed. Extensionwas by free-fall, finally assisted by the cableuntil the unit locked. Under the outer wingswere hinged support struts, likewise retract-ed to the rear by cable. When extended, eachstrut could rotate back on its pivot against aspring. Under the tail was a skid with a rubbershock absorber. The engine was an importedCurtiss Conqueror V-15 70 rated at 630hp, dri-ving a two-blade metal propeller with a largespinner (photographs show that at least twodifferent propellers were fitted). This massivevee-12 engine was normally water-cooled,but Bartini boldly adopted a surface-evapora-tion steam cooling system. The water in theengine was allowed to boil, and the steamflowed into the leading edges of the wingswhich were covered by a double skin fromthe root to the aileron. Each leading edge waselectrically spot- and seam-welded, with asoldering agent, to form a sealed box with acombined internal area of 12.37m2 (133ft2).

Each leading edge was attached to the upperand lower front tubes of the front spar. Inside,the steam, under slight pressure, condensedback into water which was then pumpedback to the engine. The system was not de-signed for prolonged running, and certainlynot with the aircraft parked.

Bartini succeded brilliantly in constructingthe fastest aircraft built at that time in the So-viet Union. At the same time he knew per-fectly well that the Stal'-6 was in no way apractical machine for the WS. The uncon-ventional landing gear appeared to workwell, and even the evaporative cooling sys-tem was to be perpetuated in the I-240 fight-er (but that was before the Stal'-6 had flown).Whether the I-240 would have succeded infront-line service is doubtful, but it was theheight of folly to cancel it. The following datarefers to the Stal'-6.

DimensionsSpanLengthWing area

WeightsEmptyMaximum loaded weight

Performancev Maximum speedMaximum rate of climbService ceilingEnduranceMinimum landing speed

9.46m6.88m14.3m2

850kg1,080kg

420km/h21m/s8,000 m1 hour 30 minllOkm/h

31 ft 'A in22 ft 6% in154ft2

1,874 Ib2,381 Ib

261 mph4,135ft/min26,250ft

68.4 mph

Stal'-8 model in tunnel.

16

B A R T I N I S T A L ' - G , A N D S T A L ' - J

Stal'-8,I-240

Bartini Stal'-7Purpose: Originally, fast passengertransport; later, long-range experimentalaircraft.Design: SNII GVF; construction at GAZ(Factory) No 81, Moscow Tushino.

In the winter 1933-34 the GUGVF (chief ad-ministration of the civil air fleet) issued a re-quirement for a fast transport aircraft to carry10 to 12 passengers. Curiously, the two proto-types built to meet this demand were both thework of immigrant designers, the FrenchmanLaville (with ZIG-1) and the Italian Bartini.The latter had already produced drawings fora transport to cruise at 400km/h (248mph),which was well in advance of what the GVFhad in mind. Always captivated by speed,Stalin decreed that a bomber version shouldbe designed in parallel. Still in charge of de-sign at the SNII GVF, Bartini refined his studyinto the Stal'-7, the name reflecting its steelconstruction.

Strongly influenced by the Stalin decree,Bartini created a transport notable for itscramped and inconvenient fuselage, highly

unsuitable for passengers but excellent forbombs, and for long-range flight. The originalstructure was to be typical Bartini weldedsteel-tube trusses with fabric covering, butthe stress calculations were impossibly diffi-cult, with 200 primary rigid welded intersec-tions between tubes of different diameters. Inlate 1934 the fuselage was redesigned as alight-alloy stressed-skin structure, with sim-pler connections to the unchanged wing.

Only one aircraft was built, in the work-shops of ZOK, the factory for GVF experimen-tal construction. The first flight was made onan unrecorded date in autumn 1936, the pilotbeing N P Shebanov. Performance was out-standing, and Shebanov proposed attemptinga round-the-world flight. In 1937 the StaP-7was fitted with 27 fuel tanks with a total ca-pacity of 7,400 litres (1,628 Imperial gallons,1,955 US gallons). A maximum-range flightwas then attempted, but - possibly becauseof structural failure of a landing gear - the air-craft crashed on take-off. Bartini was arrest-ed, and was in detention (but still designing,initially at OKB-4, Omsk) for 17 years.

The aircraft was repaired, and on 28th Au-gust 1939, at a slightly reduced weight, suc-cessfully made a closed-circuit flight of5,068km (3,149 miles) in 12hrs Slmin (aver-age speed 404.936km/h, 251.62mph), to setan FAI Class record. The route was MoscowTushino-Maloe Brusinskoe (Sverdlovsk re-gion)-Sevastopol-Tushino, and the crewcomprised Shebanov, copilot VAMatveyevand radio/navigator N A Baikuzov. In Bartini'sabsence, the project was seized by his op-portunist co-worker V G Yermolayev, who re-designed it into the outstanding DB-240 andYer-2 long-range bomber.

The wing was typical Bartini, with pro-nounced straight taper and construction fromcomplex spars built up from multiple steeltubes, almost wholly with fabric covering.Each wing comprised a very large centre sec-tion, with depth almost as great as that of thefuselage, terminating just beyond the enginenacelles 2.8m (9ft 2/4in) from the centreline,with sharp anhedral, and thinner outer panelswith dihedral. The trailing edges carried splitflaps and Frise ailerons, the left aileron having

17

B A R T I N I S T A L ' - ?

a trim tab. One account says that the inverted-gull shape 'improved stability and provided acushion effect which reduced take-off andlanding distance', but its only real effect wasto raise the wing on the centreline from thelow to the mid position.

This was just what the fuselage did notneed, because the massive deep sparsformed almost impassable obstructions andeliminated any possibility of using the aircraftas a passenger airliner. The fuselage was alight-alloy structure, with an extremely

Stal'-7

cramped cross-section with sides sloping intowards the top (almost a round-cornered tri-angle). Entry was via a very small door on theleft of the rear fuselage. The cockpit in thenose seated pilots side by side, and had aglazed canopy with sliding side windows andthe then-fashionable forward-raked wind-screen. Immediately behind the cockpit therewas a station for the navigator/radio operator.The tail surfaces, made of dural/fabric, wereof low aspect ratio, the elevators having tabs.

The engines were the 760hp M-100, thesebeing the initial Soviet licence-built versionderived by V Ya Klimov from the Hispano-Suiza 12Ybrs. They were installed in neatcowlings at the outer ends of the centre sec-tion, angled slightly outwards and driving pro-pellers with three metal blades which couldhave pitch adjusted on the ground. One ac-count states that wing-surface radiators wereused, but it is obvious from photographs thatordinary frontal radiators were fitted, as in theTupolev SB bomber. Plain exhaust stubswere fitted, though this may have scorchedthe wing fabric and one drawing shows ex-haust pipes discharging above the wing. Inthe course of 1938-39 the original engineswere replaced by the derived M-103, rated at860hp, which improved performance withheavy fuel loads. A hydraulic system was pro-vided to operate the flaps and the fully re-tractable main landing gears, each unit ofwhich had a strong pair of main legs whichhinged at mid-length, the unit then swingingback on twin forward radius arms (like a DC-3 back-to-front). The castoring tailwheel wasfixed. In the nose were twin landing lights.

The Stal'-7 was simply a sound aeroplaneable to fly at what was in its day a very longway at high speed. As a transport it was in-convenient to the point of being useless,though it was supposed to be able to seat 12passengers, and it was flawed by its basic lay-out and structure. The Soviet Union was rightto take a licence for the Douglas DC-3. Onthe other hand, Yermolayev transformed theStal'-7 into an outstanding long-range bomber.

DimensionsSpan 23.0 mLength 16.0mWing area 72.0 m2

WeightsEmpty 4,800 kgLoaded (originally) 7,200 kgMaximum loaded ( 1 939) 1 1 ,000 kg

PerformanceMax speed at 3,000m (9,842 ft) 450km/hCruising speed 360/380 km/hService ceiling(disbelieved by Gunston) 1 1 ,000 m(on one engine, light weight) 4,500 m

75ft 5^ in52 ft 6 in775ft2

1 0,580 Ib1 5,873 Ib24,250 Ib

280 mph224/236 mph

36,090ft14,764ft

Left: Two views of Stal'-7.

18

B A R T I N I V V A - 1 4

BartiniWA-14Purpose: To explore the characteristics ofa vehicle able to fly as an aeroplane or skimthe ocean surface as an Ekranoplan (literally'screen plan', a device covering an area witha screen).Design Bureau: TANTK named forG M Beriev Taganrog.

Ever one to consider radical solutions, Bartinispent part of 1959 scheming a giant marinevehicle called M. Seaborne at rest, this was tobe able to rise from the water and fly at highspeed over long distances. It was to maketrue flights at high altitude, but also have thecapability of 'flying' just above the seasurface. Such a vehicle was initially seen asurgently needed to destroy US Navy Polaris-missile submarines, but it could have manyother applications. The idea was refined intoone called 2500, from its weight in tonnes,and ultimately designated M-62 or MVA-62.

TANTK Beriev investigated stability, controland performance of the proposed configura-tion with the small Be-1. This looked vaguelylike a jet fighter, with a front cockpit, largecentroplan (central wing) with a turbojet ontop, twin floats, outer wings and twin fins andrudders. Under each float was a surface-piercing V-type hydrofoil, which was not to bea feature of the full-scale vehicle.

Pending funding for this monster, TANTKBeriev were ordered to build three WA-14prototypes, this being a practical basis for amultirole vehicle. Missions were to includesea/air search and rescue, defence against allkinds of hostile submarines and surface war-ships, and patrol around the Soviet coastlines.Production craft were to be kept at readinesson coastal airfields. The vehicle was classedas an amphibious aircraft. It was to be devel-oped in three phases. The WA-14M1 was tobe an aerodynamics and technology test-bed,initially with rigid pontoons on the ends of thecentroplan, and later with these replaced byPVPU inflatable pontoons (which took yearsto develop). The WA-14M2 was to be moreadvanced, with two extra main engines toblast under the centroplan to give lift and laterwith a battery of lift engines to give VTOL ca-pability, and with fly-by-wire flight controls.The third stage would see the VTOL vehiclefully equipped with armament and with theBurevestnik computerised ASW (anti-subma-rine warfare) system, Bor-1 MAD (magnetic-anomaly detection) and other operationalequipment.

Following very extensive research, andtests with simulators, the first vehicle,Nol9172, was completed as an aeroplane. Itwas tested at the Taganrog WS flying school,which had a concrete runway. Accompanied

by numerous engineers, including deputychief designer Nikolai A Pogorelov, the testcrew of Yu M Kupriyanov and navigator/sys-tems engineer L F Kuznetsov opened theflight test programme with a conventionaltake-off on 4th September 1972. The onlyproblem was serious vibration of hydraulicpipes, which resulted in total loss of fluid fromone of the two systems.

In 1974 the PVPU inflatable pontoons wereat last installed, though their expansion andretraction caused many problems. Flotationand water taxi tests followed, culminating inthe start of flight testing of the amphibious air-craft on 11 th June 1975. Everyone was amazedthat Bartini was proved correct in his beliefthat the rubber/fabric pontoons would retaintheir shape at high airspeeds. On water theywere limited to 36km/h, so later they were re-placed by rigid pontoons, with skegs (axialstrakes). The forward fuselage was length-ened and the starting (cushion-blowing) en-gines added. On the debit side, Bartini wasalso right in predicting that the Lotarev bu-reau would never deliver the intended batteryof 12 RD-36-35PR lift engines, and this madethe second and third prototypes redundant.

Bartini died in 1974, and the now truncatedprogramme continued with trickle funding.The blowing engines caused resonancewhich resulted in breakage of landing-geardoors and buffeting of the rear control flaps.The vehicle never flew again, but did carryout manoeuvre tests on water with reversersadded to the blowing engines. TANTK wasgiven higher-priority work with the A-40, A-50and IL-78.

The entire structure was marinised lightalloy, much of the external skin being of hon-eycomb sandwich. The airframe was basedon the fuselage, centroplan of short span but

Model of MVA-62.

very long chord, and cigar-like floats carryingthe tails. Above the rear on the centrelinewere the two main engines. The starting en-gines were mounted on the sides of the nose,and the (unused) lift-engine bay was dis-posed around the centre of gravity amidships.On each side of this area projected the outerwings, with straight equal taper and thick-ness/chord ratio of 12 per cent, with full-spanleading-edge slats, ailerons and flaps hinged1m (3ft 31/2in) below the wing.

The propulsion and starting (cushion-blow-ing) engines were all Solov'yov D-30M turbo-fans, each rated at 6,800kg (14,991 Ib). Thestarting engines were equipped with cas-cade-type thrust deflectors, and later withclamshell-type reversers. A TA-6AAPU (auxil-iary power unit) was carried to provide elec-tric power and pneumatic power. Bleed airserved the cabin conditioning system andhot-air deicing of all leading edges. A total of15,500kg (34,171 Ib) of fuel was housed in twometal tanks and 12 soft cells.

The cockpit contained three K-36L ejec-tion-seats, for the pilot, navigator andweapon-systems operator. Flight controlswere linked through the SAU-M autopilot andcomplex military navigation and weapon-de-livery systems. Had the aircraft undertakenVTOL flights the reaction-control systemwould have come into use, with six pairs ofhigh-power bleed-air nozzles disposed at thewingtips and longitudinal extremities. For op-eration from land No 19172 was fitted with thenose and a single main landing gear of aTu-22, both on the centreline, and the com-plete outrigger-gear pods of a Myasishchev3M heavy bomber. Maximum ordnance load,carried on IL-38 racks, comprised 4 tonnes(8,8181b), made up of AT-1 or -2 torpedoes,PLAB-250-120 or other bombs, various minesup to UDM-1500 size, RYu-2 depth chargesand various sonobuoys (such as 144 RGB-1U).

19

B A R T I N I V V A - 1 4

OKB drawing of WA-14M1

One of the incomplete WA-14s was dam-aged by fire, the third being abandoned at anearly stage. The one with which all the flyingwas done, Nol9172, was retired to the Moni-no museum in a dismantled state, where itcarries the number '10687' and 'Aeroflot'.TANTK had various projects for intended pro-duction amphibious derivatives. These weregrouped under letter T, and two such areillustrated here for the first time.

The WA-14 was an outstandingly boldconcept which very nearly came off. There islittle doubt it could have led to a practical ver-hicle for many oceanic purposes. In the longterm all it achieved was to give TANTK-Berievconsiderable experience in many new disci-plines, especially in challenging avionics andflight-control areas. Such a programme wouldhave almost no chance of being funded today.

WA-14M1 on land (without pontoons),on water and in flight.

20

DimensionsSpan (wing) 28.5m 93 ft 6 in

(over lateral-control pods) 30.0 m 98 ft 5 inLength (as built, excluding PVDinstrumentation boom) 25.97 m 85 ft 2% inlater 30.0m 98 ft 5 in

Wing area 217.788m2 2,344ft2

Total lifting area 280 m2 3,014 ft2

WeightsEmpty (in final form) 23,236 kg 5 1 ,226 Ib

(intended weight with lift jets) 35,356 kg 77,945 IbMaximum take-off weight 52,000kg 1 14,638 Ib

PerformanceMax speed at 6,000m (19,685 ft) 760km/h 472 mphPatrol speed (also minimumflight speed at low level) 360 km/h 224 mph

Service ceiling 9,000-1 0,000m 32,800 ft (max)Practical range 2,450 km 1 ,522 milesPatrol duration at a radius of 800 km (497 miles) 2 hrs 15 min

B A R T I N I V V A - 1 4

Above: Three-view of WA-14M2 with retractable landing gear.

Left: A more detailed side elevation of WA-14M2.

Below: Two of the 'T' projects.

21

Belyayev BabochkaPurpose: To test an experimental wing.Design bureau: Kazan AeronauticalInstitute, Kazan, Tatar ASSR.

The concept of the wing was that ofV N Belyayev, but in order to test it he collab-orated with VI Yukharin of the KAI. Partly be-cause it would have been difficult to matchcentre of lift with centre of gravity by retro-fitting the wing to an existing aircraft, it wasdecided to design an aircraft specially for thispurpose. It was called Babochka (butterfly).The project was launched in 1937, and draw-ings were completed late the following year.Throughout, Belyayev was devoting most ofhis time to the EOI (see page 27). The singleBabochka was being readied for flight whenthe Soviet Union was invaded. Even thoughKazan was far to the East of Moscow, this pro-ject was not considered important and thoseworking on it were drafted elsewhere.

This aircraft was essentially a straightfor-ward low-wing monoplane, of fighter-likeappearance, with a single (relatively large)piston engine. It is believed that the structurewas almost all-metal stressed skin. The keyitem, the wing, had a high aspect ratio, swept-forward inboard sections and swept-backouter panels. The objective was to make awing that was flexible yet which in severepositive manoeuvres would deflect upwardswithout causing a longitudinal pitch problem.Under load, the inner wings deflected up-wards, tending to twist with positive angle ofincidence, automatically countered by thenegative twist of the outer panels. This washoped to lead to an extension of Belyayev'sconcept of a wing that was inherently stablelongitudinally.

The inner wings were fitted with inboardand outboard split flaps, while the smallerouter panels carried two-section ailerons.

•1 -s/l?

Model of Babochka

The engine was mounted on the nose on asteel-tube truss. According to historian V BShavrov the engine was a 'Renault 430hp'(which would have had 12 cylinders and acentral air-cooling inlet). In fact it must havebeen an MV-6, a licence-built Renault with sixaircooled cylinders, rated at 210hp. Tandemenclosed cockpits were provided for the pilotand test observer. The tail, remarkably small(reflecting the designer's belief in the stabili-ty of the wing) positioned the horizontal tailwholly in front of the rudder. The landinggears were fully retractable, the main wheelsfolding inwards into the extended-chordwing roots.

Though there is no reason to doubt that theBabochka would have flown successfully,there is equally no reason to believe that itwould have shown any significant advantageover an aircraft with a conventional straight-tapered wing.

DimensionsSpan

Length

Wing area

WeightsEmptyLoaded

Performance (estimated)Maximum speed

10.8m6.84m11.5m2

680kg

1,028kg

510km/h

35 ft 514 in22ft5!4in

124ft2

l,4991b2,266 Ib

31 7 mph

Babochka

22

B E L Y A Y E V B A B O C H K A

B E L Y A Y E V D B - L K

Belyayev DB-LK

Purpose: The initials stood for 'long-rangebomber, flying wing'.Design Bureau: Designer's own brigade atthe Central Aerodynamics andHydrodynamics Institute.

Viktor Nikolayevich Belyayev, born in 1896,began his career as a stressman in the OMOSbureau in 1925. He subsequently worked inAGOS, KOSOS-CAH1 (TsAGl), the TupolevOKB, AviAvnito and Aeroflot. He liked taillessaircraft, and had a fixation on a 'bat wing',with slight forward sweep and curved-backtips, which he considered not only gave suchaircraft good longitudinal stability but alsominimised induced drag. He tested such awing in his BP-2 glider of 1933, which wastowed by an R-5 from Koktebel (Crimea) toMoscow. In 1934 he entered an AviAvnitocompetition for a transport with a design hav-ing twin fuselages, each with a 750hp WrightCyclone engine and ten passenger seats, butthis was not built.

From this he derived the DB-LK bomber.Designed in 1938, the single prototype wascompleted in November 1939, but (accordingto unofficial reports) pilots declined to domore than make fast taxi runs, the aircraftbeing dubbed Kuritsa (chicken) in conse-quence. In early 1940 this unacceptable situ-

ation was ended by the appointment by GKNil WS (direction of the air force scientifictest institute) of M A Nyukhtikov as test pilot,assisted by lead engineer TTSamarin andtest observer N I Shaurov. Test flying began inearly 1940, at which time Mark Gallai alsojoined the test team. Nyukhtikov complainedthat the flight-control system was inadequateand that the landing-gear shock absorberswere weak. In the investigation that followed,the Commission agreed with the first point,but the Head of Nil WS, AI Filin, thought thelanding gear satisfactory. He then changedhis mind when a leg collapsed with himself atthe controls (see photo). Later the main legswere not only redesigned but were also in-clined forward, to improve directional stabili-ty on the ground and avoid dangerous swing.

Later in 1940 the Nil WS ordered the DB-LKto be abandoned, despite its outstanding per-formance, and the planned imminent instal-lation of l,100hp M-88 engines. Belyayev hadby this time designed a refined version with1,700hp M-71 engines, but was told that theDB-3F (later redesignated IL-4) would remainthe standard long-range bomber.

Belyayev left comprehensive aerodynamicdetails, showing that the strange wing was ofCAHI (TsAGI) MV-6bis profile over the long-chord centroplan (centre section) but Gottin-

gen 387 profile over the supposed 'bat-like'outer panels. Overall aspect ratio was no lessthan 8.2, and the outer wings had a leading-edge sweep of minus 5° 42', with a taper ratioof 7. The airframe was almost entirely a mod-ern light-alloy stressed-skin structure, thewing having five spars. There is evidence thestructural design was modern, with mostcomponents pressed or even machined fromsheet. The outer wings had flaps of the un-usual Zapp type, extended to 45°, with Friseailerons outboard, which even had miniaturesections on the back-raked tips. Ahead of theailerons were slats.

At each end of the centroplan was a fuse-lage, of basically circular section. On the frontof each was a Tumanskii (Mikulin KB) M-87B14-cylinder radial engine (Gnome-Rhone an-cestry) rated at 950hp, driving a VISh-23Dthree-blade variable-pitch propeller of 3.3m(10ft l0in) diameter weighing 152kg (335 Ib).The engines were housed in modern long-chord cowlings, with pilot-operated coolinggills. Tanks in the wings and fuselages housed3,444 litres (757.6 Imperial gallons, 910 US gal-lons) of fuel, with all tanks protected by nitro-gen inerting.

On the centreline at the rear was a large(7.0m2, 75.3ft2) single fin and a 1.94m2 (20.9ft2)rudder with a large trim tab. High on the fin,

23

DB-LK, plan view showing top and underside

B E L Y A Y E V D B - L K

above the rudder, was fixed a small (0.85m2,9.15ft2) tailplane to which were pivoted theenormous elevators of 4.8m2 (51.7ft2) totalarea, each with a large tab.

Each fuselage was provided with a mainlanding gear, with a single oleo strut on theouter side of the axle for a single wheel witha 900 x 300mm tyre, with a hydraulic brake.Each unit retracted rearwards hydraulically.On the centreline at the rear was the fixedcastoring tailwheel, with a 450 x 150 tyre.

The intention was that the series (produc-tion) DB-LK should have a pilot in the front ofthe left fuselage, a navigator in front on theright, and gunners in each tailcone. The gun-ners, entering like the others via roof hatches,should manage the radio as well as pairs ofShKAS 7.62mm machine guns, with a ±10°field of fire in all directions. Two more ShKASfired ahead on the centreline, aimed by thepilot, and for the six guns a total of 4,500rounds were provided. Behind each main-gear bay was a bomb bay, with powereddoors (see underside view). Each could carryan FAB-1000 (2,205 Ib) bomb, or four FAB-250(551 Ib) bombs, or many other smaller stores.Predictably, the full military equipment wasnever fitted, though radio was installedthroughout the flight trials.

Despite its strikingly unconventional appear-ance, the DB-LK appeared to be a practicalbomber with outstanding flight performance.Compared with the established WS bomberit had the same number of similar engines,and even half the number of landing-gearoleos, despite having twice the number offuselages and weapon bays. From today'sdistance, it might have been worth pursuingthis formula a little further.

Four views of DB-LK, one showing landing-gearfailure.

24

DimensionsSpan 21.6m 70 ft 1014 inLength 9.78 m 32 ft 1 inWing area 56.87m2 612ft2

Note: various other figures for span (21.4 m) and wing area (59 m2)have appeared.

WeightsEmpty (also given as 5,655 kg) 6,004 kgNormal loaded weight 9,061 kgMax loaded weight 10,672kg(also given as 9,285 kg)

PerformanceMax speed at sea level, 395 km/hat 5,100m (16,730 ft) 488 km/h

Take-off speed 1 45 km/hMax rate of climb 6.15m/sTime to climb to 3,000 m 8.2 minTime to climb to 5,000 m 1 3.6 minService ceiling 8,500 mRange (with 1,000 kg bombload)at normal gross weight 1 ,270 kmmaximum 2,900 km

Landing speed 1 50 km/h

1 3,236 Ib1 9,976 Ib23,528 Ib

245 mph303 mph90 mphl,210ft/min(9,843ft)(16,404ft)27,890ft

789 miles1,800 miles93 mph

B E L Y A Y E V FBI / B E L Y A Y E V 370 , EOI

Belyayev PBIPurpose: Experimental dive-bomber fighter.Design Bureau: V N Belyayev.

No descriptive material has come to lightregarding the proposed FBI (Russian for dive-bomber fighter). Only recently have pho-tographs of the mock-up been discovered,marked SEKRETNO and dated 19/1I-40.When these photographs were unearthedand identified nothing was known of such anaircraft, and it was concluded that this wasthe mock-up of the EOI fighter, especially asShavrov said this was a twin-boom aircraft.Studying the photographs makes it obviousthat the FBI was what its designation states,and not primarily a fighter. Almost the onlyfact deducible under the heading 'History' isthat the date is one month after the evacua-tion of the factories in the Moscow area.

In some respects the FBI design is similarto the EOI fighter. The forward fuselage hastwo cannon in the same undernose position,the single-seat cockpit has similar features,the wing is in the same mid-position, imme-diately behind it is the engine driving a three-blade pusher propeller and the twin boomsand tail are similar. The differences are thatthe cockpit area is almost completely glazed,and the landing gears are taller to facilitateloading bombs on five racks (apparently anFAB-500 on the centreline and for an FAB-100and FAB-50 under each wing).

It is unlikely that Belyayev - even assistedby his team of P N Obrubov, L L Selyakov,E I Korzhenevskii, D A Zatvan, B S Beki and

N Ye Leont'yev - could simultaneously haveworked on the DB-LK, Babochka and two ad-vanced pusher fighters and bombers. The in-ference has to be that the FBI did not progressfar beyond the mock-up. This may have beenphotographed after the workers had left, im-mediately before it was destroyed, or alterna-tively it may have been safely located (butabandoned) somewhere East of Moscow.

Specification. No figures known.

Two views of the FBI mock-up.

Belyayev 370, EOIPurpose: Experimental fighter.Design Bureau: V N Belyayev, working atGAZ (factory) No 156, Moscow.

This EOI (Eksperimental'nyi OdnomestnyiIstrebitel', experimental single-seat fighter)was proposed in early 1939, and personallyapproved by Stalin in August of that year. De-sign and manufacture proceeded through1940, and at the German invasion of 22ndJune 1941 the first flight was only a fewmonths away.

In October the Moscow factories wereevacuated. It was decided to abandon theproject, and the part-complete EOI, drawingsand calculations were destroyed. When pho-tographs of the FBI (see above) were discov-ered it was at first thought that this must bethe same aircraft. In fact, there was little sim-ilarity between the two designs apart from thebasic configuration.

The EOI had the cockpit in the nose, almostperfectly streamlined, with armament in thesame location. Possibly for the first time inhistory, Belyayev designed the entire frontsection of the aircraft to be separated inemergency, so that the pilot would not haveto bail out ahead of the propeller. The latterwas to be driven by a Klimov M-105 engine,rated at l,100hp and fitted with a TK-2 tur-bocharger. In the original scheme, like fight-ers of 1917 by Gallaudet in the USA andDufaux in France, the propeller was to have alarge-diameter hub through which passed atube carrying the rear fuselage. Some of the'370' drawings are reproduced overleaf. Oneshows the proposed cockpit, armament oftwo underfloor VYa-23 cannon and locationof the cartridge-severed attachments. Anoth-er drawing shows the unique arrangement inwhich the wing was to be provided with aslat. This auxiliary surface was normally

housed in a recess immediately ahead of theflap or aileron. For take-off and landing it wasto be swung down and forward to adopt aleading-edge-down attitude ahead of theleading edge of the wing. Thus, it was a bold-er precursor of today's Krueger flap. Whetheror not this aerodynamically powerful ideawas abandoned is unknown, but Belyayevcertainly abandoned the original rear fuse-lage. By late 1939 he had decided to use con-ventional twin tail booms. The specificationoverleaf applies to this revised scheme.

According to one document it was intend-ed that a production version should have hadthe M-106 engine. This would have beenrated at 1,350hp, instead of 1,1 00hp. Whetherthe unconventional configuration, and espe-cially the potentially dangerous slat system,would have shown to advantage will never beknown.

25

B E L Y A Y E V 370, EOI

Sketch drawings of 370

DimensionsSpanWing areaDesign speed

No other data.

11.4m19 nf

700km/h

37 ft 5 in205ft2

435 mph

On take-off and landing

Flight position

Model of the final EOI configuration.

26

B E R E Z N Y A K - I S A Y E V B I

Bereznyak-Isayev BIPurpose: Experimental rocket-enginedinterceptor-fighter.Design Bureau: Designers AleksandrYakovlevich Bereznyak and AlekseiMikhailovich Isayev, working at OKB ofBolkhovitinov, later managed by CAHI(TsAGI).

In 1939 Bereznyak was an observer at the sta-tic tests of the first reliable rocket engine de-veloped by Leonid Stepanovich Dushkin. Inearly 1940 he watched flight tests of the prim-itive RP-318 (see later under Korolyev). Hediscussed rocket aircraft with Isayev, whohad been a Dushkin engineer involved withthe RP-318. In late May 1941 they decided topropose a high-speed rocket-engined fighter.They put the suggestion to Prof Bolkhovitinov(see later entry). After discussion with all in-terested parties Bolkhovitinov sent a letter toGUAP (chief administration of aviation indus-try) on 9th July 1941 putting forward a de-tailed proposal. Soon a reply came from theKremlin. The principals were called to GUAPbefore Shakhurin and A S Yakovlev, and with-in a week there was a full go-ahead. Theorder was for five prototypes, with the time tofirst flight cut from the suggested threemonths to a mere 35 days.

A complete Bolkhovitinov team were con-fined to the OKB for 40 days, working threeshifts round the clock. Tunnel testing was

done at CAHI, supervised by G S Byushgens.The first (unpowered) flight article was builtwithout many drawings, dimensions beingdrawn directly on the materials and on tem-plates. B M Kudrin made the first flight on10th September 1941, the tug being a Pe-2. Allnecessary data were obtained in 15 flights. On16th October the OKB and factory was evac-uated to a half-built shed outside Sverdlovsk.The first (experimental) D-1A engine was in-stalled in late January 1942, but exploded dur-ing testing on 20th February, injuring Kudrin(sent to hospital in Moscow) and a techni-cian. The replacement pilot was CaptG Ya Bakhshivandzhi. He was in the cockpiton the first tied-down firing on 27th April 1942.On 15th May 1942 he made the world's firstflight of a fully engineered rocket interceptor,still fitted with skis.

By March 1943 seven BI prototypes hadbeen constructed, but the flying was entirelyin towed or gliding flight because of seriousproblems caused by explosions and acidspillages. Powered flying did not resume untilFebruary 1943. By this time Kudrin had re-turned to flight status, and was assigned oneof the Bis. On powered flight No 6 on 21stMarch 1943 a height of 3km (9,843ft) wasreached in 30 seconds. On powered flightNo7, with aircraft No 3, on 27th March,Bakhshivandzhi made a run at sustained fullpower; the aircraft suddenly pitched over and

dived into the ground. Tunnel testing latershowed that at about 900km/h the BI woulddevelop a nose-down pitching momentwhich could not be held by the pilot.

DimensionsSpan

N o s l a n d 2 6.48m

Nos 3 and later 6.6 mLength

Nos 1 and 2 6.4 m

Nos 3 and later 6.935 mWing area

Nos land 2 7.0m2

No 3 7.2m2

WeightsEmpty

Nol 462 kg

No 3 790kgNo 7 805kg

Loaded

No 3 1,650kgNo 7 1,683kg

PerformanceMaximum speed

original estimate 800 km/h

achieved 900 km/h1943 high-altitude estimate,not attempted 1,020 km/h

Time to accelerate from 800 to 900 km/hTake-off run 400mInitial climb 120m/s

Time to 5,000 m 50 secondsEndurance under full power 2 min

Landing speed 143 km/h

21 ft 3 in21 ft 8 in

21ft22 ft 9 in

75.3ft2

77.5ft2

1,019 Ib

1,742 Ibl,7751b

3,638 Ib

3,710 Ib

497 mph

559 mph

634 mph20 seconds1,310ft

23,622 ft/min

16,404ft

89 mph

Three-view of BI Nol (D1A-1100 engine fitted)

BINo6/PVRD

27

B E R E Z N Y A K - I S A Y E V B I

Top: BI No 1. Centre: Bakhchivandzhi with BI No 2. Bottom: BI No 6/PVRD in tunnel.

28

This terminated the delayed plan to build aproduction series of 50 slightly improved air-craft, but testing of the prototypes continued.Until the end of the War these tested variouslater Dushkin engines, some with large thrustchambers for take-off and combat and smallchambers to prolong the very short cruise en-durance (which was the factor resulting inprogressive waning of interest). Other testingattempted to perfect a sealed pressurizedcockpit. To extend duration significantly BINo 6 was fitted with a Merkulov DM-4 ramjeton each wingtip. These were fired during testin the CAHI T-101 wind tunnel, but not inflight.

By 1944 the urgency had departed from theprogramme, and the remaining BI Nol (somewere scrapped following acid corrosion)were used as basic research aircraft. BI No7was modified with revised wing-root fairingsand stronger engine cowl panels, but at highspeed tailplane flutter was experienced. BINo 5s (on skis) and BI No 6 (on wheels) weremodified and subjected to investigative glid-ing tests, initially towed by a B-25J.

In 1948 Bereznyak proposed a mixed-power interceptor with a three-chamberrocket engine of 10,000kg (22,046 Ib) sea-level thrust, for 'dash' performance, and aMikulin AM-5 turbojet of 1,900kg (4,1891b)sea-level thrust. Estimated maximum speedwas Mach 1.8, and range 750km (466 miles).This was not proceeded with.

The BI Nol had a small and outstandinglysimple all-wood airframe. The straight-ta-pered wing, 6 per cent thick, had two boxspars and multiple stringers supporting skinmainly of 2mm ply. Outboard were fabric-covered ailerons. Inboard were split flapswith light-alloy structure (the only majormetal parts), with a landing angle of 50°. Thefuselage was a plywood monocoque withfabric bonded over the outer surface. It wasconstructed integral with the upper andlower fins. The rudder and elevators werefabric-covered. On the tailplane were addedsmall circular endplate fins, and the poweredaircraft had the tailplane braced to both theupper and lower fins.

The engine bay was lined with refractorymaterials and stainless steel. The standardengine was the Dushkin D-1A-1100, the des-ignation reflecting the sea-level thrust(2,425 Ib), rising to about 1,300kg (2,866 Ib) athigh altitude. The propellants, fed by com-pressed air, were RFNA (red fuming nitricacid) and kerosene. These were contained incylindrical stainless-steel tanks in the centrefuselage. The pneumatic system not only fedthe propellants but also charged the guns andoperated the flaps and main landing gears.The latter retracted inwards into the wingsand normally had wheels with 500 x 150 tyres.Under the ventral fin was a retracting tail-

B E R E Z N Y A K - I S A Y E V B I

wheel. In winter these units were replaced byskis, the main skis retracting to lie snuglyunder the wings.

The cockpit had a simple aft-slidingcanopy, and a bulletproof windscreen. Cer-tain of the prototypes had armament, com-prising two ShVAK 20mm cannon, each with45 rounds, fired electrically and installed in

The nominal weight breakdown for a fully equippedpowered aircraft was:

AirframeComprising fuselageWingTail groupLanding gear, wheeledEngineControlsRFNA tanksKerosene tanksAir bottlesGunsArmourArmour glass, windscreenOther equipment aboutUseful load comprisedPilotNitric acidKerosene20mm ammunitionBombs

462kg182kg174kg30kg60kg48kg16kg80kg31.2kg22.4kg84kg76 k»6kg20kg

90kg570kg135kg19.6kg38.4 kg

1,01 8.5 Ib401 Ib383.6 Ib66 Ib1321b106 Ib35 Ib176.4lb68.8 Ib49.4 Ib185 Ib167.5lb13 Ib44 Ib

198 Ib1 ,256.6 Ib297.6 Ib43.2 Ib84.6 Ib

the upper half of the nose under a cover se-cured by three latches on each side. Betweenthe spars under the propellant cylinders wasa bay which in some aircraft could house asmall bomb load (see below). Structural fac-tor of safety was 9, rising to no less than 13.5after using most of the propellants.

By any yardstick the BI No 1 was a remark-

able achievement, and all pilots who flew itthought it handled beautifully. It was killed bythe time it took to overcome the problems,and - crucially - by the impracticably shortflight endurance.

OKB drawing of BI No 6/PVRD.

BerievS-13Purpose: To copy the Lockheed U-2B.Design Bureau: OKB No 49, Taganrog,General Constructor G M Beriev.

On 1 st May 1960 the world was astonished tolearn that the missile defences of Sverdlovskhad shot down a Lockheed U-2 of the USCentral Intelligence Agency. Parts of the air-craft were put on display in Moscow's GorkiyPark. What the world was not told was thatfor months afterwards a vast area wascombed by large squads looking for everyfragment of the downed aircraft (which hadbroken up at high altitude). All the pieceswere brought to GK Nil WS, where they werecarefully studied. On 28th June 1960 SovMinDirective 702-288 instructed OKB No 16 inKazan, led by P F Zubets, to copy the J57-P-13engine. This was a blow to Zubets, whoseRD-500 was in the same thrust class, and evenmore to the several engine designers (Do-brynin, Lyul'ka, Kuznetsov and Tumanskii)who had engines on test which were more

powerful and of much later design than themassive Pratt & Whitney. On 23rd August1960 Directive 918-383 ordered OKB No 49,assisted by neighbouring No 86, to study theU-2 and produce five copies, designated S-13.These were primarily to support 'a multi-discipline study of the structural, technicaland maintenance aspects of the U-2, andmaster its technology for use in indigenousaircraft'. It was also expected that the S-13would be used to collect upper-atmospheresamples, destroy hostile balloons and (usingthe 73-13, or AFA-60, camera) undertake re-connaissance missions. Despite inexorableincreases in weight over the US original, workattempted to meet the first-flight date of firstquarter 1962. Much of the supporting equip-ment had already been developed for theYak-25RV and TsybinRSR (which see). On 1stApril 1961 a detailed metal fuselage mock-upwas completed, with 'models of its systems'.A Tu-16 was readied for testing the engine(now designated RD-16-75), landing gears

and other items, while CAHI tunnels con-firmed that the U-2 had the exceptional L/Dratio of 25. Out of the blue, on 12th May 1962Directive 440-191 ordered the whole S-13project to be terminated.

S-13 metal mock-up fuselage.

29

B I C H - 3

BICh-3Purpose: To test previously invented'parabola wing' in a powered aircraftDesign Bureau: Not an OKB but a privateindividual, Boris Ivanovich Cheranovskii(1896-1960). Throughout his life hescratched around for funds to build and testhis succession of 30 types of gliders andpowered aircraft, all of 'tailless' configuration.

In 1924 Cheranovskii tested his BICh-1 'Para-bola' glider and the refined BICh-2, whichdemonstrated 'normal longitudinal stabilityand controllability and is considered to have

been the world's first successful flying wing'.In 1926 he followed with the BICh-3, whichwas almost the BICh-2 fitted with an engine.Cheranovskii's gliders had been flown at theAll-Union meetings at Koktebel, Crimea, butmost of the flying of his first aeroplane wasdone by B N Kudrin (later famous) in Moscow.

The BICh-3 was a basically simple aircraft,constructed of wood with thin ply skin overthe leading edge, inboard upper surface andlanding-gear trousers, and fabric elsewhere.The BICh-2 had flown without a rudder (itwas better with one) since turning was

achieved by the ailerons. With the BICh-3 theaddition of an engine required a vestigialfuselage with a fin and rudder. The main con-trols remained the trailing-edge elevators andailerons, operated by rods and bellcranks andhung on inset balanced hinges. The enginewas a Blackburne Tomtit, an inverted V-twinof 698 cc rated at 18hp. Skids were providedunder the tail and outer wings.

Kudrin described the BICh-3 as 'not verystable, but controllable'. It was sufficientlysuccessful to lead to the many successors.

DimensionsSpan

Length

Wing area

Weights

EmptyFuel/oilLoaded

PerformanceMax speed, not recordedLanding speed

9.5m3.5m

20.0 m!

140kg10kg230kg

40km/h

31 ft 2 in

I l f t 6 i n215ft2

309 Ib

22 Ib507 Ib

25 mph

No other data.

Above: BICh-1.

Left: Cheranovskii with BICh-3.

30

BICh-3

BICh-7A

B I C H - 7 A

Purpose: To improve BICh-7, the next stagebeyond BICh-3.Design Bureau: B I Cheranovskii.

BICh followed his Type 3 with the impressiveBICh-5 bomber, powered by two BMW VI en-gines, but never obtained funds to build it. In1929 he flew the BICh-7, almost a 1.5-scale re-peat of BICh-3 with two seats in tandem. Theproblem was that he replaced the central tailby rudders (without fixed fins) on thewingtips, and the result was almost uncon-trollable. He modified the aircraft into theBICh-7A, but was so busy with the BICh-11and other projects that the improved aircraftdid not fly until 1932. Apart from returning toa central fin and rudder he replaced the cen-treline wheel and wingtip skids by a conven-tional landing gear. The BICh-7A graduallybecame an outstanding aircraft. Testing wasdone mainly by N P Blagin (later infamous forcolliding with the monster Maksim Gorkii),and he kept modifying the elevators andailerons until the aircraft was to his satisfac-tion.

This larger 'parabola-wing' aircraft wasagain made of wood, veneer and fabric, withvarious metal parts including the convention-al divided rubber-sprung main landing gearsand tailskid. The tandem cockpits were en-

closed, which in 1932 was unusual. The en-gine was a l00hp Bristol Lucifer, and one ofthe unsolvable problems was that the Luciferwas notorious for the violence of the firingstrokes from its three cylinders, which insome aircraft (so far as we know, not includ-ing the BICh-7A) caused structural failure ofits mountings.

This aircraft appears to have become anunqualified success, appearing at many air-shows over several years.

BICh-7

BICH-7A

DimensionsSpanLengthWing area

Weights (BICh-7)EmptyFuel/oilLoaded

(BICh-7A)EmptyFuel/oilLoaded

PerformanceMaximum speedRangeLanding speed

12.5m4.95m34.6 nf

612kg93kg865kg

627kg93kg880kg

165km/h350km70km/h

4 1 f t16 ft 3 in372 ft2

l,3491b205 Ibl,9071b

l,3821b205 Ibl,9401b

102.5 mph21 7 miles43.5 mph

31

BICH-7A

B I C H - 8 / B I C H - 1 1 , R P - 1

BICh-8Purpose: To test the use of wingtip rudders.Design Bureau: B I Cheranovskii.

Few details of this machine have survived. Itwas built and tested in 1929. Cheranovskiiwas so distressed by the failure of the BICh-7that he built this simple glider to see if wingtiprudders could be made to work.

The BICh-8 was dubbed Treoogol'nik (littletriangle). It had an open cockpit and centre-line skid. The wing was built as a centre sec-tion, integral with the nacelle, and outerpanels fitted with inboard elevators, outboardailerons and wingtip rudders with insethinges mounted on small fins.

This machine may have flown satisfactori-ly, because Cheranovskii repeated tip rud-ders in the BICh-11.No data.

Cheranovskii with BICh-8.

BICh-8

BICh-11, RP-1

Purpose: To test rocket engine in flight.Design Bureau: B I Cheranovskii.

The BICh-11 was designed in 1931 as abungee-launched glider to see if the conceptof using wingtip rudders could be made towork. The glides may have been too brief tobe useful, because in 1932 Cheranovskiiadded a small British engine more powerfulthan the Tomtit used for BICh-3. In 1933this aircraft was selected by MosGIRD, theMoscow-based experimental rocket-engine

group, as a suitable test-bed with which to flya small liquid-propellant rocket engine,which began bench-testing on 18th March1933. The aircraft was again modified, withthe rocket engine(s) and their supply andcontrol system and a new wing of increasedspan. It was then judged that the propulsionsystem was too dangerous to fly. Note: someaccounts say the piston engine was installedafter the removal of the rocket engine(s), butdrawings show the piston-engined aircraft tohave had the original wing.

The BICh-11 was another wooden aircraftwith fabric covering, with a single seat,hinged canopy and trailing-edge elevatorsand ailerons. It appears to have had no land-ing gear other than a centreline skid. On thewingtips were rudders, under which wereskids. In its powered form the engine was anABC Scorpion with two air-cooled cylinders,rated at 27/35hp. The rocket engine was theGIRD OR-2, designed by a team led byFATsander, with a single thrust chamberburning petrol (gasoline) and liquid oxygen.

32

B I C H - 1 1 , R P - 1

Sea-level thrust was 50kg (110 Ib). The BlCh-11 was given a wing of greater span, and fit-ted with sprung landing gears and a tailskid.There is confusion over whether one or twoOR-2 engines were installed (drawings sug-gest one), fed by a lagged spherical tank ofliquid oxygen and a smaller bottle of fuel, allfed by gas pressure. In this form the aircraftwas painted red overall, with 'GIRD RP-1'painted on each side of the vestigial fuselage.RP stood for Raketnyi Planer, rocket glider.

It is not recorded whether this aircraft flewsatisfactorily with wingtip rudders, whichwith BICh-7 had proved unsatisfactory.

Cheranovskii with RP-1.

BICh-11

RP-1

33

Dimensions (as RP-1)SpanLengthWing area

WeightsEmpty

No other reliable data.

12.1m3.09m20.0m2

200kg

39 ft 8!^ in10 ft 1% in215 ft2

441 Ib

B I C H - 1 4

BICh-14Purpose: To test an improved twin-engined'Parabola'.Design Bureau: B I Cheranovskii.

In 1933 Cheranovskii schemed his first designwith twin engines, the BICh-10. Later in thatyear he tested a tunnel model, and by 1934 hehad made so many (mostly minor) changesthat he redesignated it as the BICh-14. It in-terested the Central Construction Bureau,and thus received their designation CCB-10(TsKB-10). With their assistance the aircraftwas built, and the flight-test programme wasopened at the end of 1934 by Yuri I Piont-kovskii. Having no slipstream, the rudder wasineffective, and it was difficult to equalise pro-

peller thrusts. On landing, with engines idling,a heavy stick force was needed to get the taildown. Though it was not one of the betterBICh designs, having almost no directionalstability and being extremely reluctant to re-spond to pilot inputs, it was submitted for NIl-WS testing. Here such famous pilots asStefanovskii, Petrov and Nyukhtikov flew it, orattempted to. Various changes made this air-craft marginally acceptable, but attempts toimprove it ceased in 1937

Again this was a wooden aircraft, with askin of veneer (over the leading edge) andfabric. An innovation was to use aluminiumto make the embryonic fuselage, which seat-ed up to five, and the integral fin. The wing

had four spars and 60 ribs, and was made asa centre section, of 3.3m (10ft l0in) span, andbolted outer panels. Close together on theleading edge were the two l00hp M-ll en-gines, with Townend-ring cowls, aluminiumnacelles and U-2 type wooden propellers. Asbefore, virtually all the development effortwent into improving the trailing-edge con-trols, of which there were three on each wing,all hung in the usual Junkers style below thetrailing edge. For most of the time the fourinner surfaces were elevators and the outersailerons, but at times the middle surfaceswere tested as flaps.

The BICh-14 apparently did nothing to en-hance its designer's reputation.

DimensionsSpanLength

Wing area

WeightsEmpty

Loaded

PerformanceMaximum speed, approxRangeLanding speed

16.2m

6.0m

60m2

1,285kg

1,900kg

220km/h370km

70km/h

53 ft 2 in

19 ft 9 in646ft2

2,833 Ib4,1891b

137 mph230 miles43.5 mph

BICh-14.

34

B I C H - 1 6 / B I C n - 1 7

BICh-16Purpose: To attempt to fly on humanmuscle power.Design Bureau: B I Cheranovskii.

Ever one to explore fresh ideas, in 1934 Cher-anovskii obtained financial support fromOsoaviakhim (the Society of Friends of theAviation and Chemical industries) for his pro-

posal to build a man-powered ornithopter(flapping-wing aircraft). It could not be madeto fly.

This bird-like machine consisted mainly ofa flexible wing. The pilot placed his feet on arudder bar directly under the rudder and thenbent forward between two vestigial fins untilhe could grasp the spade-grip which, via the

two struts seen in the photo, flapped thewings. The two struts and vertical operatingrod were pivoted at the bottom to a curvedlanding skid.

Data not recorded.

Two views of BICh-16.

BICh-17Purpose: Single-seat fighter.Design bureau: USP (Control of SpecialWork) organised by I B Kurchevskii, towhich Cheranovskii was invited.

Kurchevskii was the designer of a family ofAPK and DRP recoilless guns of large calibre(45, 76.2, 80 and 100mm). These operated byfiring a projectile down the barrel and a near-ly equal mass plus gun gas from a rear nozzle.Fighters fitted with such guns included the

Grigorovich I-Z and Tupolev ANT-29 and ANT-46. Cheranovskii completed the design of theBICh-17 in 1935, but in February 1936Kurchevskii was arrested and his design bu-reau 'liquidated'. By this time the BICh-17 was'60 per cent complete'.

BICh-17

35

B I C H - 1 7 / B I C H - 1 8 M U S K U L Y O T

No detailed documentation on this fightersurvives, but the drawing shows that it wasa typical Cheranovskii 'parabola' design. Thestructure was wood, with skins of birchshpon (multi-ply veneer), the wing havingdetachable outer panels. The engine wasa 480hp M-22 (imported or licence-madeBristol Jupiter) driving a two-blade propeller.The main landing gears retracted, probablyinwards, and the elevators were dividedinto inner and outer sections by the two80mm APK guns. The pilot sat under a typicalCheranovskii upward-hinged canopy whichformed the front part of the fin. Aircraft leftincomplete.

ModelofBICh-17.

BICh-18 MuskulyotPurpose: To attempt once more to fly onhuman muscle power.Design Bureau: B I Cheranovskii.

Undeterred by the total failure of BICh-16,Cheranovskii persevered with the idea of fly-ing like a bird and designed the totally differentBICh-18. The name meant 'muscle-power'.On 10th August 1937 pilot R A Pishchuchev,who weighed 58kg (1281b), glided 130m(4261/2ft) off a bungee launch, without ped-alling. He then did a pedalling flight, achievingsix wing cycles. He reported 'noticeable for-ward thrust', and flew 450m (1,476ft). Sus-tained flight was considered impossible.

The BICh-18 vaguely resembled a perfor-mance sailplane with a cockpit in the noseand conventional tail. Much of the structurewas balsa. There were two wing sets, com-prising the lower left and upper right wingsforming one unit and the upper left and lowerright forming the other. Both sets weremounted on pivots on top of the fuselage andarranged to rock through a ±5° angle by cock-pit pedals. As the wings rocked, their tipsnever quite touching, the portion of eachwing aft of the main spar was free to flap upand down to give propulsive thrust. One re-port states that the outer trailing-edge por-tions were ailerons.

If the evidence is correct this odd machinewas one of the few human-powered aircraftto have achieved anything prior to the 1960s.

DimensionsSpan

LengthWing area

WeightsEmptyLoaded

8.0m4.48m10.0m2

72 kg130kg

26 ft 3 in14 ft 814 in108ft2

1591b287 Ib

BICh-18.

36

B I C H - 2 0 P l O N Y E R

BICh-20 PionyerPurpose: To test a small sporting aircraft oftailless design.Design bureau: B I Cheranovskii.

This attractive little machine was rolled outon skis in late 1937 and first flown in 1938.Later in that year it was fitted with a morepowerful engine, and with wheel landinggear. Extensive testing, which included sus-tained turns at about 35° bank at differentheights, showed that the BICh-20 was stableand controllable, and also could land veryslowly.

This aircraft was again a wooden structure,with ply over the leading edge and the vesti-gial fuselage. The wing marked a furtherchange in aerodynamic form: having startedwith 'parabola' designs, Cheranovskiiswitched to delta (triangular) shapes, andwith the BICh-20 adopted a more commonform with straight taper, mainly on the lead-ing edge. Trailing-edge controls comprisedinboard elevators and outboard ailerons, withprominent operating levers. To enter thecockpit the pilot hinged over to one side thetop of the fuselage and integral Plexiglascanopy which formed the leading edge of thefin. The aircraft was completed with Chera-novskii's ancient British 18hp Blackburne en-gine, in a metal cowling, and with sprung skilanding gear. It was later fitted with wheels,including a tailwheel, and a 20hp FrenchAubier-Dunne engine.

All known records suggest that this aircraftwas completely successful.

BICh-20 Pionyer (Pioneer).

BICh-20

37

DimensionsSpanLength, originalre-engined

Wing area

WeightsEmpty, originalre-engined

Loaded, originalre-engined

PerformanceMaximum speed, originalre-engined

Service ceiling

RangeLanding speed

6.9m3.5m

3.56m9.0 nf

176kg181kg

280kg287kg

160km/h166km/h4,000 m320km49km/h

22f l8 inI l f t 6 i n

11 ft 8H in97ft 2

38815399 Ib

6171b

633 Ib

99 mph

103 mph13,120ft199 miles30 mph

B I C H - 2 1 , SG-1

BICh-21,SG-l

Purpose: To use the tailless concept in amore powerful aircraft for racing.Design Bureau: B I Cheranovskii.

By the late 1930s Cheranovskii was confidentthat he could apply his unusual configuration,with no separate horizontal tail, to aircraft in-tended to reach much greater speeds. For thebig All-Union race organised by Osoaviakhimto take place in August 1941 he designed aminimalist aircraft broadly like the BICh-20but with a far more powerful engine. Alsodesignated SG-1, from Samolyot Gonochnyi,aeroplane for racing, it was completed in1940, but not flown until June 1941. The Ger-

BICh-21.

man invasion of 22nd June resulted in therace being cancelled.

With a configuration almost identical tothat of the BICh-20, the BICh-21 was likewiseall-wood, with polished shpon skin exceptover the metal engine cowl and cockpitcanopy. Unlike the BICh-20 the wing wasmade as a centre section (with anhedral) andouter panels. This in turn resulted in a differ-ent arrangement of trailing-edge controls,these having reduced chord, with a signifi-cant portion ahead of the trailing edge of thewing, with the elevators divided into two

DimensionsSpanLengthWing area

WeightsEmptyFuel/oilLoaded

PerformanceMax speed at sea level,

at 4,000m (13,120 ft)Landing speed

6.75m4.74m9.0m2

526kg37kg643kg

385 km/h417km/h80 km/h

22 ft K in15ft63/Un97.0 ft2

l,1601b81.6 Ibl,4181b

239 mph259 mph50 mph

parts on each side. The engine was an MV-6,the Bessonov licence-built Renault with sixaircooled cylinders, rated at 270hp. It drovean imported Ratier two-blade two-pitch (fineor coarse) propeller. A small fuel tank was in-side each side of the centre section. Immedi-ately outboard of these were the landinggears, which retracted backwards underpneumatic pressure.

No records survive of this aircraft's han-dling or of its fate.

38

BICh-21

B I C H - 2 2 , C H E - 2 2

BICh-22, Che-22Purpose: To investigate a new aerodynamicconfiguration.Design Bureau: B I Cheranovskii, by thistime working at the MAI (Moscow AviationInstitute).

From 1947 Cheranovskii headed an OKB atthe MAI, whose excellent facilities he used ina series of tailless projects. This glider was de-signed in winter 1948-49, and test flown byIA Petrov at Tushino from 17th July 1949.

Having progressed from the 'parabola' to aform of delta and then to a wing of normal ta-pered shape, this glider comprised a broadflat lifting fuselage, to which were attachedconventional wings with modest sweepback.A further innovation was to use more con-ventional trailing-edge controls, mounted onthe wing instead of below it. The original Che-22 drawings show no vertical surfaces what-ever, but later fixed fins were added on thewingtips.

Flight testing appeared to go well, and inlate 1949 the DOSAV repair shops tooled up toput the Che-22 into production. Unfortunate-ly, while testing the first to come off the as-sembly line Petrov crashed and was killed,and production was abandoned.

It is not known if this is the full-scale Che-22 or amodel.

Che-22

39

DimensionsSpan 7.5 m 24 ft Tk in

Length 5.04m 16 ft 6% inWing area 14nf 151ft2

WeightsEmpty 60kg 1321b

Performance

Not recorded, but 'aerodynamic efficiency' (lift/drag ratio) was 18.

B I C H - 2 4 , ( C H E - 2 4 ) / B I C H - 2 6 , ( C H E - 2 6 )

BICh-24, (Che-24)Purpose: To investigate the tailless deltaconfiguration.Design Bureau: B I Cheranovskii.

With the advent of the jet age Cheranovskiirecognized that he should think in terms ofmuch lower aspect ratio. He followed his1944 project by the graceful BICh-24 jet fight-er, which he hoped to demonstrate in theTushino 'parade' of 1949. To prove its flyingqualities he first tunnel-tested the modeldepicted.

Few details have been found, but themodel picture reproduced here shows theconfiguration. Curiously, the documents onthe BICh-24 call it the Che-24. No air intake isvisible on the tunnel model, and it is notknown whether the 24 would have been aturbojet or rocket aircraft.

It is not known if the full-scale aircraft wasbuilt.No data.

BICh-24 (Che-24) model.

BICh-26, (Che-26)

Purpose: Jet fighter.Design Bureau: B I Cheranovskii.

After the War Cheranovskii had an enhancedreputation, and he was able to build up asmall team of designers to assist him withprojects far more ambitious than those withwhich he made his name. In June 1948 theBICh-24 was followed by the BICh-25, a pro-ject for a jet fighter with variable-sweep wingswith outboard pivots, uncannily like theAmerican TFX projects of more than ten years

later. With the BICh-26 he returned to theBICh-24 formula with a fixed planform of al-most delta, or gothic-delta, outline. ThoughCheranovskii lived to the end of 1960 this pro-ject remained on the drawing board.

The BICh-26 was designed to have a singleMikulin (later Tumanskii) AM-5 turbojet ratedat 2,000kg (4,409 Ib) thrust, fed by flush inletsin the underside of the flattened forward fuse-lage. The latter could equally be described asthe centre section of the wing, to which theconventional outer wings were attached. On

the trailing edge were inboard elevators andoutboard ailerons, and though one reportstates that these surfaces were fully poweredthey all had deeply inset hinges for aerody-namic balance. There were also upper andlower rudders, again with inset hinges. Noother details have appeared.

Like its various jet predecessors, the BICh-26 appears to have been an outstanding de-sign with many features ahead of its time.

DimensionsSpan aboutLength aboutWing area

WeightsLoaded

Performance

7.0m9.0m27m2

4,500 kg

Maximum speed Mach 1.7 at 7,000 mequivalent to about

Service ceilingl,909km/h22,000m

23ft29 ft 7 in291 ft2

9,921 Ib

22,966ft1,186 mph72,000ft

BICh-26 (Che-26)

40

B I C H - J E T P R O J E C T / B l S N O V A T S K

BICh jet projectPurpose: To design a jet fighter.Design Bureau: B I Cheranovskii.

Again, the three-view drawing of this projectwas discovered only recently. There is no ev-idence that construction was even started.The drawing is dated 1944, at a time beforeany German turbojets had been captured butafter publication of the existence of Britishand US engines of this type. The only turbojetthen running in the Soviet Union was theLyul'ka VRD-2, a slim axial-compressor en-gine rated at 700kg (1,543 Ib) thrust. This wasprobably the engine Cheranovskii had inmind.

The configuration appears to be an out-standing one, similar to many fighter projectsof the present day. The engines were to havebeen buried inside the broad and flat delta-shaped wing, there being no fuselage. Thedrawing shows the location of the cockpit,two large guns, nosewheel-type landing gearand four fuel tanks. Each wing carried a sin-gle control surface with a balancing area

ahead of the hinge. Clearly each surfaceacted as a dual-function eleven. There wasno vertical tail, just like today's 'stealth' pro-

posals, and this could have made engine-outsituations difficult.

A truly remarkable project. No data.

Bisnovat SK

Purpose: Experimental high-speed aircraft.Design Bureau: OKB of Matus RuvimovichBisnovat, Moscow.

In the mid-1930s Bisnovat was working in thenewly formed OKO of VKTairov (pro-nounced tyrov), at Kiev. In 1938 he was per-mitted to organise his own team of designengineers in order to build and test the fastestaircraft possible, for research into wing pro-files, structures, flight controls and otherproblems. This was a time when aircraft tech-nology was making rapid progress. Initiallyhis production base was the Central Work-shops of CAHI (TsAGI), but by 1939 this groupwas transferred to his own account.

Contracts were signed for two aircraft des-ignated SK and SK-2. The former was to bethe research aircraft, while the SK-2 was tohave a conventional cockpit canopy and becapable of carrying armament and other mil-itary equipment. Surprisingly no documentsappear to have been found recently giving de-tails of this programme. All we have isShavrov's Vol.2 (published 1978 but writtenmuch earlier) which says the SK 'was com-pleted on skis in early 1939', and an articlewritten in 1977 by Konstantin Kosminkovwhich says flight testing began 'at the start of1940'. There is little doubt the latter date iscorrect. The first series of photographs, show-

ing the aircraft on its wheeled landing gear,are dated '20/1 40' (Roman I, ie January). TheSK did not fly in this form until later, and flighttesting began on non-retractable skis. Thefirst photographs on skis were taken on ' 17/II40'. Flight testing of the SK-2 began on 10thNovember 1940, and was completed on 10thJanuary 1941. The pilot assigned to the pro-gramme was Georgi Mikhailovich Shiyanov.

The SK was a beautiful-looking low-wingmonoplane of diminutive proportions (mak-ing the l,050hp M-105 engine occupy nearlyhalf the fuselage), entirely of light-alloystressed-skin construction except for the fab-ric-covered ailerons and rudder. The wingwas of NACA 23014.5 (14.5% thick) aerofoilprofile, with wide-chord Vlasov (slotted split)flaps inboard of the ailerons. Structurally thewing was based on a Spitfire-like box with aheavy leading edge extending back to the sin-gle main spar. The ribs were Duraluminpressings. The outer surface (apparently ofthe wing only) was covered with marquisette(a fine light fabric) and powdered cork, allheld by nitrocellulose glue. When fully set thesurface was 'polished to the brilliance of amirror'.

The small wing was made in one piece anddesigned so that it would be simple to fit dif-ferent wings to the fuselage. The latter had across-section of only 0.85m2 (9.15ft2), this

being the minimum to fit round the engine.The pilot sat in a reclining seat in a cockpitwhose canopy was flush with the upper sur-face. For take-off and landing the roof overthe rear half of the canopy could be hinged upand the seat raised to give a forward view.Drag was further reduced by using an enginecooling system filled with water circulating ata gauge pressure of l.lkg/cm2 (15.61b/in2),which enabled the frontal area of the radiatorto be only 0.17m2 (1.8ft2), half the normal size.The engine air inlet was underneath, ahead ofthe radiator, and the oil-cooler inlet on top.The propeller was a VISh-52 of 2.95m (9ft Sin)diameter, with three blades with constant-speed control. Other features included 100%mass balance on the elevators and rudderand, according to Kosminkov, a hydraulic sys-tem to operate the flaps, pilot seat, cockpithood and the long-stroke (wheeled) landinggear, which retracted inwards into baysclosed by multiple doors. The tailwheel wassteerable and fully retractable. The standardof finish was high, and except for fabric areasthe surface was polished, with the spinner,nose and a cheat-line painted red.

In fact, in 1939 retractable skis had not yetbeen developed, and for this reason the SKwas initially limited to a modest speed (seedata). So far as is known the SK flew well,though Shavrov records that the SK-2 (and by

41

B l S N O V A T S K

implication the SK) suffered from various de-fects which prevented it from being acceptedas a fighter.

Compared with the SK, the SK-2 differedmost obviously in having a normal cockpit,with a fixed more upright seat and conven-tional canopy, which could be jettisoned,with a sliding window on the left. The engineinstallation was modified, with a reprofiledcoolant radiator, engine air inlets in the wingroots and the oil cooler under the cowling.This left the area above the engine clear for aneat installation of two 12.7mm BS heavy ma-chine guns with their magazines (Kosminkovstates there was a 7.62mm as well). The SK-2

airframe was slightly modified, notably by in-creasing the height of the fin and the span ofthe horizontal tail from 2.75m (9ft /4in) to3.26m (10ft 8%in). This aircraft was paintedoverall, in a deep colour.

In 1940 these aircraft were the fastest in theSoviet Union, and probably in the world. De-spite their 'hot' nature, and high wing loading,they appear to have been safe and attractivemachines. However, with so many La, MiGand Yak fighters already in production, theSK-2 had little chance of being adopted as afighter.

Dimensions (SK)SpanLengthWing area

WeightsEmptyLoaded

PerformanceMax speed (wheels)at sea level,at 5,250m (17,224 ft)(skis) at 5,500m (18,045 ft)

Service ceilingRange about

7.3m8.28m9.57 nf

1,505kg2,100kg

597km/h710km/h577km/h10,450m1,000km

23 ft m in27 ft 2 in103ft2

3,318 Ib4,630 Ib

371 mph441 mph358.5 mph34,285 ft621 miles

SK

42

B l S N O V A T S K

SK-2

Top left and right: Two views of SK-2(on right, note split flaps).

Opposite page: SK on skis and on wheels.

Dimensions (SK-2)SpanLength

Wing area

WeightEmpty

Loaded

Performance

Max speed at sea level

at 5,500m (18,045 ft)Time to climb to 5,000 mservice ceilingTake-off runLanding speed/

run

7.3m8.285m

9.57m2

1,850kg

2,300kg

585km/h665km/h4min 19 sees

10,300m350m

168km/h500m

23 ftllX in27 ft 214 in

103ft2

4,078 Ib

5,071 Ib

363.5 mph413 mph(16,404ft)

33,793ft1,148ft

104 mph1,640ft

43

B O K - 1 , SS

BOK-1, SSPurpose: To investigate high-altitude flight,and if possible set records.Design Bureau: The Byuro OsobykhKonstruktsii, the Bureau of Special Design,Smolensk. BOK was formed in 1930 inMoscow as a subsidiary of CAHI (TsAGI) tobuild experimental aircraft ordered by theRevolutionary Military Council. Despitestarting on existing projects it made slowprogress, and in September 1931 wastransferred to the CCB (TsKB) as BrigadeNo 6. It had undergone othertransformations, and been relocated atSmolensk, by the time work began on BOK-1. Director and Chief Designer was VladimirAntonovich Chizhevskii.

One of the bureau's first assignments was tocreate an aircraft to explore flight at extremealtitudes, seen as 'Nol priority'. Close linksbetween the USSR and Junkers resulted inBOK sending a team to Dessau in 1932 to

study the Ju 49, and in particular its pressur-ized cabin. This strongly influenced theirthinking, and led to many studies for aSoviet counterpart, but the only hardwarebuilt was the balloon SSSR-1, with a pressur-ized gondola, which in 1933 exceeded 18km(59,055ft). In 1934 a major conference of theAcademy of Sciences issued a programmefor future research, one requirement being ahigh-altitude aircraft. The contract for the SS(Stratosfernyi Samolyot, stratospheric aero-plane) was signed with BOK.

By this time Tupolev had designed the long-range RD (ANT-25), and to save time BOKused this as the basis for the BOK-1. The maintask was to design the pressure cabin, butthere were many other major modifications.The BOK-1 was built at GAZ (State AircraftFactory) No 35 at Smolensk, where it was firstflown by I F Petrov in (it is believed, in Sep-tember) 1936. It was repeatedly modified inorder to climb higher. It was successfully put

through GOSNIl-GVF State testing by P M Ste-fanovskii. Shavrov speaks of 'a lighter variant'achieving greater heights, but there is no evi-dence of a second BOK-1 having been built.

The airframe was originally that of oneof the military RD aircraft, but modified byGAZ No 35. The span was reduced by fittingnew constant-taper outer panels, restressedfor significantly reduced gross weightachieved by greatly reducing the fuel capaci-ty. The massive retractable twin-wheel mainlanding gears were replaced by lighter fixedunits with spatted single wheels. The enginewas an AM-34RN liquid-cooled V-12, ratedat 725hp, driving a three-blade fixed-pitchpropeller.

The main new feature was the pressurecabin, seating the pilot and a backseater whoacted as observer, navigator and radio opera-tor (though no radio was ever installed). Thiscabin was a sealed drum of oval cross-sec-tion, with closely spaced frames to bear the

BOK-1

44

B O K - 1 , SS

bursting stress, constructed of Dl light alloywith 1.8 or 2.0mm skin riveted over a sealingcompound. Design dP (pressure differential)was 0.22kg/cm2 (3.2 lb/in2). The front and rearwere sealed by convex bulkheads. The entryhatch was at the rear and an escape hatchwas provided in the roof. One report saysthere was no room for parachutes, whichwere stowed in the rear fuselage. There werefive small glazed portholes for the pilot andone on each side ahead of the backseater.There were also four small portholes to admitlight to the unpressurized rear fuselage. A re-generative system circulated the cabin airand removed carbon dioxide (one report says'and nitrogen'). A controlled leak through adump valve was made good by oxygen frombottles to keep oxygen content approximate-ly constant. The engine cooling circuit heateda radiator covering the cabin floor to keep in-ternal temperature at 15-18°C.

Flight testing revealed satisfactory flyingcharacteristics and a lack of vibration. On theother hand, on any prolonged flight the cabinbecame uncomfortably hot. Despite this, andelectric heating of the portholes, the glazedsurfaces quickly misted over. In any case, ex-ternal vision was judged dangerously inade-quate.

Shavrov states that the cabin was qualifiedfor flight to '8,000m and more'; this is am-biguous, and the original design objectivewas that the interior should be equivalent toan altitude of 8,000m (26,250ft) at the designceiling of the aircraft. The engine cooling cir-cuit was modified, and the portholes were re-placed by double-layer sandwiches with notonly electric heating but also a dessicant(moisture absorber) between the panes. Thisovercame the condensation, but nothingcould be done to improve field of view.

In spring 1937 the BOK-1 was fitted with an830hp M-34RNV engine, driving a four-bladefixed-pitch propeller. This engine was then fit-ted with two TK-1 turbosuperchargers, de-signed by VI Dmitriyevskiy so that thecombined turbo exhausts also added a thrustof 70kg (1541b). With the new engine instal-lation the altitude performance was muchimproved (see data), but during an attempt toset a record for height reached with 500 and1,000kg payload one of the turbos blew up.Shavrov says merely 'the attempt failed', butanother account says the exploding turbo se-riously damaged the forward fuselage and re-sulted in the BOK-1 being scrapped.

The BOK-1 was only the second aeroplanein the world to be designed with a pressurecabin. It achieved most of its objectives, butfailed to set any records.

Top: BOK-1 pressure cabin.

Centre: BOK-1 inboard profile.

Bottom: BOK-1 (final form).

DimensionsSpanLengthWing area

WeightsEmpty (as built)(after engine change)

Fuel(after engine change)

Loaded(after engine change)

30.0m12.86m78.8m2

3,482 kg3,600 kg500kg1,000kg4,162kg4,800kg

98 ft 5 in42 ft n in848 ft2

7,676 Ib7,937 Ib1,102 Ib2,205 Ib9,1751b1 0,582 Ib

PerformanceMax speed at sea leveat 4,000m, (13, 123 ft)(after engine change)

Time to climb to 5,000 mto 9,000m

Ceiling(after engine change)

Endurance (both states)

210km/h242km/h260 krn/hISmin38min10,700m14,100m4 hours

130 mph150 mph162 mph(16,404ft)(29,528 ft)35,100ft46,260 ft

45

B O K - 2 , RK / B O K - 5

BOK-2, RKPurpose: To test designer's experimentalwing.Design Bureau: Aircraft constructed by BOKto design of S S Krichevskii.

Sawa Syemenovich Krichevskii, called 'a tal-ented designer' by historian Shavrov, spentthe early 1930s trying to create the most effi-cient aeroplane wing. He made many tunnelmodels, eventually settling on a wing of highaspect ratio constructed in front and rear sec-tions. The rear part was hinged to the front

with a small intervening gap acting as a slot.In flight, the intention was that the pilot wouldselect the optimum angle for the rear portion,Shavrov commenting that 'this wing could al-ways be flown in a drag-polar envelope'.

Krichevskii secured funding to build a re-search aircraft, called RK (Razreznoye Krylo,slotted wing) and designated BOK-2 by theconstruction bureau. The BOK-2 was complet-ed in 1935 and flew successfully, butKrichevskii died shortly afterwards. Documen-tation on this aircraft has never been found.

The BOK-2 was an extremely neat can-tilever monoplane, with a single M-l 1 enginerated at 11 Ohp. Shavrov comments that 'Thewing skin was polished to mirror brilliance[suggesting all-metal construction]...it ishard to say if its excellent performance wasdue to its drag-polar envelope or to its perfectaerodynamic shape'.

Despite its apparently excellent perfor-mance the RK appears to have had no impacton the Soviet aviation ministry.No data available.

BOK-5Purpose: To experiment with a tailless (so-called 'flying wing') design.Design Bureau: Bureau of Special Design,Smolensk. Design team led byV A Chizhevskii.

The idea for this small research aircraft camefrom the BOK-2, though the two aircraft werecompletely unrelated. In 1935 Chizhevskiibegan studying tailless aircraft, and obtainedfunding to build a simple research aircraft.This was completed in early 1937, but wasthen modified and did not fly until Septem-ber, the pilot being I F Petrov. It 'flew satisfac-torily...but crashed during a landing'. Afterbeing repaired and modified its handlingqualities were greatly improved. In 1938 the

modified aircraft was tested by the Nil WS(air force flight-test institute), where it wasflown by such pilots at P M Stefanovskii andM A Nyukhtikov. Stefanovskii is reported tohave said that the BOK-5 could be 'flown bypilots of average or even below average abil-ity' and to have been 'impressed by its acro-batic capability'.

The BOK-5 was a basically simple aircraft,apart from the flight-control system. The air-frame was made of duralumin. The wing wasof CAHI (TsAGI) 890/15 profile (15 per cent t/cratio), with two spars with tubular booms andsheet webs, and ribs assembled from chan-nel and angle sections, with fabric covering.The short fuselage was a semi-monocoque,with some box-section longerons and

pressed-sheet frames, the vertical tail beingintegral. The main landing gears were de-scribed as 'U-2 type'. On the nose was a 1 00hpM-l 1 engine in a Townend-ring cowl, drivinga two-blade metal propeller.

Modifications concentrated on the trailing-edge controls. According to Shavrov therewere three movable surfaces on each wing,extending over 21 per cent of the chord. Theoutermost was a rectangular aileron, and thetwo inboard surfaces acted in unison as ele-vators. Most photographs and drawings showthese surfaces as simple one-piece unitshinged to brackets below the trailing edgeand with a neutral setting of-5°. However, re-cently a drawing (reproduced here) was dis-covered showing the main surfaces operated

BOK-5

46

B O K - 5

by servo action. The pilot's control cables canbe seen to drive a narrow-chord servo controlwhich in turn moves the main surface. Theneutral setting of the main surfaces can beseen to be adjusted by a longitudinal-trimwheel with cables to screw-jacks.

The BOK-5 was clearly a safe aircraft whichimpressed two of the Soviet Union's best testpilots, but it remained a one-off which wassoon forgotten.

DimensionsSpan

LengthWing area

WeightsEmptyFuel

Loaded

PerformanceMaximum speed

Take-off runService ceilingRangeEnduranceLanding speed/

run

9.86m4.365m23.15m2

596kg90kg

764kg

174km/h

120m4,850 m600km

4 hours85km/h

200m

32 ft 4^ in14 ft 4 in249ft2

1,314 Ib198 Ib

l,684lb

108 mph

394ft15,900ft373 miles

53 mph

656ft

Top and centre: Two views of BOK-5.

Bottom: BOK-5 servo control.

47

B O K - 7 , K - 1 7 / B O K - 8 / B O K - 1 1

BOK-7, K-17Purpose: To continue stratospheric-flightresearch with an aircraft superior to BOK-1.Design Bureau: Bureau of Special Design,Smolensk. Chief designer Chizhevskii.

Design of this aircraft began in 1936. TheTupolev RD was again used as the startingpoint, but with features intended to enablegreater heights to be reached. The test pilotswere Petrov and Stefanovskii. According toShavrov the BOK-7 was first flown in 1938,and 'showed the same characteristics as theBOK-1'. Several two-man crews, includingsuch important long-distance pilots as Gro-mov, Yumashev, Danilin, Spirin, Baidukov,Belyakov and others, spent periods of severaldays sealed in the GK checking all aspects ofhuman life in preparation for proposed high-altitude long-distance flights in the BOK-15.According to some historians the ultimate ob-jective was a high-altitude circumnavigation,and that the by-function designation of thisaircraft was K-17, from Krugosvetnyi (roundthe world). Photographs originally thought tobe of the BOK-7 are now known to show theBOK-11.

The BOK-7 had the full-span wing of the RD,and aft-retracting landing gears, but com-pared with the RD the legs were redesignedfor much lighter gross weight, and fitted withsingle wheels. Attention was concentrated onthe fuselage, which unlike the BOK-1 had theGK (pressure cabin) integral with the air-frame, the centre fuselage being a slim cylin-der sealed by gaskets and adhesives, andwith grommets fitting round the control wiresand other services passing through aperturesin the wall. The normal oxygen supply to thepilot and pilot/observer 'compensated for theinsignificant amount of air escaping'. Thesealed drum was fitted with two hemispheri-cal domes, the front with eight and the rearwith six transparent portholes so that the oc-cupants could see out, with a better view thanfrom the BOK-1. The GK was kept at pressureby a tapping from a centrifugal PTsN (super-charger) blower driven by step-up gearsfrom the engine. The engine was an 890hpM-34FRN fitted with two TK (turbosuper-chargers). It is probable that these deliveredcompressed air to the PTsN which then fedthe engine, the cabin supply being taken off a

small bleed pipe. Shavrov states that 'all sys-tems worked well', and that the experimentswere 'very interesting'.

According to Shavrov this aircraft had 'thefirst GK of the combined type' with both asealed compartment kept under pressureand an oxygen supply. Some accounts statethat AI Filin at the NIl-WS worked out detailsof the proposed circumnavigation, in 100-hour stages, but that the project was aban-doned after he was arrested in 1939 andexecuted in Stalin's Terror of 1940. This air-craft led to the BOK-8, BOK-11 and BOK-15,but it appears that no illustrations of it havebeen discovered.

DimensionsSpan

LengthWing area

WeightsEmpty

No other data.

34.0m12.9m87m2

3,900kg

111 ft W in42 ft 4 in936.5 ft2

8,598 Ib

BOK-8Purpose: To devise an armament system forthe BOK-11.Design Bureau: Bureau of Special Design,Smolensk.

In 1937 the BOK began work on the BOK-11(see below) and decided that it shouldhave defensive armament. The BOK-8 wasschemed to test this armament. Design wasentrusted to BOK engineers V S Kostyshkin

and K B Zhbanov. The complete installationwas on test by December 1939. Few detailshave survived, and the aircraft never flew.

The armament system comprised twopower-driven barbettes or turrets each hous-ing guns (one report says cannon but Shavrovsays 'machine guns') outside the pressurecabin, aimed by a synchronous tracking sys-tem with thyratron servo control. The gunner,to have been the third member of the BOK-11

crew, had a Rezunov optical sight system,and the guns were slaved to follow the sight-line to the target. Shavrov comments that thissystem was tested three years before a simi-lar scheme was devised for the Boeing B-29.

The armament scheme was never fitted tothe BOK-11 for reasons given in the descrip-tion of that aircraft.

No data.

BOK-11Purpose: Strategic reconnaissance.Design Bureau: Bureau of Special Design,Smolensk. Chief designer Chizhevskii.

Having created aircraft with impressive rangeand high-altitude capability it was logical to goon and derive an aircraft able to fly with im-punity for great distances over hostile territorycarrying long-focus cameras. After argumentit was decided to make this aircraft a three-seater, the third man being a gunner control-ling the defensive system tested with theBOK-8. Design began in 1938. Two BOK-11

prototypes were ordered, and the first wasflown in 1940. However, in 1938 Chizhevskiiand several of his colleagues had been ar-rested (as was Filin soon after, see BOK-7),and this put the whole of BOK's operationsunder a cloud. As with many programmes atthis time of terror, nobody wanted to do any-thing that might lead to any kind of failure. So,even though the first BOK-11 was delivered tothe NIl-WS (where its official walk-roundphotographs were taken on 4th November1940), test flying was soon abandoned. Thereseems little doubt that reports of the 'BOK-15'

really refer to the BOK-11, in which case, forNil testing, the Nol aircraft was assigned toA B Yumashev and the No 2 to G F Baidukov.

In general the BOK-1 Is were similar to theBOK-7, apart from having the massive1,500hp Charomskii ACh-40 diesel engine togive increased range. The large radiator wasin a duct under the leading edge. Each of thelong-span ailerons had two mass-balanceson its underside, the tailplane was wire-braced, and the elevators and tabbed rudderwere fabric-covered. The armament systemand gunner station were never installed.

48

B O K - 1 1 / B O L K H O V I T I N O V S

There is no reason to doubt that a properlydeveloped BOK-11 could have given the Sovi-et Union a strategic-reconnaissance capabili-ty considerably better than that of any othercountry. As noted under the BOK-7, the at-mosphere of fear in 1940 led to this pro-gramme being abandoned.

DimensionsSpanLengthWing area

WeightsEmptyLoadedMaximum speed

34.0m12.9m87m2

4,090 kg10,000kg252 knYh

I l l f t 6 3 / 4 i n42 ft 4 in936.5ft2

9,01 7 Ib22,046 Ib157 mph

No other data.OKB drawing showing that BOK-11 was originally intended as a bomber, with fixed landing gear.

Two views of BOK-11.

Bolkhovitinov SPurpose: Ultra-fast attack bomber.Design Bureau: WIA (air force engineeringacademy) located at the ZhukovskiiAcademy, Moscow, where ViktorFedorovich Bolkhovitinov was Professor ofAircraft Design and head of design team.

The objective was to make the fastestbomber in the world, by using a fighter-typelayout with two powerful engines in tandem.This arrangement was adopted in order toachieve engine-out safety with minimumdrag. Design of the propulsion system beganin 1936 and of the aircraft itself a year later.The designation stood for Sparka (Twin), butother designations were S 2M-103 (in usualSoviet style, showing the engines), BBS-1(short-range bomber, fast, the S here mean-ing Skorostnii, speedy) and LB-S (lightbomber, twin). Construction of the single pro-totype began in July 1938, the first flight wasmade by B N Kudrin in late 1939, and NIl-WStesting took place between March and July1940, the pilots being Kudrin and A I K a -banov. It was found that take-off run was ex-cessive. In 1940-41 the aircraft was subjectedto major modifications. ZI Itskovich re-designed the wing with increased area and achanged aerofoil profile. A different front en-

gine was fitted, and the rear engine and itspropeller were replaced by an inert mass.The oil coolers were incorporated in the mainradiator duct. As the redesigned aircraftneared completion snow was still on theground, and the landing gears were all re-placed by fixed skis.

No way was found to make proper use ofthe bay previously occupied by the rear en-gine, and in any case performance was nowunimpressive. After the German invasionwork was abandoned. Plans for an improvedS bomber and a derived I (or I-1) fighter withtwo M-107 engines were also dropped.

The airframe was entirely a modern light-alloy stressed-skin structure. The wing wasbased on a structural box with two plate sparswith flanged lightening holes, sheet ribs andheavy upper and lower skins with flush rivet-ing. The fuselage basically comprised top,bottom and side panels all joined to fourstrong angle-section longerons (Shavrov:'later this construction was used for the IL-28',a post-war jet bomber). The twin-finned tailhad thin Dl skin throughout, the rudders hav-ing inset balanced hinges, the tailplanesbeing pivoted and driven by irreversible trim-ming motors and the elevators having trimtabs and a variable geared drive. Each main

landing gear retracted electrically back-wards, the wheel turning through 90°.

The 960hp M-103 engines (V-12 liquid-cooled derived from the Hispano-Suiza 12Y)were mounted in tandem, the rear engine dri-ving the rear unit of the contra-rotating six-blade propeller. Some reports state that thedrive was taken via left/right twin shafts pastthe front engine's crankcase, but in fact (as inthe Italian Macchi M.C.72 racing seaplane of1933) the rear engine drove a single shaft be-tween the front-engine cylinder blocks whichfinally passed through the centre of the front-engine propeller shaft. Both engines wereserved by a large ducted radiator with a con-trollable exit flap (this was positioned by oneof the 29 on-board electric actuators) and twooil coolers were fitted in ducts on each side ofthe front engine. Four fuel tanks were housedbetween the wing spars, and on the trailingedge were electrically driven slotted flaps (inseveral reports, incorrectly called Fowlertype).

Pilot and navigator sat in tandem, far apartunder a long Plexiglas canopy. The navigatoralso had a bomb sight, and the entire areaaround his seat was skinned in Plexiglas.Turning to the rear he could fire a 7.62mmShKAS, and it was the intention later to re-

49

B O L K H O V I T I N O V S

place this by twin 12.7mm UBT. Behind therear spar, under the pilot's cockpit, was a bayhousing 400kg (882 Ib) of bombs, with twoelectrically driven doors. It was the intentionlater to fit fixed guns in the wings.

The second wing, of NACA-230 profile,gave improved field length. One report statesthat a remotely controlled ShKAS was addedin the extreme tail, but this does not appear inany known photographs. Continued poten-tially dangerous problems with the rear en-gine and its drive resulted in this beingremoved. The front engine was changed toan M-l 05P, of unchanged 960hp, driving a sin-gle three-blade propeller. Even with weightconsiderably reduced the S was then judgeda failure, though tandem-engine studies con-tinued. The factory was tooled up for Pe-2production.

Though an article by Ing V Mikhailov andIng VPerov states that, following initial Niltesting 'the design team was instructed tocontinue development', there is no doubt theS was always on the verge of success butnever getting there. The high wing loadingand the failure to solve the rear-engine driveproblem made it one of the programmesabandoned after the invasion of June 1941.

DimensionsSpan (original)

(new wing)Length (original)

(one engine)Wing area (original)

(new wing)

11.38m12.2m13.2m13.0m22.9 m2

23.43m2

37 ft 4 in40 ft X in43 ft 4 in42ft73 / i in246.5ft2

252.2 ft2

WeightsEmptyLoaded (original)

not discovered5,652kg

(lightened, to reduce take-off run) 5,150 kg(single engine)

PerformanceMaximum speed (original)at 4,600m (15,092 ft)(oneM-105P)at 4,400m (14,436ft)

Range (two engines) aboutTake-off run (original)

(lightened)(one engine)

Landing speed (original)(lightened)(one engine)

4,000kg

570km/h

400 km/h700km1,045m860m700m180 km/h1 65 km/h135 km/h

1 2,460 Ib11 ,354 to8,818 Ib

354 mph

248.5 mph435 miles3,428ft2,822ft2,297 ft112 mph102.5 mph84 mph

S (as built)

S (as built).

50

S (as built).

B O L K H O V I T I N O V S / C H E T V E R 1 K O V SPL

S (as built). S (converted to single engine).

Chetverikov SPLPurpose: Reconnaissance from submarines.Design Bureau: Brigade of IvanVyacheslavovich Chetverikov in CAHI(TsAGI).

Later a famous designer of marine aircraft inhis own right, Chetverikov was intrigued bythe British submarine M-2, which carried asmall aircraft for reconnaissance purposes.Though this proved a disaster in January 1932when the M-2 was dived with the hangar dooropen, this did not invalidate the basic con-cept. Funds were obtained from both the MA(naval aviation) and the Glavsevmorput'(Chief Administration of Polar Aviation North-ern Sea Route). Accordingly Chetverikov de-signed a small monoplane in two forms: theOSGA-101 amphibian for Glavsevmorput' foruse from icebreakers and the SPL (Samolyotdlya Povodnikh Lodok, aeroplane for subma-rine boats), a slightly smaller non-amphibious

flying boat able to fold into a small hangar.OSGA flew in spring 1934. The SPL was com-pleted in December 1934, taken by rail to Sev-astopol and flown there by A V Krzhizhevskiiin spring 1935. Testing was completed on29th August 1935. Though the SPL was gener-ally satisfactory, the idea of submarines withaircraft hangars was never adopted by theMA.

Like its predecessor, the SPL was a neatmonoplane, of mainly wooden constructionbut with the tail made of Dl alloy coveredwith fabric and carried on booms of weldedsteel tube through which the control wirespassed. The cockpit seated a pilot and ob-server side-by-side, and there was provisionfor a third seat or cargo immediately to therear. The engine was a modest M-l 1 rated atl00hp, in a Townend-ring cowl and driving atwo-blade wooden propeller. The wingswere fitted with plain flaps, and could be un-

locked and manually folded back with theupper surface facing outwards, the under-wing floats also being hinged. The engine na-celle, on a steel-tube pylon, could likewise bepivoted straight back through 90°, so that afterfour minutes the whole aircraft could bepushed inside a watertight drum 7.45m (24ft5Kin) long and 2.5m (8ft 21/2in) diameter (in-ternal dimensions).

One report states that the MA claimed theSPL to have 'inadequate seaworthiness',while another states that it was difficult totake off from the open sea and was prone tostall because of poor longitudinal stability.The underlying factor was that the MA decid-ed not to build large submarines with SPLhangars.

Two views of SPL folded.

51

C H E T V E R I K O V SPL

DimensionsSpanLengthWing area

WeightsEmptyFuel/oilLoaded

Maximum

PerformanceMaximum speed

9.5m7.4m13.4m2

592kg60+ 10 kg800kg879kg

186 km/hCruising speed at 2,500 m (8,200 ft) 183 km/hTime to climb to 1 ,000 m

to 3,000 mService ceilingRangeAlighting speed

3.9 min15.3min

5,400m400km85 km/h

31 ft 6 in24 ft 3V. in144ft2

1,30511)132+2215l,7641b1, 9381b

11 5.6 mph114 mph(3,280ft)(9,843ft)17,717ft248 miles53 mph

SPL (the man is not Chetverikov) with ARK-3-2 inbackground.

52

E J E C T I O N - S E A T T E S T - B E D S

Ejection-seat Test-bedsPurpose: To modify established jet aircraftin order to test ejection-seats.Design Bureau: Initially the seats weredesigned by special teams formed in the jet-aircraft OKBs. However, in 1952 a specialorganization was created to specialize inlife-support and safety-equipment systems,and in 1994 this was transformed into NPPZvezda (Star) joint-stock company. From the1960s this organization captured the marketuntil it was providing ejection-seats forvirtually all Soviet combat aircraft.

Soviet ejection-seats, called Katapul'tnoyeKreslo, were initially diverse, and drew heav-ily on designs by US, Swedish and, especially,the British Martin-Baker companies. After1945 a few flight tests took place with Germanseats, developed in 1944 for such aircraft asthe He 219 and Do 335. The detailed historyhas not been written, but some of the earliest

flight tests were carried out from about mid-1947. Probably the first Soviet ejection-seatwas designed in the MiG OKB from January1947. On 11th March 1947 this OKB receivedan order to test this seat in the FT-2, the sec-ond prototype of the M1G-9UTI trainer. Afterten test ejections in a ground rig the experi-mental seat, weighing 128.5kg (283 Ib), wasinitially installed in the considerably modifiedrear cockpit of FT-1 (the first two-seaterwhich was still with the MiG OKB). Flight test-ing took place throughout the first half of1948, but only up to 700km/h (435mph). Thevery similar FT-2 was then fitted with twoejection-seats, the front one at a rail angle of22.5° and the rear at 18.5°. The modified air-craft was delivered to NIl-WS, the air forceflight test institute, on 29th September 1948.After two tests with dummies live testing con-tinued between 7th October and 13th No-vember 1948. An automatic sequence firing

the canopies and seats was then perfected(though of course the FT-2 was never left withboth cockpits empty). From the results ofthese tests the OKB gradually developed thefirst production seat, called the SK. This wasthen developed through 14 production series.

Probably the next Soviet aircraft to be usedfor ejection-seat testing was the Ilyushin IL-28tactical twin-jet bomber. First flown on 8thJuly 1948, using the imported Rolls-RoyceNene and later the Nene-derived RD-45 andVK-1 A, this excellent aircraft was used for sur-prising tests using seats fired from the ex-treme tail. Unlike the very similar BritishCanberra, which was undefended, for thisaircraft the Ilyushin OKB developed a power-ful tail turret with two NR-23 guns, manned bythe radio operator who had an escape chute.In several aircraft the turret was replaced by aspecial test installation for an ejection-seat.Both upward- and downward-firing seats

Pe-2 (German seat) test-bed. MiG-9 (FT-1) test-bed.

UTI MiG-15 (ST-10) test-bed.

IL-28 (downward firing) test-bed.

Right: Yak-25 (modified canopy).

53

E J E C T I O N - S E A T T E S T - B E D S

were tested, and cine films showed that insome cases firing the seat imparted to the air-craft a pronounced kick in the pitching plane,either nose-up or nose-down. Some of theIL-28 seat tests were at airspeeds exceeding800km/h (497mph).

Even higher speeds were reached duringseat testing with ST-10 aircraft, which werespecially modified two-seat UTI MiG-15s. Thiswas the principal type used from 1951 on-wards in development of the SK and SK-1seats which were used in thousands of earlyMiG jets, and later for the much better KM-1family used in later MiG fighters, cine filmsand photographs have shown seats beingfired from ST-lOs with callsigns 15, 23, 101U,102U and 401U. These aircraft were paintedwith bold horizontal black lines in known po-sitions to assist determination of the seat tra-jectory. What is surprising is that about halfthe photographs of tests appear to have in-volved firing the test seat from the front cock-pit. Using dummies and human occupantsmany hundreds of combinations of canopy,seat, ejection gun, stabilizing drogue andparachute system were investigated. Early SKseats were notoriously unreliable, and whenthey did fire on command the pilot often suf-fered spinal damage. Gradually, and espe-cially after the ST-10 testing began, the SKseats improved. A faceblind was provided to

protect the occupant's face, additional firingtriggers were incorporated in both armrests,improved ejection guns were developed im-parting a precisely repeatable phased accel-eration using different cartridges for summerand winter, and the original restrictive limitsof airspeed and altitude were progressivelyincreased. A photograph shows 101U, one ofthe aircraft with a completely open frontcockpit. The final ST-10,401 U, was fitted witha new type of front-cockpit canopy whichwas hinged at the rear to the top of the seat sothat on ejection the canopy served as a wind-break to protect the occupant. This became afeature of early MiG-21 fighters.

Photographs have been found of at leasttwo Yak-25L (Laboratoriya) seat-test aircraft.The production night fighter seated the pilotand radar operator in tandem under a largeone-piece canopy which opened by slidingon rails 2.2m (7ft Sin) to the rear. Both the seattest-beds had a pressure bulkhead separatingthe front cockpit from the rear cockpit, fromwhich the seat under test was fired. Aircraftcallsign 18 retained the original type ofcanopy but with the portion over the rearcockpit opaque (on being jettisoned this usu-ally passed perilously close to the tail). Air-craft callsign 01 had a completely modifiedarrangement, the pilot having a short upward-hinged canopy and the test cockpit having a

Top: Sukhoi Su-9U test-bed.Above left: Yak-25L zero-altitude ejection-seat test.Above right: Test ejection from MiG-25U.

prominent light-alloy superstructure which inmost tests was open at the top. This aircraftwas later used to test the Yakovlev OKB'sKYa-1 rocket-boosted seat, the first to have'zero/zero' capability (able to be fired with theaircraft at rest on the ground).

The only Sukhoi aircraft known to havebeen an ejection-seat test-bed was an Su-9Uwith callsign Red 10. Liberally covered on thestarboard side with black lines for use as tra-jectory references, this Mach-2 aircraft alwaysfired the test seat from the rear cockpit. Thiswas open-topped and sealed from the pres-surized front cockpit. The only photographsreleased on this aircraft must have beentaken since the 1970s, as they show modernZvezda zero/zero rocket assisted seats, atleast one being of the K-36 family. One pho-tograph shows a test at ground level.

While the Su-(U was used for tests at highsubsonic Mach numbers, at least on M1G-25Uhas been used to confirm behaviour in ejec-tions at supersonic speeds. Details of theseats and Mach numbers have yet to be dis-closed, but Zvezda believe this aircraft hasbeen used to check successful ejections atmach numbers significantly higher than any-where else in the world.

54

E X P E R I M E N T A L L A N D I N G G E A R S

Experimental landing gearsPurpose: To use aircraft to testexperimental landing gears.Design Bureau: Various.

No country has as much real estate as the for-mer Soviet Union, and the land surface is attimes soft mud, sand, snow and hard frozen.Several designers concentrated on devisinglanding gears that would enable aircraft tooperate from almost any surface. One of thefirst was N A Chechubalin, who in the 1930swas working at BRIZe, a division of Glavsev-morput', the chief administration of northern(Arctic) sea routes. He devised neat trackedmain gears to spread the load and enable air-craft to operate from extraordinarily soft sur-faces. His experimental gears were tested ona U-2 and a much heavier Polikarpov R-5.

In 1943 SAMostovoi picked up whereChechubalin had left off and designed cater-pillar main landing gears for an Li-2 transport(the Soviet derivative of the DC-3) Thesegears were retractable, and made little differ-ence to the performance of the aircraft, butthey were 'unreliable in operation' and weretherefore not put into production. Pho-tographs have not yet been found.

In 1937 Nikolai Ivanovich Yefremov collab-orated with Aleksandr Davidovich Nadiradze

to design a unique inflatable gear which of-fered a totally different way of reducing foot-print pressure in order to operate from almostany surface. Their answer was an 'air pillow'inflated under a semi-rigid upper sheet at-tached under the aircraft centreline. Thescheme was called SEN, from the Russian for'Aircraft Yefremov/Nadiradze'. The pillowwas tested on a Yakovlev AIR-20 (UT-2),which was fitted with a 20hp motorcycle en-gine driving a compressor to keep the bag in-flated. The only known photo does not showthe wingtips clearly, so it is not known ifwingtip skids were needed to stop the aircraftrolling over. In 1940 the SEN was test-flown bysuch famous pilots as Gromov, Shelest andYumashev, but it never went into general use.

In 1991 the new private company Aeroric,at Nizhny Novgorod (in Communist dayscalled Gorkii), began the design of amultiroletransport called Dingo. Powered by a 1,100-shp Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-65B turbo-prop, driving a Hartzell five-blade pusherpropeller, the Dingo is made mainly of lightalloy and accommodates one or two pilotsand up to eight passengers or up to 850kg(1,8741b) of cargo. Its most unusual feature isthat it has no conventional landing gear. In-stead it has a 250hp Kaluga TBA-200 (in effect

a turbofan) which generates an air cushionunderneath, contained by inflated air blad-ders along each side and hinged flaps at frontand rear. At full load the ground pressure is amere 0.035kg/cm2 (71.71b/ft2), enabling theDingo to ride over water, snow or any othersurface and to cross ditches, ledges and pro-jections up to 30cm (1ft) high. Cruising speedis275km/h(170mph).

Though a surface skimmer rather than anaeroplane, the Stela M.52 seen at the 1995Zhukovskii airshow was interesting for ridingon an air cushion. This is contained by sideskegs (underfins), a large rear flap and fronthinged curtains.

Chechubalin landing gear on R-5 No 403. Aeroric Dingo.

Stela M.52.

55

SEN (Yefremov) landing gear on UT-2.

F L O R O V 4302

Florov 4302Purpose: Rocket-propelled aircraft foraerodynamic research.Design Bureau: Ilya Florentyevich Florov(1908-83) had a long career at several OKBsand State organizations, some of his productsbeing biplane fighters designed withA A Borovkov. In 1943 he headed a designcell in NIl-WS (air force state test institute).

In 1943 Florov was assigned the task of creat-ing a small rocket-engined aircraft to testwing profiles, flight-control systems and otherfeatures. At this time published German pa-pers on swept wings (1935) had not beenstudied. Three examples of No 4302 werefunded, and Nil pilots A F Pakhomov and I FYakubov were assigned to the programme.The No 1 aircraft was not fitted with an engine,and made 46 flights from late 1946, on eachoccasion being towed to about 5,000m(16,400ft) by a Tu-2. The No 2 was flownunder power, the first take-off (by Pakhomov)being in August 1947. In the same month theprogramme was terminated, funds beingtransferred to the MiG I-270. At this time theNo 3 aircraft had for some time been com-plete but waiting for its RD-2M-3 engine.

The 4302 was a small aircraft with a fuse-lage dictated by the size of cockpit and pro-

pellant tanks. Construction was entirely light-alloy stressed skin, with a very good surfacefinish. The untapered wings had a 13-per-centlaminar CAHI (TsAGI) profile devised byG P Svishchev. They were made as one unitattached above the fuselage, with down-turned tips. On each trailing edge were threesections of slotted flap which were also oper-ated in opposition for lateral control. The tailcomprised a fixed fin and tailplane, with fixedendplate fins, and manually driven rudderand elevators with inset hinges and mass bal-ances. The pilot had a small pressurizedcockpit in the nose with an upward-hingedcanopy. The No 1 aircraft was completed withconventional fixed landing gear (using someLa-5FN parts), for slow-speed glider flights.The Nos 2 and 3 were designed to take offfrom a tricycle-gear trolley and land on a cen-treline skid and tailwheel. The No 2 was fittedwith a liquid rocket by A M Isayev assisted byL S Dushkin rated at 1,100kg (2,425 Ib) at sealevel. In the rear fuselage was a large tank forred fuming nitric acid made of 3mm Enerzh18-8 stainless, wrapped with OVS wire towithstand gas feed pressure. Behind was thetank of petrol (gasoline). Later, in 1947 a morepowerful 1,140kg (2,513 Ib) Dushkin enginewas fitted. The No 3 aircraft was to have been

fitted with an RD-2M-3 engine developed byDushkin and V P Glushko, with main andcruise chambers with sea-level ratings of1,450 and 400kg (3,197 and 882 Ib). In thiscondition it was to have been designatedNo 4303. One report says that an RD-2M or RD-2M-3 was retrofitted to No 2, but there is norecord of it flying with this engine.

These aircraft appear to have left no recordof aerodynamic achievement.

DimensionsSpan (all)Length (No 2)

(No 3)Wing area (all)

WeightsEmpty (No 1)Loaded (No 1)

(No 3)

PerformanceMax speed (No 2, achieved)Landing speed (all)

6.932m7.124m7.152m8.85 nf

970kg1,350kg1,750kg

826km/h125km/h

22 ft 9 in23 ft VA in23 ft 5% in95.26ft2

2,138 Ib2,976 Ib3,859 Ib

513 mph78 mph

Three-view of 4302 No 3 withside elevation of No 2 (top right).

56

F L O R O V 4302 / G R I G O R O V I C H I -Z

Above left: 4302 Nol.

Above right: 4302 No 2 in take-off configuration.

Left: 4302 No 2 after landing.

Grigorovich I-ZPurpose: To evaluate a fighter with APKrecoilless cannon.Design Bureau: Team led by DmitriiPavlovich Grigorovich, in VT (internalprison) run by OGPU (secret police, laterNKVD) at Factory No 39.

The story of the development in the SovietUnion of large-calibre recoilless guns, underthe leadership of L V Kurchevskii, is outlinedin the entry on the Tupolev ANT-23. By theend of the 1920s design bureaux were receiv-ing contracts for experimental fighters de-signed to be armed with such weapons. Inlate 1929 Grigorovich was sent to CentralConstruction Bureau 7, which was reallyHangar 7 at Factory 39, an OGPU secureprison for designers. Here he led the design ofthe Z, a secret monoplane to be armed withtwo 76.2mm (Sin) APK-4 guns. To speed con-struction the powerplant group and forwardfuselage of the first prototype were the sameas those of the Polikarpov I-5, which was alsobuilt in Hangar 7. The complete aircraft,called I-Z (Fighter Z) was flown by BenediktBukhgol'ts in (it is believed) early May 1931. Itwas inspected by Stalin, Voroshilov, Molotovand others on 6th July 1931. Subsequently asmall series of 21 production I-Z fighters wereproduced at GAZ No 39. These were still re-garded as experimental. In February/March1933 aircraft No 39009 was placed on a high

platform and used for firing trials, and in Sep-tember 1933 No 39010 underwent NIl-WStesting. Two of these aircraft were laterused in Zveno trials, as described underVakhmistrov. In 1934-35 Factory No 135 atKharkov built a further 72, with modifications,designated IP-1. These saw only limited use,partly because of difficult spin recovery, butwere not considered as experimental.

At this time monoplanes were still struc-turally difficult, and the wing, though oftorch-welded stainless (Enerzh-6) lattice con-struction, still needed underwing bracing tothe fixed landing gears. Apart from the semi-monocoque rear fuselage, the covering of thewhole airframe was fabric. The prototype hada Bristol Jupiter, in a helmeted cowling, whilethe first production batch had the same480hp engine built under licence as the M-22and cowled in a Townend ring. The secondbatch, from Kharkov, had the 700hp M-25(Wright Cyclone). The main landing gearsvariously had spatted wheels, plain wheels orskis. The guns were suspended from bothmain spars outboard of the struts (just in-board on the first prototype), and were fed ata slow rate from a seven-round magazine inthe wing. A PV-1 machine gun was fitted toright of centre ahead of the windscreen to as-sist aiming using the optical sight. Thetailplane was mounted high to avoid the rearblast from the APK-4s.

This neat aircraft did all that was expectedof it, but none of Kurchevskii's big guns everbecame operational.

I-Z cockpit.

57

G R I G O R O V I C H I - Z

Far left: I-Z series aircraft.

Left: Close-up of APK-4.

Bottom left: Aircraft I-Z No 39009 rigged forfiring trials.

58

Dimensions (first I-Z)Span

Length

Wing area

WeightsEmptyLoaded

Performance

Max speed at sea levelTime to climb to 5 kmService ceilingRange

Take-off run

Landing speed/run

11.5m

7.645m

19.6m2

1,180kg1,648kg

259km/h14min7km

600km110m

l00km/h180m

37 ft 8% in25 ft 1 in21 l f t !

•

2,601 Ib3,633 Ib

161 mph

(16,400ft)22,970ft373 miles361ft

62 mph591ft

I-Z (upper side view, prototype;lower side view, series version).

G R O K H O V S K I I G - 3 1 , Y A K O B A L K S N I S , S T R E K O Z A

Grokhovskii G-31, Yakob Alksnis, StrekozaPurpose: To build a troop-carrying glider;this was later modified into poweredaircraft.Design Bureau: WS-RKKA (Red Armyspecial design team for aviation forces),director Pavel Ignatyevich Grokhovskii(1899-1946).

Grokhovskii had a brief but intense career,forming a branch of WS-RKKA in Leningradin 1934 and seeing it liquidated in 1936.Most of his designs were concerned with as-sault by airborne forces, and all showed a re-markable originality. The G-61 was a 'peoplepod' able to house seven armed troops andactually flown attached under each wing ofan R-5, a mass-produced 700hp biplane. TheG-31 (in some documents called G-63i>/s),named for WS Gen Yakob Alksnis, was agiant cargo glider, designed by Grokhovskiiand B D Urlapov to carry troops lying insidethe wing. From this Grokhovskii producedthe G-31 powered aircraft. First flown in late1935, it flew to Moscow in 1936 for RKKA test-ing. It was eventually decided that the

arrangement of troops packed inside thewing, with no chance of escape in flight, wasunacceptable. In any case, the concept of apowered glider for assault operations waseventually considered unsound.

Sharing a strengthened version of almostthe same airframe as the glider, the G-31(again named for Alksnis and also dubbedStrekoza, dragonfly) was a graceful aircraft asbefits a powered version of a glider. Thoughintended for military purposes it was one ofseveral types designed in the 1930s with noconsideration of speed, because this wasnot thought significant. The airframe waswooden, with a vestigial fuselage of multiplyveneer formed by presses with double curva-ture. On the front was a puny 1 00hp M-l 1 five-cylinder radial. Subsequently Grokhovskiibuilt a G-31 with a strengthened structurematched to the 700hp M-25, an imported(later licensed) Wright R-1820 Cyclone. Thiswas fitted in a Townend-ring cowl and itdrove a Hamilton light-alloy ground-ad-justable propeller. It is believed that later athree-blade flight-variable Hamilton Standard

was fitted. As in the glider there were cockpitsfor a pilot and flight engineer, while betweenthe wing ribs were compartments for 18troops, nine in each wing (drawings showeight in each wing). They boarded and wereextracted through hinged leading edges,which were transparent, as in the G-61 pods.

Few details of the G-31 have survived.Clearly the naming of this aircraft and itspredecessor after Alksnis was a mistake,because he was arrested in 1936 and execut-ed in 1938. The close-knit Grokhovskii teamwas 'liquidated' very soon after the General'sarrest.

Left: G-31 with M-25 engine.

Below left: G-31 glider.

Below right: G-31 with M-l 1 engine.

59

Dimensions (M-25 engine)SpanLengthWing area

WeightsEmptyLoaded

PerformanceMaximum and cruising

speed limited to

No other data.

28.0m13.9m70.5m2

1,400kg3,200kg

135km/h

91 ft M in45 ft 7^ in759 ft2

3,086 Ib7,055 Ib

84 mph

G R O K H O V S K I I G - 3 1 , Y A K O B A L K S N I S , S T R E K O Z A

Surprisingly dissimilar three-views of the G-31glider (inset on one shows original landing gear).

60

G R O K H O V S K I I G-37 , U L K

Grokhovskii G-37, ULKPurpose: 'Universal flying wing'.Design Bureau: WS-RKKA Leningrad, ChiefDesigner Vladimir Rentel.

The numbering of 'Grokhovskii' aircraft is dif-ficult to interpret, and this aircraft precededthe G-31. The concept was that of a versatileaircraft for airborne assault, but it was soonevident that a Universalnoye LetayushchyeyeKrylo, universal flying wing, would have widecommercial appeal. Construction was as-signed to Vladimir Rentel, who had the air-craft built in Grebno (rowing) port, Leningrad.It was taken to the airfield where from No-vember 1935 it was tested by VPChkalov,who was impressed. He later flew it toMoscow in 2hrs SOmin (average 250km/h,155mph, which Shavrov says was 'almost arecord'). The G-37 was used for a long seriesof tests, including dropping of heavy loads.

The G-37 was a remarkably capable earlyexample of an aeroplane designed to lift a de-tachable payload container (later types in-

cluded the Fi333, Miles M.68 and FairchildXC-120). To save time the wing was that of anANT-9 (PS-9), made of Kolchug duraluminwith mainly corrugated dural skin, though theailerons did not project beyond the wing tips.It is possible this wing came from a crashedPS-9 along with the 680hp BMW VI water-cooled V-12 engines, though these were in adifferent installation. The engine cowls wereextended down into large trousers over themain landing gears, which contained the en-gine-cooling radiators. At the rear they extend-ed into tail booms, all these structures being oflight alloy. Each boom had a tailwheel, and thetwin-finned tail was duralumin with fabric cov-ering. On the centreline the wing was expand-ed into a small nacelle for the pilot andengineer. The underside of the centre wingwas provided with attachments for a standardpre-loaded payload container, though no pho-tographs have been found with this in place.The completed G-37 was painted with gaystripes and stylized red stars and slogans.

There seems little doubt that this was anexcellent and potentially versatile aircraft,and it is not known why it was never orderedfor military or civil use.

DimensionsSpan

(possibly for a developsShavrov cites)

Length(Shavrov)

Wing area

WeightsEmptyLoaded

PerformanceMax speed at sea levelat 2,500m (8,200ft)

Cruising speed at2,500m (8,200 ft)

Time to climb to 6 kmService ceilingLanding speed

22.5m:d version,

23.7m13.85m16.0m84.0m2

3,100kg5,700kg

235km/h285 km/h

250 km/h16min6,500 m90 km/h

73ft93 /4in

77 ft 9/4 in45 ft 5% in52 ft 6 in904 ft2

6,834 Ib1 2,566 Ib

146 mph177 mph

155 mph(19,685ft)21,325ft56 mph

61

G-37 with payload container

G R O K H O V S K I I G - 3 7 , U L K / G R U S H I N S P I - T A N D E M , M A I - 3

Three views of G-37 without payload container.

Grushin Sh-Tandem, MAI-3

Purpose: To devise an improvedconfiguration for a tactical attack aircraft.Design Bureau: Moscow Aviation Institute,designer Pyotr Grushin.

Born in 1906, Grushin worked on various air-craft at MAI, as well as a remarkable steamengine tested in a U-2 (Po-2). In 1935 he beganscheming a tandem-wing aircraft, thinkingthis could form the basis of an attack aircraftwith a rear gun turret. The single example ofthe Sh-Tandem (Shturmovik-Tandem) wasconstructed in the Institute's productiontraining school. It was exhaustively tested byP M Stefanovskii from 5th December 1937.Once the dangerously inadequate directional(yaw) stability had been corrected, by addingfins and rudders above the tailplcine, the air-craft flew well. Eventually it was judged to beunreliable and not really needed, but a deriv-ative with armour, an M-82 engine and a can-non in the turret might have proved veryuseful.

Left: Two views of Sh-Tandem as originally built.

Opposite page: Sh-Tandem after modification

62

G R U S H I N S h - T A N D E M , M A I - 3

Sh-Tandem(upper side view asoriginally built).

The key feature of this aircraft was that ithad a main wing and a rear wing with 45 percent as much area, both having R-l 1 aerofoilprofile. After experimenting with elevens thecontrol surfaces on the rear wing were linkedto move in unison as elevators, all lateral con-trol being by the ailerons on the main wing.Fins and rudders were fitted at 50 per cent ofthe semi-span on the rear wing, initially onthe underside only in order to leave a clear250° arc of fire for the electrically driven turretwith a ShKAS. Four more ShKAS were to befixed firing ahead from the main wing, butthese cannot be seen in photographs. An in-ternal bay housed a 200kg (441 Ib) bombload.The engine was an M-87 (derived from the

Gnome-Rhone K14) radial rated at 930hp.The tailwheel was fixed but the neat mainunits had single legs and retracted into thewing. The airframe was constructed mainlyof wood, with skins of delta bakelite-impreg-nated veneer. Other features included athree-blade variable-pitch propeller, Hucksstarter dogs on the propeller shaft, cooling

gills behind the engine cowling, a ventralducted oil cooler (repeatedly modified) andaft-sliding pilot's canopy.

Despite its extraordinary appearance thisaircraft was clearly basically successful.Whether a developed version could havedone better than the Ilyushin Shturmovik isproblematical.

DimensionsSpan (main wing)

(rear wing)LengthWing area (total)

WeightsEmptyLoaded given variously asand, more likely, as

PerformanceMax speed at sea levelat 4,200m (13,780 ft)

11.0m7.0m8.5m30.4m2

not known2,560kg3,088 kg

406 km/h488 km/h

36 ft 114 in23ft27 ft M in327 ft2

5,644 Ib6,808 Ib

252 mph303 mph

No other data.

63

G U D K O V G u - 1

Gudkov Gu-1Purpose: To create a more manoeuvrablefighter.Design Bureau: Brigade led by MikhailIvanovich Gudkov, Moscow.

Gudkov was one of the three partners whocreated the LaGG design bureau, later led byLavochkin only. In early 1940 Gudkov be-came convinced that the Bell P-39 Airacobra,with the engine behind the cockpit, had a su-perior configuration. It gave the pilot a betterview, and by placing the heavy engine in thecentre of the aircraft greatly reduced the long-

OKB drawing of Gu-1

itudinal moment of inertia, and thus shouldimprove manoeuvrability. As well as workingon supposed improved derivatives of theLaGG, Gudkov managed to obtain funding fora mid-engined fighter in early 1942, as well asa contract with the A A Mikulin bureau for thesupply of an engine. The resulting Gu-1, alsocalled the Gu-37, was completed in the earlysummer of 1943. After prolonged taxi trialstest pilot A I Nikashin said 'It seems glued tothe ground'. On 12th June 1943 Nikashin at-tempted the first flight. The Gu-1 reachedabout 200m (650ft) but then appeared tosideslip into the ground, Nikashin beingkilled. Gudkov's brigade was disbanded.

The configuration followed the Airacobraexactly, with the major difference that theGu-1 was constructed largely of wood, withbakelite-ply skin. Metal parts included thefuselage back to the firewall between thecockpit and engine (aligned with the frontspar), which was based on a steel-tube trusswith skin of removable Dl panels, Dl wingspars and Dl control surfaces. The wing wasof 1V-10 Type V-2 aerofoil profile, and was fit-ted with automatic leading-edge slats and hy-draulically driven split flaps. The engine wasan AM-37 rated at l,380hp (the designer'snotes on the preliminary drawing show thathe wanted an AM-41). Carburettor inlets werein the wing roots, and long inlets further out-board served the radiators inside the wingahead of the inwards-retracting main landinggears. The drive was taken through a steeltube of 120mm (4%in) diameter to the reduc-tion gear in the nose. The long nose gear re-tracted back into a bay in the lower part of thenose. Armament comprised a massiveTaubin 37mm cannon firing through the pro-peller hub, fed by an 81 -round magazine (sur-prisingly large for this calibre) and six ShKASmachine guns in the fuselage and wing roots.

Few documents on the Gu-1 have beenfound. One is led to conclude that either thewing or vertical tail was too small, or possiblyboth.

DimensionsSpanLengthWing area

WeightsEmptyLoaded

PerformanceLanding speed (estimate)

10.0m10.68m20.0 nf

3,742kg4,610kg

195 km/h

32 ft 9% in35 ft 4% in215ft2

8,250 Ib10,163 Ib

121 mph

No other data.

64

I L Y U S H I N I L - 2 0

Ilyushin IL-20Purpose: To design an improvedShturmovik attack aircraft.Design Bureau: OKB of Sergei Ilyushin,Moscow.

In the Great Patriotic War Ilyushin became fa-mous, even outside the Soviet Union, mainlybecause of his IL-2 Shturmovik (assaulter).No fewer than 36,163 were delivered, thegreatest production run of any single type ofaircraft. One reason why so many were need-ed was that attrition was severe, despite theirheavy armour. With the IL-10M Ilyushin frac-tionally improved flight performance, and by1945 the availability of more powerful en-gines opened the way to a further increase ingross weight. In turn this made it possible torethink the armament, in particular adding amore effective rear defence. The single IL-20- dubbed Gorboon, hunchback - began flighttesting in 1948, but by this time piston-en-gined aircraft for front-line use were becom-ing outdated. Ilyushin dropped the IL-20 andbegan work on the IL-40 twin-jet Shturmovik,as well as jet bombers and other types.

The IL-20 was a direct extrapolation of theIL-10 and related types, with similar all-metalstressed-skin construction. A basic shortcom-ing of the wartime Shturmoviks had beenthat, in most low-level attacks with bombs,the target disappeared under the nose beforethe bombs could be released. Ilyushin hadspent much time trying to devise ways of giv-ing the pilot a better forward view. In 1942 hehad tried putting the pilot in the nose, with ashaft drive from an engine behind the cock-pit, but dropped this idea. Various laborato-ries also failed to find good answers, onebeing the PSh periscopic sight. In 1946 hetried the even more unusual scheme ofputting the pilot directly above the engine.The latter was an AM-47F (also called MF-47)liquid-cooled V-12, the last of Mikulin's bigpiston engines, rated at 3,100hp, driving a3.2m (10ft 6in) four-blade propeller. Despitebeing protected below by armour and withthe cockpit above, the engine was said to bereadily accessible and removable. The pilothad a cockpit with armour 6 to 9mm thick,with a field of view directly ahead up to 37°downwards, so that in a shallow dive he hada perfect view of the target. Behind the cock-pit was a large protected tank, and behindthat a radio operator in a powered turret withan NR-23 cannon. The main landing gears re-tracted aft in the usual manner, the wheels ro-tating 90° to lie flat in the wings. Immediatelyoutboard of these were four NS-23 cannonfiring ahead. In one scheme; illustrated onthis page, two further NS-23 were fixedobliquely in the rear fuselage firing ahead and

Top: IL-20.

Above: IL-20 armament.

Right: IL-20 pilot view.

65

I L Y U S H I N I L - 2 0 / K A L I N I N K - 7

downwards. A bomb load of up to 1,190kg(2,623.5 Ib) could be carried in wing cells, andwing racks were provided for eight RS-82 orfour RS-132 rockets. There was also to havebeen an anti-submarine version, never built.

Though clearly a formidable aircraft, the IL-20actually had a flight performance in almost allrespects inferior to that of the wartime IL-10.Ilyushin was certainly right to abandon it, andin fact the basic attack role was later assumedby the simple MiG-15 single-seat fast jet.

DimensionsSpanLengthWing area

WeightsEmptyFuel/oilLoaded normalMaximum

PerformanceMaximum speedat sea levelat 2,800m (9, 186 ft)

Time to climb to 3,000 mto 5,000 m

Service ceiling

17.0m12.59m44.0m2

7,535 kg800+80 kg9,500kg9,820 kg

450 km/h515km/h8min12.5min7,750m

Range (normal gross weight) 1 , 1 80 km(maximum weight)

Take-off runLanding speed

1,680km500m150 km/h

55 ft 9 in41 ft 3% in474 ft2

16,612 Ib1,764+176 Ib20,944 Ib21,6491b

280 mph320 mph9,843 ft16,404ft25,430ft733 miles1,044 miles1,640ft93 mph

Three views of IL-20.

Kalinin K-7Purpose: To create a super-heavy bomber.Design Bureau: OKB of K A Kalinin,Kharkov.

From 1925 Kalinin made himself famous witha series of single-engined aircraft charac-terised by having a quasi-elliptical mono-plane wing. In 1930 he sketched a gigantictransport aircraft, the K-7, with a tail carriedon two booms and with four 1,000hp enginesmounted on the wing, which was deepenough to house 60 passengers or 20 tonnesof cargo. No engine of this power was readilyavailable, so in 1931 he redesigned the air-craft to have seven engines of (he hoped)830hp. GUAP (the Ministry of Aviation Indus-try) gave permission for the aircraft to be built,but with the role changed to a heavy bomber.This meant a further total redesign, one

change being to move the centreline engineto the trailing edge. This near-incredible ma-chine was completed in summer 1933.Ground running of the engines began on 29thJune, and it was soon obvious from seriousvisible oscillation of the tail that the boomswere resonating with particular enginespeeds. The only evident solution was to re-inforce the booms by adding steel angle gird-ers, and brace the tail with struts. Flighttesting by a crew led by pilot M A Snegiryovbegan on l l t h August 1933, causing intensepublic interest over Kharkov. On Flight 9, on21st November, during speed runs at low alti-tude, resonance suddenly struck and the righttail boom fractured. The aircraft dived into theground and burned, killing the pilot, 13 crewand a passenger; five crew survived. Kalininwas sent to a new factory at Voronezh. Here

a plan was organised by P I Baranov to buildtwo improved K-7s with stressed-skin boomsof rectangular section, but this scheme wasabandoned in 1935, the K-7 no longer beingthought a modern design.

The basis of this huge bomber was theenormous wing, of typical Kalinin plan form.It had CAHI (TsAGI) R-II profile, with a thick-ness/chord ratio of 19 per cent, rising to 22 percent on the centreline, where root chord was10.6m (34ft 9%in) and depth no less than2.33m (7ft 7%in). The two main and two sub-sidiary spars were welded from KhMA Chro-mansil high-tensile steel, similar lattice girderconstruction being used for the ribs. The wingwas constructed as a rectangular centre sec-tion, with Dl skin, and elliptical outer sectionscovered mainly in fabric. A small nacelle ofDl stressed-skin construction projected from

66

K A L I N I N K - 7

K-7 over Kharkov. A view of the modified aircraft.

67

Development of the K-7:a. project, 1930b. project, 1931c. as builtd. after modification

K A L I N I N K - 7

K-7 final formthe leading edge. On the leading edge weresix 750hp M-34F water-cooled V-12 engines,each with a radiator underneath, and drivinga two-blade fixed-pitch propeller; a seventhengine was on the trailing edge. Walkwaysalong the wing led to each engine, and on theground mechanics could open sections ofleading edge to work on the engines withoutneeding ladders. Metal tanks in the wingshoused 9,130 litres (2,008 Imperial gallons,2,412 US gallons) of fuel. Just outboard of theinnermost engines were the booms holdingthe tail, 11 .Om (36ft P/in) apart, each having atriangular cross-section with a flat top. The el-liptical horizontal tail carried twin fins andrudders 7.0m (22ft 11 Jfin) apart. All flight con-trols were driven by large servo surfaces car-ried downstream on twin arms. Under thewing, in line with the booms, were extraordi-nary landing gears. Each comprised an in-clined front strut housing a staircase and avertical rear strut with an internal ladder. Atthe bottom these struts were joined to a hugegondola. Each gondola contained three largewheels, one in front and two behind, holdingthe aircraft horizontal on the ground. In frontof and behind the front wheels were bombbays with twin doors. Maximum bomb loadwas no less than 19 tonnes (41,8871b). De-fensive armament comprised a 20mm can-non in a cockpit in the nose, two more in theends of the tail booms and twin DA machineguns aimed by gunners in the front and rearof each gondola. Total crew numbered 11, alllinked by an intercom system.

Though a fantastic and deeply impressiveaircraft, the K-7 was flawed by its designer'sinability to solve the lethal problem of har-monic vibration. Even without this, it wouldprobably have been a vulnerable aircraft inany war in which it might have taken part.

DimensionsSpanLengthWing area

WeightsEmptyFuel/oilLoaded (normal)

(maximum)

PerformanceMaximum speed (design)(achieved)

Long-range speedService ceilingNormal range

53.0m28.184m454m2

24,400kg6,500+ 600 kg38,000 kg46,500 kg

225 km/h204.5 km/h180 km/h3,630m3,030 km

173 ft W. in92 ft 554 in4,887ft2

53,792 Ib14,330+1,3231583,774 Ib102,513 Ib

140 mph127 mph112 mph11,910ft1,883 miles

Nose of the modified aircraft.

68

K A L I N I N K - 1 2

Kalinin K-12Purpose: To create a multirole aircraft withtailless configuration.Design Bureau: OKB of K A Kalinin,Voronezh.

In April 1933 Kalinin submitted to the NIl-WSthree preliminary designs for a VS-2 (VoiskovoiSamolyot, troop aircraft) for reconnaissance,bombing, transport, ambulance and othermissions. One was conventional, the secondhad twin tail booms, and the third was tail-less. Kalinin preferred the third option, be-cause of supposed lower weight and drag,better manoeuvrability and ease of Fitting atail turret for defence. He began with theNACA R-106R aerofoil, with slats, park-bench

ailerons, Scheibe wingtip rudders and a vesti-gial horizontal tail. Tunnel testing of modelsled to an improved design with a trapezoidalwing of CAHI (TsAGI) R-II profile, with trailing-edge servo-operated elevators and aileronsof Junkers 'double wing' type (as also used byGrokhovskii), the small horizontal tail beingeliminated. To test the configuration a half-scale glider (span 10.45m, length 5.2m) wasconstructed in 1934 and flown over 100 timesby V O Borisov. After many problems and ar-guments, the full-scale aircraft was complet-ed at GAZ (State Aviation Factory) No 18 atVoronezh as the K-12, and flown by Borisovin July 1936. Factory testing was completedin 46 flights. The K-12 was then ferried to

Moscow where its Nil testing was assignedto P M Stefanovskii from October 1936. Hefound severe control problems, and eventu-ally N N Bazhanov, head of the NIl-WS, re-fused to accept the K-12 for official trials.From this time onwards Kalinin was under acloud. The Director of GAZ No 18 joined withTupolev, Vakhmistrov (see later) and othersto impede progress and get the K-12 aban-doned. Kalinin moved into Grokhovskii'ssummer dacha, the K-12 languishing atGrokhovskii's KB-29. Contrary to the politicaltide, Voroshilov ordered the K-12 to fly in the1937 Air Day parade over Moscow Tushino,and Bazhanov had it painted in a fantasticred/yellow feathered scheme as the Zhar

K-12 half-scale glider

69

K-12 original configuration

K A L I N I N K - 1 2

Ptitsa (firebird or phoenix). It made a greatimpression, and on 12th December 1937 theAssistant Head of the WS, YaVSmushke-vich, signed an order for renewed NIl-WStesting to start on 1st March 1938, followed byseries production of modified aircraft at GAZNo 207. Work began, but in spring 1938 Kalin-in's enemies managed to get him arrestedand shot on charges of spying and conspira-cy. As he had become an 'enemy of the peo-ple' the contract was cancelled, the K-12 wasscrapped and the ten aircraft on the assemblyline were never completed.

The structure of the K-12 was almost en-tirely based on welded KhMA (Chromansilsteel) tubing. The wing comprised left andright panels bolted to the roots, each havingone main spar running straight from tip to tip.The fuselage was in three bolted sections, thefront section being mainly skinned in Dl, allthe rest of the skin being fabric. The trailing-edge and wingtip controls were all fabric-skinned Dl. The main landing gears wereto have been retractable, but the intendedM-25 engines and variable-pitch propellerswere not available in time, so weight wassaved by making the landing gears fixed. Theinadequate engines which had to be fittedwere 480hp M-22 (Bristol Jupiter licence), incowlings with cooling gills, and driving 2.8m

(9ft 2%\n) two-blade metal propellers withpitch adjustable on the ground. Crew com-prised a pilot in an enclosed cockpit, a navi-gator who also served as bomb aimer in anose turret with one 7.62mm ShKAS (he wasprovided with a rudimentary flight-controllever in case the pilot was incapacitated) anda radio operator in a similar tail turret.Bombload of up to 500kg (l,1021b) was car-ried on a KD-2 vertical rack behind the mainspar and pilot's cockpit. Other equipment in-cluded a VSK-2 radio and AFA-12 camera.

At the end of its life, in early 1938, the K-12was refitted with 700hp M-25 (Wright Cy-clone) engines, driving Hamilton Standardtype variable-pitch propellers, but it wasnever tested in this form. Other modificationsincluded fitting an electrically retractablemain landing gear and modified armament. Ithad also been Kalinin's intention to replacethe wingtip fin/rudder surfaces by ruddersabove the wings behind the engines, butthese were never fitted.

Accounts of this strange tailless aircrafttend either to be strongly positive or stronglynegative. There is no doubt Kalinin was thevictim of political intrigue, but at the sametime the K-12 does not appear to have been astable or controllable aircraft.

K 12

70

Dimensions (As flown with M-22 engines)SpanLengthWing area

WeightsEmptyFuel/oilLoaded

PerformanceMaximum speedService ceilingRangeTake-off runLanding run

20.95m10.32m72.75m2

3,070kg500kg4,200kg

219km/h7,170m700km700m300m

68 ft 8M in33 ft WA in783 ft!

6,768 Ib1,102 Ib9,259 Ib

136 mph23,524ft435 miles2,297 ft984ft

K A L I N I N K - 1 2

Top: K-12 inboard profile.

Above and right: Two views of Zhar Ptitsa.

71

KAMOV K A - 2 2

Kamov Ka-22Purpose: To create a Vintokryl (screw wing)compound helicopter.Design Bureau: OKB of Nikolai Kamov,Moscow.

In 1951 various attempts were being made toincrease the effective range of helicopters,notably by towing them in the outward direc-tion behind an Li-2, with the lifting rotor au-torotating. The idea occurred to Kamovdesigner Vladimir Barshevsky that it would bepossible to dispense with the tug aircraft if ahelicopter could be provided with wings andan aeroplane propulsive system. After obtain-ing permission from Kamov, his deputyV V Nikitin took a proposal to the Kremlin andin a matter of days the OKB had a Stalin di-rective to get started. The engines were to beTV-2 (later TV-2VK) turboshafts supplied byN D Kuznetsov, and many organizations wereinvolved in research for this challenging pro-

ject, starting with model tests in the T-l 01 tun-nel at CAHI. The final go-ahead was issued on11 th June 1954. An order for three Ka-22s wasplaced on the factory at Ukhtomskaya, whichhad been derelict since Kamov was evacuat-ed from there in October 1941. Concentrationon the small Ka-15 (the OKB's first productionhelicopter) and other problems so delayedthe programme that on 28th March 1956 pro-totypes 2 and 3 were cancelled. In June 1958the LD-24 rotor blades began testing on anMi-4. The Ka-22 itself first lifted from theground on 17th June 1959, and made its firstuntethered flight on 15th August 1959, the testcrew being led by pilot D K Yefremov.Serious control difficulties were encoun-tered, and the Kamov team were joined byLII pilots VVVinitskii and YuAGarnayev.Though still full of problems the Vintokryl wasdemonstrated on l l th October 1959 to MAPMinister PVDement'yev and WS C-in-C

Ka-22 (bottom view, record configuration).

KAVershinin. Gradually difficulties weresolved and in July 1960 an order was receivedto manufacture three Ka-22s at GAZ No 84 atTashkent, with D-25VK engines. On 23rd May1961 a speed of 230km/h was held for 37 min-utes. On 9th July 1961 the Ka-22 caused a sen-sation at the Aviation Day at Tushino. On 7thOctober 1961, with spats over the wheels anda fairing behind the cockpit, a class speedrecord was set at 356.3km/h (221.4mph),followed on 12th October by 336.76km/h(209.3mph) round a 100km circuit. The spatsand fairing were then removed and on24th November 1961 a payload of 16,485kg(36,343 Ib) was lifted to 2,557m (8,389ft).Preparations were then made to ferry AM 0I-01 and the third machine AM 0I-03 fromTashkent to Moscow for Nil acceptance test-ing. Both departed on 28th August 1962.While making an intermediate stop atDzhusaly 0I-01 rolled to the left and crashedinverted, killing Yefremov and his crew of six.The cause was diagnosed as 'disconnectionof No 24 cable joint of the linkage with thestarboard lift rotor collective-pitch controlunit'. At Tashkent and in Turkestan the cablejoints and cyclic-pitch booster brackets wereinspected on 0I-02 and 0I-03 and found to beincorrectly assembled. Changing the direc-tion of rotation of one lifting rotor did little atlower speeds and caused problems at higherspeeds - 'When', said lead engineer V S Dor-dan, 'Shockwaves off the blades sounded likea large machine gun'. To improve stabilityand controllability the complex AP-116 differ-ential autopilot was installed, continuouslysensing attitude and angular accelerations,feeding the KAU-60A combined flight-controlunit. On 12th August 1964 the heavily instru-mented 0I-03 took off on one of a series oftests conducted with WS (air force) and GVF(civil) crews. Take-off was in aeroplanemode, and 15 minutes later at 310km/h(193mph) the aircraft suddenly turned to theright, 'not arrested by full rudder andaileron.. .the aircraft turned almost 180° whenGarnayev intervened, considering the prob-lem was differential pitch of the pro-pellers...turn rate slowed, but the aircraftpitched into a steep dive...the engineer jetti-soned the flight-deck hatches, and one struckthe starboard lift rotor causing asymmetricforces which resulted in separation of the en-tire starboard nacelle. Garnayev ordered thecrew to abandon the aircraft'. Three survived,but Col S G Brovtsev, who was flying, andtechnician A F Rogov, were killed. By thistime the Mi-6 heavy helicopter was in wideservice, and the Ka-22 was ultimately aban-doned. Several years later the two survivingmachines, 0I-02 and 0I-04, were scrapped.

72

K A M O V K A - 2 2

An article about the Ka-22 in Kryl'ya Rodiny(Wings of the Motherland) for November1992 does not mention the fact that twocrashed, which is not widely known even inthe former Soviet Union.

The Ka-22 was basically an aeroplane withits engines on the wingtips, with geared dri-ves to both propellers and lifting rotors. Theairframe was all light alloy stressed-skin, thehigh wing having powered ailerons and plainflaps. The fuselage had a glazed nose, three-seat cockpit above the nose and a main cargoarea 17.9 x 3.1 x 2.8m (58' 9" x 10' 2" x 9' 2") for80 seats or 16.5 tonnes of cargo. The entirenose could swing open to starboard for load-ing bulky items or a vehicle. The original pro-totype was powered by 5,900-shp TV-2VKengines, but these were later replaced by the5,500-shp D-25VK. These had free turbinesgeared via a clutch to the main-rotor and viaa front drive to the four-blade propeller and afan blowing air through the oil cooler from acircular inlet above the nacelle. The two free-turbine outputs were interconnected by a 12-part high-speed shaft 'about 20m long'. Themain rotors were larger derivatives of those ofthe Mi-4. In helicopter mode the propellerdrive was declutched and the flaps were fullylowered. Flight control was by differentialcyclic and collective pitch. In aeroplanemode the lifting rotors were free to windmilland the aircraft was controlled by the aileronsand tail surfaces. The twin-wheel landinggears were fixed.

Apart from prolonged dissatisfaction withthe engines, the problems with the Ka-22were mechanical complexity, severe lossesin the gearboxes and drives and the fact thateach lifting rotor blew straight down on top ofthe wing. Similar charges could be levelledagainst today's V-22 Osprey.

DimensionsDistance between lifting-rotor centres

23.53mWing area 105m2

Diameter of lifting rotors,originally 22.8 m, later 22.5m

Lifting-rotor area (total) 795.2 m2

Length 27.0 m

WeightsEmpty (initially) 25 tonneslater 28,200 kg

Loaded (VTO) 35,500 kg(STO) 42,500kg

PerformanceMaximum speed 375 km/hDynamic ceiling (VTO) 5,500 m

(STO) 4,250 mPotential maximum range(calculated by Barshevsky) 5,500 km

STO run 300 mLanding over 25m 130m

77 ft 2% in1,130ft2

73 ft 9% in8,560ft2

88 ft 7 in

62,169 Ib78,263 Ib93,695 Ib

233 mph18,050ft13,944ft

3,418 miles984ft426.5ft

Above: Ka-22 in speed-record configuration. Below: Two views of Ka-22.

73

K H A R K O V K h A I A V I A V N I T O 3 , S E R G E I K I R O V

Kharkov KhAI Aviaviiito 3, Sergei KirovPurpose: To create a light transport withminimum operating cost.Design Bureau: Kharkov Aviation Institute,Aviavnito brigade led by AleksandrAlekseyevich Lazarev.

In the 1930s several Soviet designers pro-duced aircraft intended to demonstrate howmuch could be transported on the l00hp ofan M-l 1 engine. These aircraft were as a classcalled Planerlyet (motor glider). This exam-ple had an unconventional configuration. Itfirst flew on 14th September 1936, dual-con-trolled by V A Borodin and E I Schwartz.Eventually a control linkage was found whichby 27th September enabled good turns to bemade. Shavrov's account ends with The

Aviavnito-3 after modification.

overall conclusion of the tests at Nil GVF (civilaviation test institute) was extremely posi-tive', but nothing came of this one-off.

The Aviavnito-3 (often incorrectly calledKhAI-3) was essentially an all-wing aircraft.The wing comprised a rectangular centre sec-tion, with the uncowled engine mounted onsteel tubes on the front, to which were boltedtwo outer panels tapered on the leading edge.Aerofoil was V-106, with a t/c ratio of 14 percent over the centre section, which had achord of 5.0m (16ft Sin), tapering to 7 per centat the tips, which incorporated 8° washout.Structurally, the centre section was KhMAsteel tube covered by Dl Dural skin, while theouter panels were all wood, with truss ribssupporting closely spaced stringers. Alongeach outer edge of the centre section was arow of four seats, each front seat being for apilot (the two pilots had to agree in advancewhich one should do the flying), covered by arow of sliding canopies. The flight controlscomprised large unbalanced cable-operatedsurfaces divided into inner and outer sectionsto serve as ailerons and elevators. In addition,spoilers were recessed into the upper surfaceof each wingtip, driven by the pedals, to en-able co-ordinated turns to be made. A 2m2

(21.5ft2) fin and rudder were added, but it washoped eventually to do without this. The sim-ple rubber-sprung main landing gears had800 x 150mm tyres with brakes, and the largetailwheel could castor ±25°. Between the

rows of seats were four Dl tanks giving an8-hour endurance. During development twoadditional seats were inserted on each side,pushing the pilots into noses projecting aheadof the wing. To balance these the vertical tailwas significantly enlarged.

It is clear that this machine did everythingexpected of it, and that it was eventually de-veloped to fly safely and controllably. How-ever, even though they were much faster thananything else over vast areas devoid of sur-face transport, nothing came of the rash ofPlanerlyet designs.

Dimensions (final form)SpanLengthWing area

WeightsEmptyFuel/oilLoaded

PerformanceMaximum speedCruising speedTime to climb to 1 ,000 mService ceiling approxRangeTake-off runLanding speed

22.4m6.8m78.6 m!

1,440kg200kg2,200kg

135km/h115km/h25min2,000m850km210m60km/h

73 ft 6 in22 ft 334 in846 ff

3,1751b440 Ib4,850 Ib

84 mph71.5 mph(3,281 ft)6,561 ft528 miles689ft37 mph

Aviavnito-3 (right side view after modification).

74

K H A R K O V K h A l - 4

Kharkov KhAI-4Purpose: To test a tailless light aircraft.Design Bureau: Kharkov Aviation Institute,joint design by P G Bening, A A Lazarev andAAKrol'.

Also known as the Iskra (spark) and as theOsoaviakhimovets Ukrainy for the localOsoaviakhim branch, the KhAI-4 was com-pleted in summer 1934, and first tested in Oc-tober of that year by B N Kudrin. He found theelevens almost useless, but discovered that atISOkm/h (112mph) the KhAI-4 could just be-come airborne provided the airfield wasbumpy! Once in the air he found that thedownthrust of the propeller (because of itssloping thrust axis) resulted in a poor rate ofclimb, while the small moment arm of theelevens made longitudinal control extremelypoor. To cap it all, the wingtip surfaces, awayfrom the slipstream, were ineffective, makingthe aircraft directionally unstable. Kudrin wasable to creep round the circuit by holding thecontrol column neutral, and to land at highspeed with a small angle of attack, not tryingto raise the nose. He did fly the KhAI-4 twicemore, but that was enough.

The KhAI-4 tested several ideas and evenactual components which were later builtinto the larger Aviavnito-3. Its objective was toexplore handing of a tailless machine, andalso one with a castoring nosewheel (the firstsuch landing gear in the Soviet Union). Aero-dynamically it comprised a short central na-celle on a wing tapered on the leading edge,fitted with various controls. Initially the winghad six trailing-edge surfaces, all operateddifferentially by rotation of the pilot's hand-wheel. A push/pull movement operated thetwo innermost surfaces, which were thuselevens. Movement of the pedals operatedrudders on the wingtip fins. Later swept-backwings with distinct ailerons and elevatorswere tested, and the drawing even shows theaddition of small fixed foreplanes. Despite thedifference in size and weight the engine wasthe same type of l00hp M-ll as used for theAviavnito-3, but driving a pusher propeller.The short landing gears had balloon tyres, themain shock struts having a hydraulic con-necting pipe so that, if one wheel went over abump, the other leg would extend to hold thewings level and avoid scraping the tip. Theconstruction was wood, but with overall fab-ric covering. The nacelle had two seats intandem.

The Kharkov designers deliberately em-barked on this tricky and untried layout, butfailed to make it work. Dropping the idea wasprobably largely due to the pilot's wish tosurvive.

Dimensions

Span(new wing)

Length(new wing)

Wing area(new wing)

WeightsEmpty(new wing)

Fuel/oil

Loaded(new wing)

Performance

Max speed attemptedCalculated service ceiling

Design range

Landing speed

12.0m

10.9m

4.2m4.75m21.25nfunchanged

550 kg600kg120kg

850kgunchanged

ISOkm/h

3,250m

600kml00km/h

39 ft 4H in

35 ft m in13 ft 9% in

15 ft 7 in

229ft2

1,213 Ibl,3231b

265 Ibl,8741b

112 mph10,663ft

373 miles62 mph

Two views of KhAI-4 (without foreplane).

75

K H A R K O V K h A I - 4 / K h A I - 2

KhAI-4: (a) with swept-back wing; (b) with a fixed foreplane.

Kharkov KhAI-2Purpose: To build a turbojet aircraft.Design Bureau: Arkhip M Lyul'ka andA P Yeremenko, working at KharkovAviation Institute.

This drawing was discovered in 1993. Itshows a small aircraft proposed by Yere-menko to test the first turbojet designed byLyul'ka, who later became one of the SovietUnion's greatest jet engineers. There are twopuzzles: the designation KhAI-2 is conspicu-ously absent from the official history of theKhAI published in 1990; and this designationwas in any case used for the Institute's modi-fication of the Po-2 (likewise not mentionedin the book, perhaps because it was not anoriginal Kharkov design). The drawing showsthe centrifugal turbojet (which Lyul'ka hadnot made but calculated to give 525kg[l,1571b] thrust) fed by a ventral inlet, withthe nozzle under the rear fuselage. It also sug-gests that the cockpit could be jettisoned inemergency. Co-author Gunston believes thedate must have been rather later than 1936,but this can still claim to have been theworld's first design for a jet aircraft.

KhAI-2

76

DimensionsSpanLength

6.95m7.2m

22 ft 9% in23 ft 7Vm

K O S T I K O V 302, Ko-3

Kostikov 302, Ko-3Purpose: Simple jet (rocket + ramjet)fighter.Design Bureau: RNII (reaction-enginescientific research institute) and OKB No 55.

By 1940 the idea of the PVRD (ramjet) was fa-miliar in the Soviet Union, mainly to boost thespeed of piston-engined fighters. In 1940 Pro-fessor Mikhail Tikhonravov, on the RNII staff,had the better idea of making a simpler andlighter fighter with a ZhRD (liquid-propellantrocket) in the tail and PVRDs under the wings.This could put together various things alreadydeveloped in the Soviet Union to create whatmight have been a cheap and quickly pro-duced fighter which, apart from short rangeand endurance, would have had outstandingperformance. Unfortunately, perhaps be-cause it appeared unconventional, this pro-ject suffered from endless argument andfoot-dragging, finally falling victim to a deci-sion to abandon all such aircraft. According toShavrov, 'The proposal did not attract any ob-jections from A G Kostikov, Director of theRNII. It was continued as a preliminary pro-ject, and approved by the Technical Councilof the RNII in spring 1941. It was later exam-ined by a commission of specialists at theWA' (air force academy). This commission,comprising S A Christianovich, A V Chesalov,S N Shishkin, V I Polikovskii and others, pro-claimed that This project does not bring outanything new'. Work proceeded at a snail'space, and Kostikov then took the proposal tothe NKAP (state commissariat for aviation in-dustry), where Tikhonravov defended it on17-18th July 1942. In November 1942 Kostikovshowed the proposal to K E Voroshilov, andeventually Stalin himself gave authority forwork to resume, appointing Kostikov chiefdesigner. From this time onwards many doc-uments called the project 'Ko-3'. Funding was

Top: 302 with PVRD engines.

Below: Two views of 302.

provided for two prototypes, and to buildthese the RNII set up OKB-55, appointing asdirector M R Bisnovat (see earlier) andA A Andreyev as his deputy. Tikhonravov didthe aerodynamic calculations, while stress-ing was in the hands of V D Yarovitskii. Byspring 1943 two 302 aircraft were almostcompleted. Testing in the T-104 tunnel atCAHI (TsAGI) began at this time. In 1943 theoriginal proposed ramjets were changed to anew design by Vladimir Stepanovich Zuyev.These were initially tested in a half-scaleform, but full-scale testing was never carriedout. After much argument it was decided toforget the ramjets and complete the aircraftas the 302 P (Perekhvatchik, interceptor) withthe rocket only. The PVRD attachments underthe wings were faired over, and the wing spanreduced. This was flight-tested as a glider atthe LII from August 1943, towed to altitude bya North American B-25 and Tu-2. The as-signed pilot was initially S N Anokhin, fol-lowed by M L Gallai and B N Kudrin, withV N Yelagin as test engineer. The 302P wasfound to be 'exceptionally good, stable andpleasant to fly', and in March 1944 the second302P was being tested in the T-104 tunnel atCAHI. In the same month the whole pro-gramme was cancelled. A recent Russianmagazine article about the 302 omits anymention of Tikhonravov.

The 302 was made mainly of wood, with amonocoque fuselage and smooth skin of

Delta and Shpon veneers bonded by Bakelite-type plastics. The wings had 15-per-centRAF.34 profile at the root, tapering to 8-per-cent NACA-230 near the pointed tip. In con-trast, the control surfaces were of Dl alloywith fabric covering, the starboard aileron,rudder and both elevators having trim tabs.The rocket engine was a Dushkin/ShtokolovD-1A with a main chamber rated at 1,100kg(2,4251b) at sea level and a cruise chamberrated at 450kg (992 Ib). Under the wings wereto have been installed the ramjets, but infor-mation on these Zuyev units is lacking. Theirnacelles were to have been oval, with themajor axis horizontal, faired neatly into thewing. The all-rocket 302P had tanks for1,230kg (2,712 Ib) of RFNA (concentrated ni-tric acid) and 505kg (1,113 Ib) of kerosene.The cockpit, which was to have been pres-surized, had a canopy hinged to the right anda bulletproof windscreen and frontal armour.The main and tailwheel landing gears were tohave been retracted hydraulically, and thesame system would have operated the splitflaps. No documents have been found de-scribing how the environmental and hy-draulic systems would have been energised.Two 20mm ShVAK cannon were to havebeen mounted in the nose and two more inthe bottom of the forward fuselage, each with100 rounds. In addition, there was to havebeen provision for underwing racks for RS-82or RS-132 rockets or two FAB-125 bombs.

77

K O S T I K O V 302 , Ko-3 / K O R O L Y O V R P - 3 1 8 - 1

With the benefit of hindsight this appears tohave been a considerable case of 'might havebeen'. Kostikov was a political animal whosaw in Tikhonravov's proposal a means togain advancement and power. Instead, in1944 a commission headed by A S Yakovlevfound him responsible for the failure of the302 to develop on schedule; he was dis-missed from his post and later imprisoned.

Dimensions (302)Span (302)length (excluding guns)wing area (302)

11.4m8.708m17.8m2

WeightsEmpty (302) 1,856kgLoaded not stated, but about 3,800 kg

PerformanceMax speed at sea level,at altitude

Time to climb to 5 kmto 9 km

Service ceilingRangeTake-off in 16 seconds at

Dimensions (302P)SpanLength (excluding guns)Wing area

WeightsEmptyLoaded

800 km/h900 km/h2.1 min2.8 min18km100km200 km/h

9.55m8.708m14.8m2

1,502kg3,358kg

PerformanceThe only measured figure for the 302Pwas a landing speed of 115 km/h

37 ft Min28 ft &, in192ft2

4,092 Ib8,377 Ib

497 mph559 mph(16,404ft)(29,528 ft)59,055ft62 miles124 mph

31 ft 4 in28 ft 6% in159ft2

3,31 lib7,403 Ib

71. 5 mph

302P

78

302P in CAHI (TsAGI) wind tunnel.

K O R O L Y O V 302, Ko-3

Above: 302 with PVRD engines. Below: 302P inboard profile.

79

K O R O L Y O V R P - 3 1 8 - 1

Korolyov RP-318-1Purpose: To test a liquid-propellant rocketengine in flight.Design Bureau: RNII, rocket-engine scientificresearch institute; head of winged-aircraftdepartment Sergei Pavlovich Korolyov.

Korolyov was a pioneer of light aircraft and,especially, high-performance gliders before,in early 1930s, concentrating on rocketry. In1934 he schemed the RP-218, a high-altituderocket aircraft with a two-seat pressure cabinand spatted main landing gear. The engineswere eventually to have comprised three RD-1, derived from the ORM-65 (see below), andin a later form the structure was refined andthe landing gear made retractable. The RP-218 was never completed, partly because Ko-rolyov was assigned to assist development ofthe BICh-11 (see under Cheranovskii). In1935 he produced his SK-9 two-seat glider,and suggested that this could be a usefulrocket test-bed. In 1936, in his absence onother projects, A Ya Shcherbakov andA V Pallo began converting this glider as theflight test-bed for the ORM-65. This was fired20 times on the bench and nine times in Ko-rolyov's RP-212 cruise missile before being in-stalled in the RP-318 and fired on the groundfrom 16th December 1937. The ORM-65 was

then replaced by the RDA-I-150 Nol, clearedto propel a manned aircraft. This engine wasrepeatedly tested on the ground, and thenflew (without being fired) in four towedflights in October 1939. After further tests theRP-318 was towed off on 28th February 1940by an R-5 flown by Fikson, with Shcherbakovand Pallo as passengers in the R-5. The SK-9was released at 2,800m, and then glideddown to 2,600m where pilot VladimirPavlovich Fedorov fired the rocket. The SK-9accelerated from 80 to 140km/h on the leveland then climbed to 2,900m, the engine stop-ping after 110 seconds. Fedorov finally landedon a designated spot. Shavrov: This flight wasof great significance for Russia's rocket en-gines'. Much later Korolyov became the ar-chitect of the vast Soviet space programme.

The RP-318-1 was based on the SK-9, ashapely sailplane of mainly wooden con-struction. The rear seat was replaced by a ver-tical Dl light-alloy tank for 10kg (22 Ib) ofkerosene, and immediately behind this weretwo vertical stainless-steel tanks projectingup between the wing spars each holding 20kg(441b)of RFNA (red fuming nitric acid). Therocket engine and its pressurized gas feedand complex control system were installed inthe rear fuselage, the thrust chamber being

beneath the slightly modified rudder. TheRDA-I-150 was a refined version of the ORM-65, designed jointly by V P Glushko andL S Dushkin. Design thrust was 70 to 140kg atsea level, the figure actually achieved beingabout 100kg (220.5 Ib). An additional ski wasadded under the fuselage.

This modest programme appears to havehad a major influence on the development ofSoviet rocket aircraft.

DimensionsSpan

LengthWing area

WeightsEmpty

Propellants

Loaded

PerformanceRestricted by airframe to

17.0m7.44m

22.0m2

570kg75kg

700kg

165km/h

55 ft 914 in

24 ft 5 in237ft2

l,2571b1651b

1, 54315

102.5 mph

Three-view of unbuiltRP-218, with side elevation

of RP-318-1.

80

K O R O L Y O V R P - 3 1 8 - 1

Unbuilt later RP-218 project with longer span,new tail and retractable landing gear.

Two views of RP-318-1.

81

K O Z L O V PS

Kozlov PSPurpose: To make an invisible aeroplane.Design Bureau: Zhukovskii WA, Soviet airforce academy; designer Professor SergeiKozlov.

Professor Kozlov was eager to see to what de-gree it would be possible to construct a'transparent' aeroplane, difficult to see (forexample, by enemies on the ground). In 1933a preliminary experiment was made with a U-2 biplane whose rear fuselage and tail werestripped of fabric and re-covered with a trans-parent foil called Cellon (unrelated to theBritish company of that name). In 1935 theWA was assigned Yakovlev's second AIR-4,which already had experimental status. Theairframe was completely stripped of all cov-ering and internal equipment, and reassem-bled as described below. Though it wascalled the Nevidimyi Samolyot, invisible aero-

plane, it received the unexplained officialdesignation of PS. It first flew on 25th July1935.

The AIR-4, one of A S Yakovlev's first de-signs, was a neat parasol monoplane, firstflown in 1930. Powered by a 60hp Walter NZ-60 five-cylinder radial, it had two seats in tan-dem. The structure was almost entirelywood, with skin of ply and fabric. The pairs ofwing bracing struts were mild-steel sheetwrapped round to an aerofoil section 64 x32mm (21/2 x l!4in). Of course, Kozlov coulddo nothing to hide these struts, nor the rub-ber-sprung divided main landing gears, or theengine, fuel tank and other parts. Virtually thewhole airframe was covered in a Frenchtransparent plastic called Rodoid. This wascut from sheet, each panel being drilled andsecured by aluminium rivets inserted througheyelets. As far as possible the opaque parts

were painted silver-white.The PS was officially judged to have

achieved results which had 'a measure of im-portance'. Apart from the invisibility effect,the transparent skin was also held to improvethe field of view of the occupants, and Kozlovdid preliminary studies for a transparent re-connaissance aircraft. On a low-level flypastthe PS was said to be not easily seen exceptby chance, though of course observers couldnarrow the field of search from judging thesource of the aircraft's sound. After a fewweeks, however, the foil skin was of little use,partly because of progressive darkening bysolar radiation and partly because of the ef-fect of dust and oil droplets from the engine.

DimensionsSpan H . l mLength 6.94 mWing area 16.5m2

WeightsEmpty (originally 394 kg)as PS probably about 450 kg

Loaded originally 630 kg

PerformanceMaximum speed originally 1 50 km/h

(probably slightly reduced)

No other helpful data for modified aircraft.

36 ft 5 in22 ft 9^ in178ft2

992 Ibl,3891b

93 mph

Left: PS accompanied by a U-2.

AIR-4, the basis of the PS.

82

Kozlov El

K O Z L O V E l

Purpose: To evaluate a fighter with avariable-incidence wing.Design Bureau: Zhukovskii WA, Soviet airforce academy; design team led byProfessor S G Kozlov.

Kozlov was perpetually seeking after newtargets, and one that he had considered formany years was the pivoted wing, able tochange its angle of incidence. Thus, for ex-ample, the aircraft could take off or landwith a large angle of attack yet with the fuse-lage level. Four Russian designers had madeunsuccessful variable-incidence aircraft in1916-17. Design of the El (EksperimentalnyiIstrebitel, experimental fighter) began in1939. Under Kozlov's direction the wing wasdesigned by V S Chulkovand the landing gearby M M Shishmarev. D O Gurayev was assis-tant chief designer, and S N Kan and IASverdlov handled the stressing. The single Elwas constructed at a factory in the Moscowdistrict, but its completion was seriously de-

layed, mainly by technical difficulties and re-peated alteration of the drawings. At last theEl was almost complete in autumn 1941, buton 16th October the factory was evacuated.The El and all drawings were destroyed.

The El was said to have been a good-look-ing single-seat fighter, powered by a 1,650hpM-107 (VK-107) liquid-cooled engine. Thefuselage was a Duralumin stressed-skin semi-monocoque of oval section, with heavy ar-mament around the engine. The wings hadspars with steel T-booms and Duraluminwebs, with glued shpon (Birch veneer) skin.The wing was fitted with flaps and differentialailerons, and was mounted on ball-bearingtrunnions on the front spar and driven by anirreversible Acme-thread jack acting on the

While no illustration has been found of the El,this 1940 drawing recently came to light showing afighter project with a more powerful engine(M-106P) and greater span.

rear spar. To avoid problems it is believed themain landing gears were attached to the fuse-lage and retracted into fuselage compart-ments. No other details survive.

There is no reason to believe that the Elwould not have met its designer's objectives,but equally it had little chance of being ac-cepted for production. The only successfulvariable-incidence aircraft was the VoughtF8U (F-8) Crusader.

83

DimensionsSpan

No other data.

9.2m 30 ft 2K in

L a G G - 3 / 2 V R D / L A V O C H K I N L a - 7 P V R D A N D L a - 9 R D

LaGG-3/2 VRD

Purpose: To investigate the use of ramjetsto boost fighter performance.Design Bureau: The OKB of Lavochkin,Gorbunov and Gudkov (LaGG).

Unknown to the outside world, the SovietUnion was the pioneer of ramjet propulsion.Such engines are essentially simple ducts,with air rammed in at the front inlet, slowedin an expanding diffuser, mixed with burning

fuel and expelled at high speed through a rearconverging section and nozzle. In 1939M M Bondaryuk, at NIl-GVF OKB-3 (civil airfleet research construction bureau No 3) firstran an experimental subsonic ramjet. In Au-gust 1942 a pair of much further developedversions were attached under the wings ofLaGG-3 fighter No 31213173 and tested in theair from 5th August. Test pilot CaptainMishenko made 14 flights. Results were indif-

ferent, but provided a background of data forlater ramjet work, collated by M V Keldysh.

The LaGG-3 was a mass-produced fighterof all-wood construction, powered by an M-105PF engine. The first Bondaryuk ramjets tofly were designated VRD-1, and were testedin two forms. The original was a plain steelduct with a diameter of 140mm (51/2in), lengthof 2,150mm (7ft 1/2in) and weight of 16kg(35.31b). The boosted (forsirovannyi) versionhad a diameter of 170mm (6%in) and lengthof 1,900mm (6ft Sin), but weighed the same.Fuel from the three main aircraft tanks wassupplied by a special BNK-10 pump with aproportioner to supply both ramjets equally.

Results were sufficiently interesting to jus-tify further work, starting with the VRD (orPVRD) 430 (see page 89). In parallel Merkulovwas developing the DM-4 and similar ramjets,tested on the I-153 and I-207.

Dimensions

Span 9.81 mLength 8.82 m

Wing area 17.62m2

Weight and performance not recorded.

32 ft 2 in

28 ft m in189.7ft2

Lavochkin La-7PVRD and La-9RDPurpose: To investigate the use of pulsejetsto boost fighter performance.Design Bureau: The OKB of Semyon ALavochkin.

In 1942 Vladimir N Chelomey, working atTsIAM (Central Institute of Aviation Motors)began bench-testing the first pulsejet in theSoviet Union. This was independent of workby the German Argus company, which be-cause of Soviet secrecy became famed as thepioneer of such engines. The Soviet unit re-ceived two designations, D-10 and RD-13. In1946 the first two flight-cleared D-10 engineswere hung under the wings of a slightly mod-ified La-7, which was designated La-7PVRD.In the second half of 1947 a second pair, des-ignated RD-13, were flown under the wings ofan La-9, which misleadingly received the des-ignation La-9RD. Despite the fact that the pro-gramme had already been abandoned, eightfurther La-9 fighters were fitted with these en-gines, and all nine made a deafening forma-tion flypast at the Tushino Aviation Day.

Left: La-7/2D-10.

84

La-7PVRD, also calledLa-7D-10orLa-7/2D-10

L A V O C H K I N L a - 7 P V R D A N D L a - 9 R D

The D-10 pulsejet appears to have beenheavier than the German 109-014 unit of sim-ilar size, though weight data are lacking. Theduct was mainly aluminium at the front andsteel to the rear of the fuel injectors. Fuel wasdrawn from the main aircraft tanks and igni-tion was electrical. The unit was suspendedfrom a shallow pylon projecting ahead of thewing leading edge with two main attach-ments, with a steadying attachment at therear. Apart from the pulsejet instrumentationand control system a few modifications wereneeded to the aircraft, the main one being toremove a large portion of flap above thepulsejet jetpipe. No data are available de-scribing how thrust varied with airspeed orheight; Shavrov merely gives the thrust of asingle D-10 as 200kg (44 lib).

Though these pulsejets performed as ex-pected, they significantly added to aircraftweight and drag, and reduced manoeuvrabil-ity, especially rate of roll. In addition, the vio-lent vibration transmitted to the aircraft'made flying difficult' and was very unpopularwith pilots.

Dimensions (La-7PVRD)SpanLengthWing area

WeightsEmptyLoaded

9.8m8.6m17.59m2

2,998kg3,701 kg

32 ft \% in28 ft n in189ft2

6,609 Ib8,159 Ib

PerformanceMaximum speed, according to Shavrov the calculated speeds were800 km/h at 6,000 m and 715 km/h at 8,000 m, whereas the actualspeeds at these heights were 670 km/h (416 mph) and 620 km/h(385 mph), or marginally lower than without the pulsejets!

Dimensions (La-9RD)SpanLengthWing area

WeightsEmptyLoaded

9.8m8.63m17.72m2

3,150kg3,815kg

32ftP/Un28 ft 3% in

191 ft2

6,944 Ib8,410 Ib

PerformanceMaximum speed, the calculated gain was 127 km/h, but Shavrovgives the actual achieved speed as 674 km/h (419 mph), 16 km/hslower than the original La-9.

La-9RD, also called La-9D-13orLa-9/2D-13

Right: Three views of La-9RD.

85

L A V O C H K I N L a - 7 R A N D ' 1 2 0 R '

Lavochkin La 7R and '120R'Purpose: To use a rocket engine to boost afighter's flight performance.Design Bureau: OKB of Semyon ALavochkin.

By early 1944 the all-wood La-5 fighter hadgiven way in production to the La-7, withmetal spars and other modifications. The en-gine remained the ASh-82FN 14-cylinder radi-al rated at 1,600hp. One of the first productionaircraft was fitted with an RD-1 rocket enginein order to boost its performance, especiallyat extreme altitudes where the ASh-82 familyof engines were less impressive. The installa-tion was completed in the late autumn of1944, and ground testing occupied nineweeks. In the last week of the year the as-signed pilot, Georgii M Shiyanov, began theflight-test programme. Together withAVDavydov the La-7R was flown 15 timeswithout serious malfunction, though the pro-

Above: Ground test of '120R' rocket engine.

Opposite: Two views of La-7R.

gramme had to be abandoned because ofprogressive weakening of the rear fuselage byvapour and accidental spillage of the acid.Testing was continued with the RD-lKhZ in-stalled in a second La-7R in early 1945. Brieftesting was also carried out with a similar en-gine installed in the '120R'. On 18th August1946 this aircraft excited spectators at the Avi-ation Day at Tushino by making a low flypastwith the rocket in operation.

Both the La-7R test aircraft were originallystandard production fighters. The RD-1 wasone of the world's first liquid-propellant rock-et engines to fly in a manned aircraft, the de-signer being V P Glushko. The thrust chamberwas mounted on a framework of weldedsteel tubes carried behind a modified rearfuselage frame, which merged at the top intothe fin trailing edge. To accommodate therocket the lower part of the rudder was re-moved. In the fuselage behind the cockpitwere a stainless-steel tank for 180 litres (39.6Imperial gallons) of RFNA (concentrated redfuming nitric acid) and 90 litres (19.8 Imperi-al gallons) of kerosene. These propellantswere supplied by a turbopump energised byhot gas bled from the main thrust chamber.The turbine had a governed speed of26,000rpm, and drove pumps for the two pro-pellants plus lubricating oil and water sup-plied from a small tank to cool the turbine andthrust chamber walls. Mass of the installationwas approximately 100kg (220 Ib), or 215kg(474 Ib) complete with propellants and water.The basic RD-1 had electrical ignition, whilethe RD-1 KhZ had automatic chemical ignitionfrom hypergolic liquids. The rocket was of theon/off type, cut in or out by a switch on themain throttle lever. It could not be varied inthrust (300kg, 661 Ib, at sea level), but couldbe shut off before the tanks were empty, nor-

mal duration being 3 to 31/2min. Both La-7R air-craft retained their armament of two UB-20cannon. The ' 120R' differed in having an ASh-83 engine, rated at 1,900hp, armament of twoNS-23 guns and in other details.

Together with such other aircraft as the Pe-2RD and Yak-3RD these test-beds confirmedthe value of a rocket engine in boosting per-formance at high altitude. On the other handthey also confirmed that RFNA is not compat-ible with a wooden structure, and in any casethe value of three minutes of boost was con-sidered questionable.

Dimensions (both)SpanLengthWing area

Weights (La-7R)EmptyFuel and propellantsLoaded

Weights ('120R')EmptyFuel and propellantsLoaded

9.8m8.6m17.59m2

2,703kg.604kg3,500kg

2,770kg470kg3,470kg

32 ft IK in28 ft TM189ft2

5,959 Ibl,3321b7,716 Ib

6,107 Ibl,0361b7,650 Ib

A standard La-7 typically had empty and loaded weights of 2,600kgand 3,260 kg

Performance(La-7R) generally unchanged, but maximum speed at 6 km (19,685ft) altitude was increased from 680 km/h (422.5 mph) to 752 km/h(467 mph).Service ceiling was increased from 10,700 m (35,105 ft) to 13,000 m(42,651 ft).The only figure recorded for the '120R' is a speed (height unstated)of 725 km/h (450.5 mph), but this speed (at 7,400 m) is alsorecorded for the unboosted '120'.

120R'

86

L A V O C H K I N L a - 7 R A N D ' 1 2 0 R ' / ' 1 6 4 ' ( L a - 1 2 6 P V R D ) A N D '138 ' ( 1 3 0 P V R D - 4 3 0 )

Lavochkin '164' (La-126PVRD) and '138' (130PVRD-430)Purpose: To test the use of ramjets to boostpropulsion of a fighter.Design Bureau: The OKB of S A Lavochkin.

By 1942 M M Bondaryuk had achieved reli-able operation with the VRD-430. By this timethis refined subsonic ramjet had flown over200 times on test-bed aircraft. In early 1946two were attached under the wings of ' 126', aslightly modified La-7, to produce the La-126PVRD, given the OKB number '164'. Theassigned pilot was A V Davidov, and he testedthis aircraft between June and September1946.

The VRD-430 was a simple ramjet designedfor subsonic operation. It was made mainly ofsteel, and had a diameter of 400mm (1ft 3%in).

Able to burn almost any thin hydrocarbonfuel, including high-octane petrol (gasoline),it had a thrust in the region of 300kg (661 Ib),but performance data for this engine have notbeen found, neither have details of its fueland control system. The La-126 was based onthe La-7 but had a completely metal stressed-skin airframe, a new wing of so-called lami-nar profile, a modified canopy and manyother changes, including the devastating ar-mament of four NS-23 guns firing projectileswith more than twice the mass of the 20mmShVAK. The La-138 was basically an La-9fighter, in which the new wing and armamentof the La-126 were matched with a com-pletely redesigned fuselage. As before, aVRD-430 ramjet was hung under each wing,

to produce the '164'. The '138' was the desig-nation of the '130' after it had been fitted withtwo VRD-430 ramjets. It emerged in this format the end of 1946, and flight tested 20 timesbetween March and August 1947. Very fewdetails survive regarding this aircraft, possiblybecause in the turbojet era it did not appearto be important.

The VRD-430 demonstrated its ability toboost speed (see below) but at the expenseof high fuel consumption and a serious in-crease in drag when the ramjets were notbeing used. It is not clear why the La-126PVRD speed was 'boosted by 64km/h' bythe ramjets, while the corresponding figurefor the La-138 was almost twice as great.

87

L A V O C H K I N ' 1 6 4 ' ( L a - 1 2 6 P V R D A N D '138 ' ( 1 3 0 P V R D - 4 3 0 )

La-126PVRD, also called La-7/2PVRD-430or La-164.

La-138, also called La-130/2PVRD-430.

Top left and right, bottom left: Three views of La-126PVRD

Bottom right: La-138.

88

Dimensions (164)SpanLengthWing area

WeightsEmptyLoaded

9.8m8.64m17.59m2

2,710kg3,275kg

PerformanceMax speed at 2,340 m (7,678 ft) 694 km/hRange with brief VRD usage 730 kmLanding speed 145.6 km/h/run 688 m

32 ft 1% in28 ft 41i in189.3ft2

5,974lb7,22011)

431 mph454 miles90.5 mph2,257 ft

Dimensions (138)Span 9.8m 32 ft \% inLength 8.625 m 28 ft 3^ inWing area 17.59nf 189.3ft2

WeightsEmpty 3,104kg 6,843 IbLoaded 3,730kg 8,223 Ib

PerformanceMax speed at 6,000 m (19,685 ft) 760 km/h 472 mphwhich does not quite equate with the contemporary claim of'boosted by 107-1 12 km/h'Range with brief VRD usage 1,100km 683.5 milesTake-off run 450m 1,476ftLanding speed 139 km/h 86.4 mph

M A I E M A I - 1

MAI EMAI-1

E-MAI-l

Purpose: To see whether a safe aeroplanecould be constructed from magnesium.Design Bureau: Moscow Aviation Institute.

As magnesium has a density of 1.74, com-pared with 2.7 for aluminium and almost 8 fortypical steels, it seemed reasonable to theMAI management to investigate its use as aprimary structural material. In 1932 such aproject was authorised by Director A M Be-lenkovich and the GUAP (civil aviation min-istry), and a year later a design team wasassembled under Professors S I Zonshainand A L Gimmelfarb, with construction led byN F Chekhonin. A neat four-seat low-wingmonoplane was quickly designed, and flownabout 600 times in 1934-39. It was also stati-cally tested at (CAHI) TsAGI.

The EMAI was also known as the E-MAI,Elektron MAI, EMAI-1, E-l, EMAI-I-34 andSergo Ordzhonikidze. Elektron is the name ofthe alloy with Al, Mn and Zn, considerablystronger than pure Mg, which was used formost of the airframe. The straight-taperedwings were based on Steiger's Monosparprinciples, with the ribs and single spar builtup from square and tubular sections. The en-tire trailing edge was hinged, forming aileronsand plain flaps. The well-profiled fuselagewas largely skinned in Elektron, the wingsand tail being covered in fabric. On the nose

was the Salmson seven-cylinder radial en-gine, rated at 175hp, in a ring cowl and drivinga two-blade propeller. The strut-bracedtailplane was mounted high on the fin, andthe rubber-sprung main landing gears hadspats. The cockpit was covered by one slidingand one hinged canopy. Most of the structurewas welded, but many joints were bolted sothat they could be dismantled.

The EMAI-1 was judged to be a comple suc-cess, with a structure weight '42 per centlower than using aluminium, steel tube orwood'. The fire risk was not considered a se-rious hazard, and according to MAI the mainreason for not taking the use of Elektron fur-ther was because in the USSR there was notenough spare electric power available to pro-duce the magnesium.

89

DimensionsSpanLengthWing area

WeightsEmptyFuel and oilLoaded

PerformanceMaximum speedRangeLanding speed

12.0m7.03m20.0 m2

700kg165kg1,200kg

227 km/h800km75 km/h

39 ft 4!4 in23f t 3 /4 in215ft2

l,5431b364 Ib2,646 Ib

141 mph497 miles46.6 mph

M A I - 6 2 A N D M A I - 6 3

MAI-62 and MAI-63Purpose: To investigate light flying-wingaircraft.Design Bureau: Moscow Aviation Institute.

In 1958 the academic faculty of the Institutedecided to carry out a major investigation intoLK (Letayushcheye Krylo, flying wing) air-craft. The programme began with the LK-MAIglider and the MAI-59 ultralight, but these re-mained on the drawing board. Extensive tun-nel testing of models led to a configurationwith a broad diamond or lozenge-shapedcentre section and swept outer panels whichat their tips turned back (sweepback 90°) toterminate in surfaces doubling as airbrakesand as elevens. The MAI-62 was designed andbuilt in 196I-62, but it was not flown until in1965 AI Pietsukh attempted a take-off. Dur-

ing the long run the engine seriously over-heated and ran intermittently, and the take-off was abandoned. The MAI-63 gliderfollowed in 1963, first flown in 1964 byAI Pietsukh. In 1965 an engine was fitted, toproduce the MAI-63M, but again the engineproved 'unsteady' and the aircraft never flewin this form.

Both the MAI-62 and MAI-63 were made al-most entirely of wood, with birch ply veneercovering. Both had a single-seat cockpit witha sideways-hinged canopy, cable-operatedwingtip elevons which could split into upperand lower halves to act as airbrakes, andfixed nosewheel landing gear. The MAI-62was powered by a Khirt air-cooled engine of80hp driving a two-blade pusher propeller.The years 1962-65 were spent tinkering with

the details of the wings, which had a leading-edge sweep of 45° (shown in drawings as50°), adding or subtracting various fences,inboard flaps, trim tabs and servo tabs. Re-leased photographs carefully avoided show-ing these surfaces. The MAI-63 had a muchgreater span, with leading-edge sweep re-duced to 25°, and two different forms of splittip airbrakes supplemented by constant-chord hinged trailing edges to the main wing.The engine of the MAI-63M was a VP-760,rated at 23hp.

One is left wondering whether the failure ofthese aircraft to fly was really due to the en-gine or to doubts about their controllability.

Below left: MAI-62.

Bottom: MAI-63.

Development of the MAI 'LK' series

Dimensions MAI-62

Span 5.0 mlength 5.0 mwing area 6.0 m2

Weight empty 250 kgloaded 380 kgPerformance not measured.

Dimensions MAI-63M

Span 12.6mlength not recorded;wing area 9.0 m2

Weight and performance data not recorded.

16ft45Un16 ft 43/ in64.6ft2

551 Ib838 Ib

41 ft 4 in

96.9 ft2

90

M I K H E L ' S O N M P

Mikhel'son MPPurpose: To build a faster torpedo-carryingaircraft.Design Bureau: Factory No 3 KrasnyiLyotchik 'Red Flyer', Leningrad, see below.

The designation MP derived from MorskoiPodvesnoi, naval suspended. The reasoningbegan with the belief that to attack a heavilydefended ship called for a small and agile air-craft with high performance, but that such anaircraft could not have a long range. Accord-ingly engineer N Val'ko suggested carryingthe attack aircraft under a large long-rangeaeroplane in the manner pioneered byVakhmistrov. In 1936 this concept was ac-cepted by the VMF (war air fleet) and as-signed to N G Mikhel'son in partnership withAI Morshchikhin, with assistance fromVakhmistrov. The design was completed byVVNikitin (see page 145). According toShavrov 'During prototype construction nu-merous problems arose, and since half couldnot be solved it was decided to discontinuedevelopment'. In fact, by 1938 the MP wasready for flight, but the political atmosphere(the Terror) was so frightening that nobodydared to sanction the start of flight testing incase anything went wrong. The MP was ac-cordingly given to the Pioneers' Palace.

The MP was superficially arranged like afighter, with an 860hp Hispano-Suiza 12Ybrsengine driving a three-blade propeller andcooled by a radiator in the top of the fuselagebehind the cockpit. The airframe was madealmost entirely from duralumin, though thebasis of the fuselage was a truss of weldedCr-Mo steel tube. The cockpit was enclosedand featured the then-fashionable forward-sloping windscreen. Flight-control surfaceswere covered in fabric. The 45-36-AN, a full-size 553mm torpedo, was carried in a largerecess under the fuselage. For ground ma-noeuvring the aircraft had wheeled mainlanding gear and a tailskid. The main gears re-tracted upwards, the shock struts travellingoutwards along tracks in the wing. Theloaded MP was to be hoisted under a TB-3carrier aircraft and carried close to the target,such as an enemy fleet. The engine wouldthen be started and the aircraft released, withthe TB-3 in a dive to increase speed at release.The MP would then aim its torpedo and flyback to its coastal base. Before landing, thepilot would engage a mechanism whichwould raise the engine 20° upwards. The MPcould then alight on the water and taxi to itsmooring. The water landing was facilitated bythe high position of the horizontal tail and the

location of the engine radiator on top of therear fuselage. The unladen aircraft was de-signed to float with the wings just resting onthe water (see front view drawing), the wingsserving as stabilizing sponsons.

There is no reason to doubt that thisscheme might have proved practicable. Oneof the drawings shows in side elevation a pro-posed faster next-generation aircraft devel-oped from the MP.

Dimensions

SpanLength aboutWing area

WeightsEmpty aboutLoaded

8.5m8.0m20.0m2

2,200 kg3,200 kg

27 ft 10% in26 ft 3 in215ft2

4,850 Ib7,055 Ib

Performance not recorded.

MP, with additional side view of projected high-speed development.

Mikhel'son MP

91

M I K H E L ' S O N M P / M i G - 8 U T K A

Above and right: Details of engine and radiator (both marked 'secret').

MiG-8 UtkaPurpose: To create a safe and easily flownlight aeroplane.Design Bureau: OKB-155 of AI Mikoyan.

Previously famous for a succession of high-performance fighters, the MiG bureau beganto relax as the Great Patriotic War ended.Without any requirement from GUAP,Aeroflot or anywhere else, its principals de-cided to investigate the design of a light air-

MiG-8 original configuration.

craft with an M-ll engine which could re-place the Po-2 (originally designated U-2) asa machine which could be safely flown byany pilot from almost any field. The projectwas assigned to students at the WA (airforce academy) under Col (later Professor)G A Tokayev. The OKB kept a close watch onthe design, and soon judged that its slightlyswept wing could be useful in assisting thedesign of future jet fighters. The main ele-ments of the design were settled by July 1945,and thereafter construction was rapid. Theaircraft was named Utka (duck) because ofits canard configuration. Aleksandr IvanovichZhukov made the first flight on 19th Novem-ber 1945. The wingtip fins and rudders provedunsatisfactory, and for the next six monthsthe MiG-8 was modified repeatedly, as ex-plained below. Its flight testing was handledby OKB pilot Aleksei Nikolayevich Grinchik,assisted by I Ivashchenko and other pilots ofthe LII MAP (Ministry Flight Research Insti-tute). By the summer of 1946 the MiG-8 wasconsidered more or less perfect. No explana-tion is available for the fact that this aircraftnever went into production as the Po-2 re-placement. The MiG-8 was used for manyyears as the OKB's communications aircraft,and also as a test-bed for various kinds of re-search.

The MiG-8 was a small cabin aircraft distin-guished by a pusher engine at the tail, a ca-nard foreplane and a high-mounted wing atthe rear. Construction was of wood, mainlypine, with ply skin over the fuselage, wingleading edge and fixed foreplane. The winghad Clark Y-H section, with a thickness/chordratio of 12 per cent. In plan the wings were un-tapered but swept back at 20°, with V-struts to

92

M i M - 8 U T K A

the bottom of the fuselage. The fuselage com-prised a cabin with a door on each side, ta-pering at the rear around the M-11F radialengine rated at HOhp, driving a 2.36m (7ft9in) two-blade wooden propeller. A total of195 litres (43 Imperial gallons) of fuel washoused in aluminium tanks in each wing. Atthe front of the cabin a Po-2 instrument panelwas installed for the pilot, and two passengerseats were added behind, with a small spacefor luggage behind them. Ahead of the cabina slender nose was added to carry the deltaforeplane, fixed at 3° incidence. This was fit-ted with fabric-covered elevators providedwith trim tabs, with movement of ±25°. Totalforeplane area was 2.7m2 (29ft2). On the outerwings were fabric-covered ailerons, ahead ofwhich were large fixed slats on the leadingedge. On the wing tips were delta-shaped finscarrying one-piece rudders, with a total com-bined area of 3m2 (32.3ft2). All control sur-faces were operated by rods and bellcranks.The landing gear comprised a levered-sus-pension nose unit with a 300x150mm tyre,and spatted mainwheels with 500 x 150mmtyres and pneumatic brakes on cantileverlegs pivoted to the strut attachment bulk-head, with bungee shock absorbers in thefuselage. Provision was made for skis, but nophotographs show these fitted. The first flightshowed that directional stability was poor.The wing was given 1 ° anhedral, and the finsand rudders were moved in to 55 per cent ofthe semi-span and mounted vertically, with amass balance projecting ahead from the bot-tom of each rudder. The spats were removed,and a new nose gear was fitted with the samewheel/tyre as the main units. Later the winganhedral was increased to 2°. Considerableattention was paid to engine cooling, andeventually the projecting cylinders were fittedwith individual helmets, though no pho-tographs have been found showing this (theywere eventually removed except over thetwo bottom cylinders). In its final form theMiG-8 had a single fuel tank between the fire-wall and engine. An important further modifi-cation was to remove the slats, andphotographs also show that in the final con-figuration the wingtips were angled down-wards. At one time the entire aircraft wascovered with tufts to indicate the airflow. Inits final form the MiG-8 was nice to fly, and re-covery from a spin was achieved merely byreleasing the flight controls.

Despite its unusual configuration the MiG-8was eventually developed into an excellentaircraft, safe to fly and easily maintained,though at the end of the day it was j udged thatfuture jet fighters should not have a canardconfiguration. No explanation has been givenfor the fact that the MiG-8 never led to pro-duction utility, ambulance or photographicaircraft.

DimensionsSpanlengthwing area

WeightsEmpty (as built)

(later)Fuel/oilLoaded

9.5m6.995 m15.0m2

652kg642kg140+ 14 kg1,150kg

31 ft 2 in22 ft 11% in161.5ft2

l,4371b1,415 Ib309+31 Ib2,535 Ib

Top left: MiG-8 original configuration.

Top right: On ground with spats.

Centre: In flight with slats open.

Above: Fully tufted to show airflow.

PerformanceMaximum speed at sea level

(as built) 205km/h(later) 210km/h

Range 500 kmTake-off run 238 mLanding speed 77 km/h

127 mph130.5 mph311 miles781ft48 mph

93

M i G I -250, M i G - 1 3 , N

MiG I-250, MiG-13, NPurpose: To boost the speed of a piston-engined fighter.Design Bureau: The OKB-155 of AI Mikoyan.

In 1942 the Central Institute for Aviation Mo-tors (often abbreviated as TsIAM) began todevelop an unusual method of boosting thepropulsive power of fighter aircraft. CalledVRDK (from Russian for 'air reaction auxiliarycompressor') it involved adding a drive fromthe main engine to an auxiliary compressorfor a flow of air rammed in at a forward-fac-ing inlet. The compressed air was then ex-pelled through a combustion chamber andpropulsive nozzle. This scheme was workedon by a team led by V Kh Kholshchevnikov. InJanuary 1944 the governments of the UK andUSA announced their possession of jet air-craft. In a near-panic response, the GKO(State Committee for Defence) ordered allthe main Soviet fighter OKBs to build jet air-craft. Stalin criticised designers for not al-ready having such aircraft. As the only Sovietturbojet (the Lyul'ka VRD-2) was nowherenear ready for use, MiG and Sukhoi were as-signed the urgent task of creating prototypefighters to use the VRDK booster system. Bothquickly came to the conclusion that the VRDKmethod could not readily be applied to any oftheir existing fighters, and both designed spe-cial (quite small) fighters to investigate it. TheMiG aircraft was called N by the OKB, andgiven the official designation I-250. The pro-ject was assigned to G Ye Lozino-Lozinskii. Amock-up was approved on 26th October1944, and after frantic effort the 'N' Nol wasrolled out painted white on 26th February1945. OKB pilot A P Dyeyev began the flight-test programme on 3rd March. Soon themagic 800km/h mark was exceeded, andMikoyan presented Dyeyev with a car. VRDKoperation was generally satisfactory but deaf-eningly noisy. On 19th May a tailplane failed atlow level and the 'N' Nol crashed. By thistime 'N' No2 was almost ready to fly. Painteddark blue, with a yellow nose and horizontalstreak, it was restricted to 800km/h to avoid arepetition of the failure. Stalin had meanwhileordered that a 'regiment' of ten of these air-craft should fly over Red Square on 7th No-vember, October Revolution Day. 'N' No 2was tested by LII pilot A P Yakimov, assistedby OKB pilot A N Chernoburov. This aircraftwas written off in a forced landing in 1946.The hastily built ten further I-250s were testedby IT Ivashchenko. On 7th November ninewere ready, but the flypast was cancelled be-cause of bad weather. In late 1946 FactoryNo 381 was given an order for 16 fullyequipped fighter versions, designated MiG-13. Factory testing of these took place in May-

July 1947,1 M Sukhomlin carried out NIl-WStesting between 9th October 1947 and 8thApril 1948, and these aircraft were then deliv-ered to the AV-MF. They served with the Balticand Northern Fleets until 1950.

Aircraft N bore little similarity to any previ-ous MiG design. Made entirely of metal, witha stressed-skin covering, it was smaller thanmost fighters, whereas its predecessors hadbeen larger. The straight-tapered wing had aCAHI 10%-thick laminar aerofoil, with twospars and plate ribs. Movable surfaces com-prised two-part Frise ailerons and hydrauli-cally operated CAHI slotted flaps. The fuselagewas relatively deep to accommodate theunique propulsion system. The engine was aVK-107, rated at l,650hp for take-off andl,450hp at 3,500m (12,470ft). At the front itwas geared down to drive the AV-5B three-blade constant-speed propeller of 3.1m (10ft2in) diameter. At the back it drove the en-gine's own internal supercharger as well as aclutch which, when engaged, drove through13:21 step-up gears to a single-stage axialcompressor. This pumped air through a largeduct from a nose inlet. Just behind the com-pressor was the engine's cooling radiator. Be-hind this were seven nozzles from which,when the auxiliary compressor was engaged,fuel from the main tanks was sprayed and ig-nited by sparking plugs. The resulting flamefilled the large combustion chamber, fromwhich a high-velocity jet escaped through atwo-position nozzle. Downstream of theburners the entire duct was refractory steel,and when the VRDK was in operation its wallswere cooled by water sprayed from a 78 litre(17 Imperial gallon) tank, the steam adding tothe thrust. At 7,000m (22,966ft) the VRDK wasestimated to add l,350hp, to a total of2,500hp. The oil cooler surrounded the pro-peller gearbox, with flow controlled by gillsround the top of the nose. The engine wasmounted on a steel-tube truss. Fuel washoused in three self-sealing tanks, one of 415litres (91.3 Imperial gallons) in the fuselageand one of 100 litres (22.0 Imperial gallons) ineach wing. The large central tank forced thecockpit to be near the tail, with a slidingcanopy. The metal-skinned tail was repeat-edly modified, the small elevators having atab on the left side. A unique feature of themain landing gear was that the wheels werecarried on single levered-suspension armsprojecting forward from the leg. The tail-wheel was fully retractable. Even the first air-craft, called 'N' Nol, was fully armed withthree B-20 cannon, each with 160 rounds. TheMiG-13 batch differed in having a larger verti-cal tail, larger fuel and water tanks, RSI-4radio with a wire antenna from the fin to a

mast projecting forwards from the wind-screen, and (temporarily) strange curved pro-peller blades in an attempt to reduce tip Machnumber.

These aircraft performed as expected, butwere a dead-end attempt to wring the last bitof performance from piston-engined fighters.

Dimensions (I-250)SpanLengthWing area

WeightsEmptyFuel/oil/waterLoaded

PerformanceMax speed at sea levelat 7,000 m (22,966 ft)

Time to climb to 5,000 mService ceiling

(without VRDK)Range (with brief VRDK)

(no VRDK)Take-off speed/

runLanding speed/run

Dimensions (MiG- 13)SpanLengthWing area

WeightsEmptyFuel/oil/waterLoaded

PerformanceMax speed at sea levelat 7,000m (22,966 ft)

Time to climb to 5,000 mService ceilingwithout VRDK

Range (with brief VRDK)(no VRDK)

Take-off speed/run

Landing speed/run

9.5m8.185m15.0m2

2,935kg450/80/75 kg3,680 kg

620km/h825 km/h3.9 min11,960m10,500m920km1,380km200 km/h400m150 km/h515m

9.5m8.185m15.0m2

3,028kg590/80/78 kg3,931 kg

620 km/h825 km/h3.9 min11,960m10,500m1,818km1,380km200 km/h400m195 km/h515m

31 ft 2 in26 ft 1 OX in161 ft2

6,470.5 Ib992/1 76/1 65 Ib8,1131b

385 mph513 mph(16,404ft)39,240ft34,450 ft572 miles858 miles124 mph1,312ft93 mph1,690ft

31 ft 2 in2 6 f t l O X i n161 ft2

6,675 Ib1,301/1 76/1 72 Ib8,666 Ib

385 mph513 mph(16,404ft)39,240 ft34,450ft1,1 30 miles858 miles124 mph1,312ft121 mph1,690ft

Photographs on the opposite page:

Top: I-250 Nol.

Centre: I-250 No 2.

Bottom: Production MiG-13 (straight propellerblades).

94

M i G I-250, M i G - 1 3 , N

I-250 No I / N o 2, MiG-13 I-250 inboard profile

95

I-250 Nol

I-250 No 2

MiG-13

MiG I - 2 7 0 , Zh

MiG I-270, ZhPurpose: To investigate the potential of arocket-propelled interceptor.Design Bureau: OJB-155 of A I Mikoyan.

As a major (in most respects the greatest) pi-oneer of rocket-propelled aircraft, the SovietUnion was intrigued to capture examples ofthe Messerschmitt Me 163 and Me 263(Ju 248). In 1944 the MiG OKB produced 'doo-dles' of Me 163 type aircraft, but in 1945 thebureau received a contract to build two pro-totypes of a rocket interceptor (a similar con-tract was awarded to A S Moskalyov). TheMiG aircraft was designated >K, the Cyrilliccharacter sounding like the s in 'measure',represented in English as Zh, and given the of-ficial designation I-270. To prepare for the air-craft's handling qualities several OKB andNIl-WS pilots practised with a Yak-3 over-loaded by lead bars. The first I-270 was readyfor flight well before its propulsion system.The rocket engine was simulated by an inertmass in the tail, but the Zh-01 was still wellbelow normal weight because it lacked pro-pellants, armament, radio and the windmillgenerator, in early December 1946 VNYuganov began testing it as a glider at speedsup to 300km/h (186mph), casting off from aTu-2 tug. At the start of 1947 Zh-02 was ready,with propulsion, and it began testing (precisedate not recorded), the assigned pilot beingA K Pakhomov of the WS. On an early flight

he made a badly judged landing which dam-aged 02 beyond economic repair. A fewweeks later Yuganov belly-landed 01, andagain nobody bothered to repair it.

Generally similar in layout to the Ju 248, ex-cept for the prudent addition of a high-mount-ed horizontal tail, the I-270 was of courseall-metal. The small wing had a laminar pro-file, fixed leading edge, slotted flaps and con-ventional outboard ailerons. Structurally itwas unusual in having five spars. The tailcomprised a large fin and mass-balancedrudder and a small tailplane with elevatorswhich, like the ailerons, had bellcrank fair-ings on the underside. The circular-sectionfuselage had the wing amidships at mid-depth, attached from below as a single unit.The cockpit in the nose was pressurized by airbottles, and the seat could be ejected by acordite gun. The tricycle landing gear had atrack of only 1.6m (5ft Sin) despite the mainwheels being inclined slightly outwards.Wheelbase was 2.415m (7ft llin), the noseunit being steerable. Each unit retracted for-wards, power for the landing gear and flapsbeing provided by air bottles. The rocket en-gine was an RD-2M-3V, developed byL S Dushkin and V P Glushko. The fuselagebehind the cockpit was almost entirely occu-pied by four tanks housing 1,620kg (3,571 Ib)of RFNA (red fuming nitric acid) and 440kg(970 Ib) of kerosene. These were initially fed

by an electrically driven pump, of Me 163 type.As the liquids reached the chamber theywere automatically ignited by injection ofhigh-test hydrogen peroxide, of which 60kg(132 Ib) was provided in seven stainless-steelbottles. Once operating, the engine was fedby turbopumps driven by the propellantsthemselves. The engine had one main thrustchamber, rated at sea level at 1,450kg(3,1971b), and an auxiliary chamber rated at400kg (882 Ib). Take-off and initial climb wasnormally made with both in operation, whenendurance was about 41/2min. In cruisingflight, with the small chamber alone in use(high-altitude thrust being about 480kg,l,0581b), endurance was 9min. An electricalsystem was served by a battery charged by anMe 163 type windmill generator on the nose.RSI-4 radio was fitted, with an external wireantenna, and armament comprised two NS-23 with 40 rounds each. A plan to fit four RS-82 rockets under the wings was not actioned.

By the time they were built these aircraftwere judged to be of no military importance.

Photographs on the opposite page:

Top right: Zh-01, without engine.

Three views of I-270, Zh-02.

I-270, Zh

96

MiG I - 270 , Zh

97

DimensionsSpanLengthWing area

WeightsEmpty (Zh-02)Acid/fuel/peroxideLoaded

PerformanceMaximum speedat sea level aboutat high altitude

Time to climb to 10,000mService ceilingRangeTake-off runLanding speed (tanks dry)Landing run

7.75m8.915m12.0m2

1,893kg1,620/440/60 kg4,120kg

936km/hl,000km/h2.37 min17,000mnot measured895m137km/h493m

25 ft 5 in29 ft 3 in129ft2

4,1731btotal 4,674 Ib9,083 Ib

582 mph621 mph(32,800ft)55,775ft

2,936 ft85 mph1,617ft

M 1 G - 9 L , F K

MIG-9L, FKPurpose: To test the guidance system of acruise missile.Design Bureau: OKB-155 of AI Mikoyan.

In late 1947 the Kremlin ordered the develop-ment of a large cruise missile which could belaunched (primarily against ships) from theTu-4. Because of the importance of this pro-ject it was assigned to a joint team formed byOKB No 155 (MiG) and a new semi-politicalgroup called SB-1 (Special Bureau Nol). TheOKB assigned one of the founders, M I Gure-

vich, as titular head, but the Chief Designerwas A Ya Bereznyak who has figured previ-ously on page 29 of this book. Head of SB-1was S L Beria, son of the formidable Politburomember who in 1953 succeeded Stalin. Infact, SB-1 faded from the scene, as it had littleto contribute, though it did have P N Kusenkoas Chief Designer. Under intense pressure aswept-wing turbojet-engined missile wascreated, which later went into production asthe KS-1 Komet. In early 1949 its guidance sys-tem was tested in an Li-2 (Soviet derivative of

the DC-3), and later in that year a more repre-sentative system was tested in the FK (alsocalled MiG-9L, Laboratoriya). This was toolarge to be carried aloft by a Tu-4, so it for-mated with the Tu-4 parent aircraft andthence simulated the missile on its flight tothe target. Subsequently this aircraft wasused to test different cruise-missile guidancesystems, assisted by the K-l, a manned ver-sion of the KS-1 missile.

Aircraft FK was a modified MiG-9 twin-jetfighter, the first type of turbojet aircraft to fly in

MIG-9L, FK

M1G-9L, FK

98

M i G - 9 L , F K

the Soviet Union. Features included astraight-tapered wing of laminar profile of 9%thickness with large slotted flaps and Friseailerons, a pressurized cockpit ahead of thewing, a ground-adjustable tailplane mountedpart-way up the fin, a nosewheel retractingforwards and main landing gears retractingoutwards, and a nose inlet feeding air to twoRD-20 turbojets (Soviet copies of the GermanBMW 003A, each rated at 800kg, l,7641b,thrust) mounted under the wing with jet noz-zles under the trailing edge. The final produc-tion series had an ejection-seat, and the FKwas from this batch. The heavy nose arma-ment of three NS-23K guns and all armour

were removed, and the fuselage was extend-ed by splicing in an extra section accommo-dating an unpressurized rear cockpit with aside-hinged canopy for the guidance-systemoperator. As in the Komet, the missile's radardish antenna was mounted above the nose,and a receiver antenna was mounted on theleading edge of each wing. Above the fin wasa streamlined container housing the aft-fac-ing transmitter and receiver antennas for theradio-command guidance from the parentaircraft after launch. Once the autopilot hadset the correct course the nose radar homedon the parent's radar signals reflected backfrom the target. Nearer the target the missile's

own radar became active, steering by signalsreceived by the leading-edge antennas.

So far as is known, the FK played a valuablerole in the development of one of the world'sfirst turbojet cruise missiles. So did the KSK, apiloted version of the missile itself.

K-l, or KSK, manned version of Komet

K-l, KSK

99

Dimensions (FK)SpanLength

Wing area

No other data.

10.0m10.12m18.2m2

32f t9 : Kin33 ft 2 in

195.9ft2

M i G - 1 5 E X P E R I M E N T A L V E R S I O N S

MiG-15 Experimental VersionsDesign Bureau: In most cases, the OKB-155of AI Mikoyan.

Made possible by Britain's export of Rolls-Royce Nene turbojets to Moscow in Septem-ber 1946, the Aircraft S marked a dramaticleap forward in Soviet fighter design. Firstflown on 30th December 1947, it was farahead of any other fighter in Europe. In 1949it went into large-scale production as the MiG-15. In the Korean war (1950-53) it completelyoutperformed Allied aircraft (the F-86 was theonly rival in the same class) and put the name'MiG' in the limelight around the world,where it remains to this day. A total of 11,073of all versions were constructed in the USSR,and the global total exceeded 16,085 (the Chi-nese output is not known precisely). Manyhave served in experimental programmes.These, and other MiG types, require treat-ment that is not apposite in the context of thisbook. What follows therefore is the specifica-tion for a typical standard late production ver-sion, the MiG-15b/s, incorporating numerousaerodynamic, control, systems and engineimprovements over the original MiG-15. Muchmore detail of experimental MiG-15s will beincluded in an Aerofax on the MiG-15 whichwill be published in 2001. The engine of theMiG-15b/s was the VK-1, derived from theNene and rated at 2,700kg (5,952 Ib).

DimensionsSpanLength (excluding guns)Wing area

WeightsEmptyInternal fuelLoaded (clean)(maximum)

PerformanceMax speed at sea levelat 3,000m (9,842 ft)

Rate of climb (clean)Service ceilingRange (clean)Take-off (clean)Landing speed/

run

10.085m10.102m20.6m2

3,681 kg1,173kg5,055 kg6,106kg

l,076km/h1,107 km/h46m/s15,500m1,330km475m178 km/h670m

33 ft 1 in33 ft 1% in221.75ft2

8,1151b2,586 Ib1 1,144 Ib13,461 Ib

669 mph688 mph9,055 ft/min50,850 ft826 miles1,558ft1 1 1 mph2,198ft

suOne of the experimental versions of the basic(not £>/s) aircraft was given the OKB designa-tion SU. Originally a standard fighter, MiG-15No 109035, with callsign 935 painted on thefuselage, it was used to test the V-I-25/Sh-3.This was the designation for a fighter arma-ment system developed by the Shpital'nyiweapons bureau. The standard quick-changearmament pack housing one 37mm and two23mm guns was replaced by a fixed installa-tion of two powerful Sh-3 23mm guns, each

with 115 rounds. Each gun was mountedbelow the fuselage in a streamlined fairing.The barrel projected through a vertical slot sothat, mounted on trunnions and driven by anirreversible electric screwjack, it could be el-evated to +11° and depressed to -7° (therewas no lateral movement). The Ministry orderfor this conversion was signed on 14th Sep-tember 1950, and the SU was factory-testedbetween 2nd January and 27th March 1951.NIl-WS testing followed from 30th June to10th August 1951. The general opinion wasthat in tight turning combat the system wasuseful in bringing the guns to bear, and it alsoenabled a head-on attack to be made withless risk of collision. The NIl-WS report calledfor a better sight, and for the guns to pivot overa greater angular range.

SYe

Written SE in Cyrillic characters, this was atangible result of years of research into theendemic problem of poor or even reversedlateral control, wing drop and inadequateyaw (directional) control, especially at highMach numbers. Most of the research wasdone at CAHI (TsAGI), but two workers atLIl-MAP (the Ministry flight research insti-

100

MiG-15 (SYe)

MiG-15 (SU)

M i G - 1 5 / 17 E X P E R I M E N T A L V E R S I O N S

tute), I M Pashkovskii and D I Mazurskii, alsotook a hand. After various tests they maderecommendations to AI Mikoyan, who or-dered the OKB to construct two SYe aircraft,based on the MiG-156/s. An obvious modifi-cation was that the fin leading edge waskinked to maintain a, broad chord to the top.Among other changes the wings were stiff-ened and fitted with ailerons of higher aspectratio ending in square tips. The first SYe, call-sign 510, was assigned to LIl-MAP pilot D MTyuterev, who dived it to Mach 0.985 despitehaving unboosted ailerons. The ailerons werethen fitted with BU-1 boosters, whereupon on18th October 1949 Tyuterev dived it to beyondMach 1, the first MiG aircraft to achieve this.

Burlaki

One of the deeper problems of the Soviet ADD(Strategic Aviation) was how to escort theTu-4. No fighter, especially a jet, had anythinglike adequate range. Aircraft designer A SYakovlev suggested making the bombers towfighters to the target area (see Yak-25E).Mikoyan briefly worked on a similar Burlaki(barge-hauler) scheme, fitting a MiG-155/swith a harpoon clamp above the nose whichthe pilot could hook on a crossbar on the endof a long cable reeled out from the Tu-4. If hos-tile fighters were encountered the MiG pilotwould start the engine, release the tow and en-gage combat. In theory he could then hook on

again for the ride home. It was not considereda viable idea, one reason being that with theengine inoperative the MiG pilot had no cock-pit pressurization and also became frozen.

Refuelling test-beds

An alternative to the Burlaki method wasDozapravka v Vozdukhe, refuelling in flight.Extensive trials took place in 1949-53 using

MiG-15 (SYe) test-bed.

various MiG-15s and Tu-4 tankers. Eventuallya system was used almost identical to that de-vised by the British Flight Refuelling Ltd, withhoses trailed from the tanker's wingtips and aprobe on the nose of the fighter. Apart fromthe basic piloting difficulty, problems includ-ed probe breakage, pumping of bulk fuel intothe fighter's engine and the need for an im-proved beacon homing method for findingthe tanker at night or in bad weather.

MiG-17 Experimental VersionsDesign Bureau: OKB-155 of AI Mikoyan.

Throughout 1949 the MiG OKB was busy cre-ating the SI, the prototype of a MiG-15 deriva-tive incorporating numerous improvements.Most of these were aerodynamic, including acompletely redesigned wing, a horizontal tailof increased sweep on an extended rear fuse-lage, and improved flight controls. The firstflight article, SI-2, was flown on 13th January1950, and on 1st September 1951 MAP OrderNo 851 required the SI to be put into produc-tion as the MiG-17. Because of the sheer mo-mentum of MiG-15 production the improvedaircraft did not replace it in the factories untilOctober 1952. The following specificationrefers to the MJG-17F, by far the most impor-tant version, which was powered by the af-terburning VK-1F, with a maximum rating of3,380kg (7,451 Ib).

DimensionsSpan

Length

Wing area

WeightsEmptyFuel/oilLoaded (clean)

(maximum)

PerformanceMaximum speed

at sea levelat 3,000m (9,842 ft)

Mach limit(clean over 7,000m)

Time to climb (afterburner)to 5,000 mto 10,000m

Service ceiling(still climbing 3.6 m/s)

Range (clean)(maximum)

Take-off speed/run

Landing speed/run

9.628 m11.26m22.64 m2

3,940kg1,170kg5,340kg6,069 kg

l,100km/hl,145km/h

1.15

l.Smin3.7 min

16,600m1,160km1,940km235km/h590m180km/h850m

31 ft 7 in36 ft 1 Min243.7 ft2

8,686 Ib2,579 Ib1 1,772 Ib13,380 Ib

684 mph71 1.5 mph

22,966ft

16,404ft32,808ft

54,462 ft721 miles1,205 miles146 mph1,936ft112 mph2,789 ft

SN

In late 1953 the MiG Factory 155 produced anexperimental fighter representing the nextstage beyond the SU. This time the entire for-ward fuselage was redesigned to house thepivoted guns, the engine being fed by lateralinlets and ducts passing both above andbelow the wing torsion box (which was givenfront and rear fairings). Ahead of Frame 13the entire nose was occupied by the SV-25 ar-mament installation devised by the TKB (Tuladesign bureau) of Afanas'yev and Makarov.This was based on a large frame mounted onneedle-roller bearings on each side and piv-oted on a transverse axis over the range+27° 267-9° 28' (not 9° 48' as previously pub-lished). On this frame were mounted threeTKB-495 lightweight 23mm guns, fed by boxmagazines mounted on the fixed structure.The whole installation weighed 469kg(l,0341b), requiring a balancing increase inthe size of Tank 3 in the rear fuselage. As this

101

M i G - 1 7 E X P E R I M E N T A L V E R S I O N S

F-

Two different SDK-5s.

MiG-17 (SN)

aircraft was so non-standard anyway theOKB took the opportunity to try a few otherchanges. Of course a special gunsight wasneeded, and it may have been to improve theoptics that a new windscreen was designed,wider and longer than before and giving a bet-ter field of view ahead. The SN was factory-tested by Georgiy K Mosolov from mid-1953.It proved a failure, with seriously reducedflight performance and useless armament.Because the guns were so far ahead of thecentre of gravity and centre of pressure of theaircraft, firing them at large angles from thehorizontal caused powerful pitching momentswhich threw the aim off-target. Mikoyan de-cided the problem was not readily soluble.Numerous otherwise unmodified MiG-17swere also used as armament test-beds.

SI-10

This MiG-17 was one of the original type withthe non-afterburning VK-1A engine, with call-sign 214. Having studied the wing and tail ofthe F-86E Sabre, this aircraft was fitted withimportant aerodynamic and control changes.The wing was fitted with large automatic slatsover the outer 76 per cent of each leadingedge, large area-increasing (Fowler-type)flaps, and spoilers (called interceptors) underthe outer wings which opened whenever theadjacent aileron was deflected more than 6°.In addition, a fully powered irreversibletailplane was fitted, with limits of +37-5°, re-taining the elevators driven by a linkage toadd camber. Grigorii A Sedov flew No 214 on27th November 1954, followed by many otherOKB and NIl-WS pilots. Opinions werefavourable, especially regarding the horizon-tal tail, but it was not worth disrupting MiG-17production to incorporate the changes.

SDK-5

Already used for a MiG-15, this designationwas repeated for MiG-17s used for furthertests of the guidance system of the KS-1Komet cruise missile. The original test-bedfor this system had been the M1G-9L, and likethat aircraft the SDK-5 had forward-facing an-tennas on the nose and wings and an aft-fac-ing antenna above the tail. Like the MiG-9Lthis aircraft later assisted development of thelarge supersonic Kh-20 (X-20) missile.

Photograph on the opposite page:

MiG-19 (SM-10).

102

M i G - 1 9 E X P E R I M E N T A L V E R S I O N S

MiG-19 Experimental VersionsDesign Bureau: OKB-155 of A I Mikoyan

Throughout the massive production of theMiG-15 and MiG-17, with a combined total ex-ceeding 22,000, the MiG OKB was eager to dis-card the British-derived centrifugal engine andbuild truly supersonic fighters with indigenousaxial engines. It achieved this in sensiblestages. The M, or I-350, introduced the largeTR-3A axial engine and a wing with a leading-edge sweep of 60°. The SM-2, or I-360, pow-ered by twin AM-5 axial engines, at first wasfitted with a high T-type tail. Then the tailplanewas brought down to the fuselage, the designwas refined, and as the SM-9 with afterburningengines (first flown 5th January 1954) achievedproduction as the MiG-19. The SM-9/3 intro-duced the one-piece 'slab' tailplane, with noseparate elevator, and this was a feature ofthe MiG-19S. Powered by two RD-9B engineseach with an afterburning rating of 3,250kg(7,1651b), this had the devastating armamentof three NR-30 guns, each far more powerfulthan the British Aden of the same calibre. Thefollowing specification is for a typical MiG-19S.

DimensionsSpanLength (excl air-data boom)Wing area

WeightsEmptyLoaded (clean)

(maximum)

PerformanceMax speed at sea level,at 10,000 m (32,808 ft)

Time to climb to 10,000mto 15,000m

Service ceilingRange (clean)

(two drop tanks)Take-off run (afterburner)Landing speed/runusing parabrake

9.00m14.8m25.16m2

5,455kg7,560kg8,832 kg

l,150km/hl,452km/h1.1 min3.7 min17,500m1,390km2,200km515m235 km/h610m

29 ft 6% in48 ft 6% in271 ft2

1 2,026 Ib1 6,667 Ib19,471 Ib

715 mph902 mph (Mach 1.367)32,808ft49,215ft57,415ft864 miles1,367 miles1,690ft146 mph2,000 ft

SM-10

Though it had a generally longer range thanits predecessors the MiG-19 was required in adecree of May 1954 to be developed withflight-refuelling capability. At that time theonly tanker was a version of the piston-en-gined Tu-4, and a series MiG-19, callsign 415,was fitted with a probe above the left (port)wingtip, feeding into a large pipe with divert-ers and non-return valves to fill all the aircrafttanks. By 1956 testing had moved to an extra-ordinary test-bed, callsign 10, fitted with nofewer than four probes. One was at the bot-tom of the nose, another at top left on thenose, a third on the leading edge of the port

wing and the fourth projected with a kinkfrom above the starboard wing.

SM-20

This was a MiG-19S modified as a pilotlessaircraft to test the guidance system of the Kh-20 cruise missile. This huge weapon was de-signed to be carried under a special version ofthe Tu-95 heavy bomber, and one Tu-95K wasmodified to carry and release the SM-20.Apart from being equipped with the missile'sguidance system and a special autopilot andvarious other subsystems, including a receiv-er link for remote-pilot guidance, the fighterwas fitted with a position beacon, radar re-flector and destruct package. Suspensionlugs were built in above the centre of gravity,and the parent aircraft had pads whichpressed on each side of the SM-20 canopy.Tests began in October 1956. SM-20P de-scribed the aircraft after modification withspecial engines able to vaporise the fuel toensure reliable starting at high altitudes.

SM-30

This designation applied to MiG-19 and MiG-19S aircraft modified for ZELL (zero-lengthlaunching). Nuclear weapons clearly made itfoolish to base combat aircraft on known air-fields, so the ZELL technique was intended toenable aircraft to be fired off short inclinedlaunchers by a large rocket. The launcherwas naturally made mobile, and most loca-tions were expected to be in the extreme Arc-tic such as Novaya Zemlya. The aircraftneeded a strengthened fuselage, reinforcedfuel tanks and mounts, a special pilot head-rest, and (in most cases) extra-large para-brakes or arrester hooks for short landings.

The usual rocket was the PRD-22, with athrust of 40,000kg (88,185 Ib) for 2.5 seconds.Manned firings took place from 13th April1957, the chief pilots being G Shiyanov andYu A Anokhin (not the more famous S NAnokhin). Results were satisfactory, but thescheme was judged impractical.

SM-50

This designation applied to the MiG-19 fittedwith a booster rocket engine in a pod under-neath. Whereas previous mixed-power fight-ers had been primarily to test the rocket, theSM-50 was intended as a fast-climbing fighter,able very quickly to intercept high-flyingbombers. The first SM-50 was a MJG-19S fittedwith a removable ventral pack called a U-19(from Uskoritel', accelerator). Made at theMiG OKB, this was basically formed from twotubes arranged side-by-side with a nose fair-ing. It contained an RU-013 engine fromL S Dushkin's KB, fed by turbopumps withAK-20 kerosene and high-test hydrogen per-oxide. The pilot could select either of twothrusts, which at sea level were 1,300kg(2,866Ib) or 3,000kg (6,614Ib). To avoid therocket flame the aircraft's ventral fin was re-placed by two vertical strake-fins under theengines (which were RD-9BM turbojets withvariable afterburning thrust but unchangedmaximum rating). The first SM-50 beganfactory testing (incidentally after the Ye-50,and long after the first MiG-21 prototypes) inDecember 1957. Despite a take-off weightof 9,000kg (19,841 Ib) a height of 20,000m(65,617ft) was reached in under eight min-utes with the rocket fired near the top ofthe climb, boosting speed to l,800km/h(1,118mph, Mach 1.695). Dynamic zoom ceil-ing was estimated at 24,000m (78,740ft). Fivepre-production SM-50s were built at Gor'kiy,but they were used only for research.

103

M i G - 1 9 E X P E R I M E N T A L V E R S I O N S

From the top: SM-30, SM-50, SM-12/3, SM-12PM and SM-12PMUSM-12

Early in the production of the MiG-19 it was re-alised that the plain nose inlet was aerody-namically inefficient at supersonic speeds,and that a properly designed supersonic inletwould enable maximum speed to be signifi-cantly increased without any change to theengines. By the mid-1950s the OKB was welladvanced with the prototypes that led to theMiG-21 and other types, all of which had inletsdesigned for supersonic flight. In fact produc-tion of the MiG-19 in the Soviet Union wasquite brief - it was left to other countries todiscover what a superb fighter it was - and allhad the original inlet. A total of four SM-12(plus two derived) aircraft were built, withthe nose extended to terminate in a sharp-lipped inlet. As in standard MiG-19s, acrossthe inlet was a vertical splitter to divide theairflow on each side of the cockpit. This wasused to support a conical centrebody whosefunction was to generate a conical shock-wave at supersonic speeds. For peak pres-sure recovery, to keep the shock conefocussed on the lip of the inlet the cone couldbe translated (moved in or out) by a hydraulicram driven by a subsystem sensitive to Machnumber. A similar system has been used onall subsequent MiG fighters, though the latesttypes have rectangular lateral inlets. SM-12/1was powered by two RD-9BF-2 engines witha maximum rating of 3,300kg (7,275 Ib). SM-12/2, /3 and /4 were powered by the R3-26,with a maximum rating of 3,800kg (8,377 Ib).All four SM-12 aircraft were fitted with im-proved flight control systems, wing guns onlyand new airbrakes moved to the tail endof the fuselage. A fifth aircraft, designatedSM-12PM, was fitted with pylons for two K-5Mguided missiles, which were coming intoproduction as the RS-2U. This required a guid-ance beam provided by an RP-21 (TsD-30) in-terception radar. The scanner necessitated agreatly enlarged nosecone, which in turndemanded a redesigned forward fuselagewith hardly any taper. Both guns were re-moved, and there were many other modifi-cations. The sixth and final version was theSM-12PMU, armed with two or four RS-2Umissiles. This aircraft was intended to inter-cept high-altitude bombers faster than anyother aircraft, so it combined two R3-26 en-gines with the U-19D rocket package. Numer-ous MiG-19 variants served as armamenttest-beds, mainly for guided missiles.

Left: Rocket pack of SM-50.

Opposite page, top to bottom:SM-30 on launcher.SM-12/1.SM-12/3 and SM-12PM with supersonic tanks.SM-12PMU with K-5 (RS-2U) guided missiles.

104

M i G - 1 9 E X P E R I M E N T A L V E R S I O N S

SM-30 on launcher

105

M i G E X P E R I M E N T A L H E A V Y I N T E R C E P T O R S

MiG Experimental Heavy InterceptorsPurpose: To create a supersonic missile-armed all-weather interceptor.Design Bureau: OKB-155 of A I Mikoyan

I-3U, I-7U, I-75

In the second half of the 1950s the 'MiG' de-sign team created a succession of interceptorfighters which began by reaching 870mphand finished 1,000mph faster than that. Thefirst was the I-1, first flown on 16th February1955, which resembled a MiG-19 powered bya single large VK-7 centrifugal engine. After amajor false start, this led to the I-3U, which(contrary to many reports) was flown in late1956 on the 8,440kg (18,607 Ib) thrust of a VK-3 bypass jet (low-ratio turbofan). By this timethe aerodynamic shape, and indeed much ofthe structure and systems, was extraordinari-ly similar to the contemporary Sukhoi proto-types. The next stage was the I-7U, flown on22nd April 1957, which used the enginepicked earlier by Sukhoi, the excellent Lyul'-ka AL-7F rated at 9,210kg (20,304Ib). In turnthis was rebuilt into the I-75, first flown on28th April 1958. This was the first of the fami-ly of impressive MiG single-engined heavy in-terceptors, with powerful radar (Uragan[hurricane] 5B) and armed only with missiles(two large Bisnovat K-8). A second aircraftwas built from scratch, designated I-75F andpowered by the uprated AL-7F-1 with a max-imum thrust of 9,900kg (21,8251b). The fol-lowing specification refers to the I-75.

DimensionsSpan 9.976 mLength 18.275mWing area 31.9m2

WeightsEmpty 8,274 kgInternal fuel 2,100kgLoaded (clean) 10,950kg

(maximum) 11,470kg

PerformanceMaximum speedclean, at 1 1 ,000 m (36,089 ft) 2,050 km/hwith missiles 1,670 km/h

Time to climb to 6,000 m (19,685 ft)Service ceiling

(Mach 1 .6 in afterburner) 1 9, 1 00 mRange (internal fuel) 1 ,470 kmTake-off run 1,500mLanding speed/run 240 km/hwith parabrake 1,600m

32 ft 9^ in59 ft 11^ in343 ft2

18,241 Ib4,630 Ib24,1 40 Ib25,287 Ib

1,274 mph (Mach 1.93)1,038 mph (Mach 1.57)0.93 min

62,664ft913 miles4,921 ft149 mph5,249ft

Ye-150

This was built specifically to test the remark-able R-15 turbojet, created by S KTumanskii,initially working in A A Mikulin's KB, which hetook over in 1956. This engine had been or-dered to power future aircraft flying at up toMach 3 (the first application was a Tupolevcruise missile). The MiG team led by NikolaiZ Matyuk predictably adhered to the provenformula of a tube-like fuselage with a variablemulti-shock nose inlet, mid-mounted deltawing (the I-75 had had swept wings) and mid-mounted swept one-piece tailplanes. This timethe fuselage had to accept the R-15-300 en-gine's take-off airflow of 144kg (317.51b) persecond, and the dry and reheat ratings of thisengine were 6,840kg (15,080 Ib) and 10,150kg(22,3771b). At high supersonic Mach numbersthe thrust was greatly increased by the ejector-type nozzle, a very advanced propulsion sys-tem for the 1950s. As the Ye-150 was not afighter the cockpit was enclosed by a tiny one-piece canopy of minimum drag. After pro-longed delays, mainly caused by the engine,the aircraft was flown by A V Fedotov on 8thJuly 1960. It required frequent engine replace-ment, but among other things it reached2,890km/h (l,796mph, Mach 2.72), climbed to20km (65,617ft) in 5min 5 sec, and reached asustained altitude of 23,250m (76,280ft).

Ye-152A

This was essentially an interceptor version ofthe Ye-150, but with the important differencethat it was powered by a pair of mature R-l 1F-300 (early MiG-21 type) engines, with a com-bined maximum thrust of 11,480kg (25,309 Ib).The airframe was designed to a load factor of7, and 4,400 litres (968 Imperial gallons) of fuelwas provided in six fuselage and two wingtanks, and provision was made for a centrelinedrop tank. The Ye-152A was designed for al-most automatic interceptions, guided by theUragan-5 ground-control system and its AP-39autopilot, finally locking on its own TsP-1 radarand firing the two MiG-developed K-9-155 mis-siles carried on down-sloping underwing py-lons. This fine aircraft was first flown byMosolov on 1 Oth July 1959 (more than a yearbefore the Ye-150) and it reached 2,135km/h(l,327mph, Mach 2.01) at 13,700m (44,950ft).It caused a sensation when it made a flypast atthe 1961 Tushino airshow, being identified byWestern experts as the (MiG-23' because thatwas the next odd number after the MiG-21.After a busy career it crashed in 1965.

Ye-152

This was intended to be the definitive heavyinterceptor, combining the R-l5-300 engine(uprated to 10,210kg, 22,509 Ib) with the air-frame and weapons of the Ye-152A. Two werebuilt, Ye-152/1 and Ye-152/2. Apart from hav-ing a large single engine the obvious new fea-ture was that the Ye-152/1 carried its K-9missiles on down-sloping launch shoes on thewingtips. Internal fuel was slightly increased,and avionics were augmented. From its firstflight on 21st April 1961 it was plagued by en-gine problems, but eventually set a 100kmclosed-circuit record at 2,401km/h (1,492mph, Mach 2.26), a straight-line record at2,681km/h (l,666mph, Mach 2.52) and a sus-tained-height record at 22,670m (74,377ft).These were submitted to the FAI as havingbeen set by the 'Ye-166'. In fact both Mosolovand Ostapenko achieved 3,030km/h (1,883mph, Mach 2.85). The Ye-152/2 was intendedto have the Smerch (whirlwind) radar and as-sociated Volkov K-80 missiles, but this wasnever incorporated. It first flew on 21st Sep-tember 1961, and after a brief factory test pro-gramme was rebuilt into the Ye-152P.

Ye-152M

By the late 1950s the Mikoyan OKB hadmoved on to envisage this as the ultimate sin-gle-engined heavy interceptor. It was to havethe R-15B-300 engine, with a maximum ratingof 10,210kg (22,509 Ib) and an improvedpropulsive nozzle of convergent/divergentform, considerably greater internal fuel ca-pacity in an added fuselage spine, wingtiprails for the Volkov K-80 missile (later pro-duced as the R-4R and R-4T), and many othermodifications including canard foreplaneswhich this time were to be fully powered. TheYe-152/2 was rebuilt into the Ye-152P (fromPerekhvatchik, interceptor) as a steppingstone to the Ye-152M. Externally it incorporat-ed all the new features, including the roots forthe foreplanes, but the surfaces themselveswere not fitted. By the time the rebuild wascomplete the IA-PVO (manned fighter branchof the air defence forces) had selected theTupolev Tu-128, and Mikoyan was well aheadwith the far more impressive twin-enginedMiG-25. In 1965 the Ye-152P, with the missilelaunchers replaced by more pointed wing-tips, was put on display as the 'Ye-166',adorned with the details of the records set bythe Ye-152/1. It still survives at the Moninomuseum in Moscow.

106

M i G E X P E R I M E N T A L H E A V Y I N T E R C E P T O R S

Top left: I-3U.

Top right: I-7U.

Above and right: Two views of I-75.

Bottom: Ye-150.

107

MiG EXPERIMENTAL HEAVY INTERCEPTORS

108

MiG E X P E R I M E N T A L H E A V Y I N T E R C E P T O R S

Photographs on the opposite page:

Top left: \e-l52A.

Top right: Ye-152A with K-9-155 missiles.

Centre: Ye-152A with K-9-155 missiles.

Bottom: Ye-152/1 with K-9-155 missiles.

Photographs on this page:

Above: Ye-152M project model.

Top left, centre and bottom right: Ye-152M with K-80missile mock-ups.

Top right: Ye-152M record version (so-called'Ye-166') at Monino.

109

M i G - 2 1 E X P E R I M E N T A L V E R S I O N S

MiG-21 Experimental VersionsDesign Bureau: OKB-155 of AI Mikoyan.

Ye-2, Ye-4, Ye-5

The Korean War of 1950-53 triggered a signifi-cant acceleration of development of weaponsin the Soviet Union. For the first time the 'MiG'OKB found itself working under intense pres-sure on two distinct classes of fighter. The firstto be launched were the big radar-equippedinterceptors typified by a wing area of 30m2

(323ft2) and engines in the thrust range 9,072to 13,608kg (20,000 to 30,000 Ib). The secondfamily were small but agile fighters intendedfor close visual combat, characterised bywings of some 22m2 (237ft2) and engines inthe 5,000kg (ll,0201b) class. The smaller air-craft were required to reach Mach 2 on thelevel at heights up to 20km (65,617ft) whilstcarrying guns and a radar-ranging sight. Inten-sive tunnel testing failed to show clear superi-ority between a swept wing rather like a smallversion of that of the MiG-19, with a leading-edge sweep of 61°, and the new delta (trian-gular) shape with a leading-edge angle of 57°,so it was decided to build experimental ver-sions of both. The single engine was Tuman-skii's AM-9B (later called RD-9B), as used inthe twin-engined MiG-19, with a maximum af-terburning thrust of 3,250kg (7,165 Ib). The fol-lowing specification refers to the swept-wingYe-2, first flown on 14th February 1955. Thisled to the mixed-power Ye-50. The Ye-4, thefirst of the deltas, was very similar but had adisappointing performance. Despite this, withminor changes the delta Ye-5 was some700km/h faster, leading to the productionMiG-21. Even though all versions had limitedcapability, this small fighter was produced infour countries in greater numbers than anyother military aircraft since 1945 apart fromthe MiG-15. Assuming 2,400 for Chinese pro-duction the total was 13,409.

DimensionsSpan

Length (excl pilot boom)Wing area

WeightsEmptyInternal fuelLoaded

PerformanceMaximum speedat 11, 000m (36,089 ft)

Service ceilingRange (estimated)Take-off runLanding speed/

run

8.109m13.23m21.0m2

3,687kg1,360kg5,334kg

l,920km/h19,000m1,220km700m250km/h800m

26 ft T/, in43 ft 4% in226ft2

8,1281b2,998 Ib11,75915

1,1 93 mph (Mach 1.8)62,336ft758 miles2,297ft155 mph2,625 ft

Ye-50

Right at the start of the 'Ye' programmeMikoyan had planned a mixed-power proto-type, the Ye-lA, with the afterburning turbojetboosted by a Dushkin S-155 rocket engine.This was never built, but in 1954 it was re-stored to the programme with the designa-tion Ye-50. One reason was the British SaroSR.53, with a similar propulsion system, andanother was that the definitive RD-11 (latercalled R-l 1) engine was still some two yearsoff. An order was received for three Ye-50 air-craft, and Ye-50/1 made its first flight (withoutusing the rocket) on 9th January 1956, thesame day as the first Ye-5. Though similar insize to the Ye-2 already described, the emptyweight of the Ye-50/1 was 4,401kg (9,702 Ib).This was because of the rocket engine and itstanks, an extended nose and additionalequipment. The main engine was an RD-9Yerated at 3,800kg (8,377 Ib). The S-155 was fedwith RFNA (red fuming nitric acid) andkerosene by a turbopump in the swollen baseof the fin, driven by decomposing high-testhydrogen peroxide. The thrust chamber wasimmediately to the rear, above the main-en-gine afterburner. The whole rocket installa-tion, though complex, was refined andreliable. On the turbojet alone this heavy air-craft was underpowered, and the bulk of therocket and its tankage meant that with re-duced jet fuel the range was very short. Thisaircraft was damaged beyond repair on its18th fiight on 14th July 1956. The Ye-50/2reached 2,460km/h (l,529mph, Mach 2.32).The Ye-50/3 incorporated various modifica-tions, but suffered inflight catastrophe, killingNil pilot N A Korovin. Gor'kiy received a con-tract for a single Ye-50A with greatly in-creased rocket and jet fuel, made possible bya large tank scabbed on under the fuselage,but the Ministry decided against mixed-power aircraft (preferring much more power-ful main engines) and the Ye-50A was nevercompleted.

Ye-6/3T

The MJG-21F, the first series version, wentinto production at Gor'kiy in 1959. The facto-ry designation was Ye-6/3T, and the third pro-duction aircraft, the 3T, was set aside toexplore the effect of fitting canard (nose)foreplanes. These were small delta-shapedsurfaces with cropped tips, the leading-edgeangle being 45°. They were not powered butwere pivoted on axes skewed at 40° and free

to align themselves with the local airflow. Toprevent flutter a lead-filled rod projectedahead of the leading edge at mid-span. Theirpurpose was merely to reduce longitudinalstatic stability, but they were considered to beineffectual in use.

Ye-6T/l (Ye-66A)

In 1960 the Ye-6T/l, the first true series-builtMiG-21, callsign Red-31, was rebuilt forrecord purposes, with various modifications.In order not to reveal too much to the FAI in-ternational body, it was given the inventeddesignation Ye-66A. The most obviouschange was to attach a rocket package un-derneath the fuselage. The rocket engine wasdesignated S-3/20M5A, the ultimate version ofDushkin's family burning kerosene and RFNAfed by peroxide turbopumps. The propellantswere packaged with the engine and controlsystem in a large gondola designated U-21.Thrust was 3,000kg (6,614 Ib) at sea level, ris-ing to about 3,700kg (8,150 Ib) at high altitude.The rocket nozzle was angled 8° downwards,but despite this it was necessary to replacethe usual MiG-21 underfin by two shorter butdeeper ventral fins each inclined outwards.The main engine was replaced by an R-l 1F2-300, with a maximum afterburning rating of6,120kg (13,492 Ib); this engine later becamestandard on the MiG-21 PF. Other modifica-tions included 170 litres (37.4 Imperial gal-lons) of extra kerosene fuel in a spine fairingbehind the canopy, and a fin extended for-wards to increase area of the vertical tail to4.44m2 (47.7ft2). The Ye-66A did not set anyratified speed records, but on 28th April 1961it was flown by G K Mosolov in a zoom to anew world absolute height record of 34,714m(113,891ft). He made a low flypast with rock-et in operation at the airshow at MoscowTushino on Aviation Day (9th July) 1961.

MiG-21 PD, 23-31

Also designated MiG-21 PD, and known to theMikoyan OKB as Izdeliye (product) 92, thiswas essentially a MiG-21 PFM fighter fittedwith a lift-engine bay amidships. The early1960s were a time when aircraft designersaround the world were excited by the possi-bility of VTOL (vertical take-off and landing),which among other things enabled combataircraft to avoid nuclear destruction by dis-persing away from known airfields. Dassaultput eight lift engines into the Mirage to create

110

M i G - 2 1 E X P E R I M E N T A L V E R S I O N S

Ye-50/l

111

M i G - 2 1 E X P E R I M E N T A L V E R S I O N S

the world's first Mach 2 VTOL. Mikoyan de-cided instead to build a STOL (short take-offand landing) MiG-21. The engine KB ofP A Kolesov produced the simple RD-36-35, alift turbojet rated at 2,350kg (5,181 Ib). Itwould only have needed four of these to givethe MiG-21 VTOL capability, but insteadMikoyan installed just two. The fuselage wasremoved between Frames 12 and 28A and re-placed by a slightly widened fireproof bayhousing the two lift engines. They were notpivoted but fixed at an inclination of 80°. Fuelwas drawn from the (reduced) main tankage,and starting was by impingement jets usingair bled from the R-11F2-300 main engine.The top of the bay was formed by a large lou-vred door hinged at the back. In STOL modethis door was pushed up by a hydraulic jackto provide unrestricted airflow to the lift en-gines. Each jet blasted down through a vec-toring box. Made of heat-resistant steel, thisprovided seven curved vanes under each liftjet. These were pivoted and could be vec-tored by the pilot through an angular range ofsome ±25° to provide forward thrust or brak-ing. The 23-31 was intended for exploringSTOL, and for improved control at low air-speeds the main-engine bleed served reac-tion-control jets pointing down from underthe nose and under each wingtip. The landinggears were fixed, and there was only one air-brake, of a new design, ahead of the lift-jetbay. Pyotr M Ostapenko made the first flighton 16th June 1966. He and BAOrlov bothconsidered control at low airspeeds to be in-adequate, and Ostapenko said 'For take-offyou need maximum dry power on the mainengine, but for landing you need full after-burner!' This aircraft performed briefly at theMoscow Domodedovo airshow on 9th July1967. It was then grounded.

MiG-211 (2I-11)

This designation applied to two aircraft or-dered from Mikoyan to assist development ofthe Tu-144 supersonic transport. They werealso called MiG-211 (I for Imitator), and Ana-log. Both aircraft were taken from the assem-bly line of the MiG-21S, but were powered bya later engine, the R-13-300, rated at 6,490kg(14,308 Ib). This engine could provide a largeairflow for blown flaps, but as the Tu-144 (andthus the 2I-11) was a tailless delta no suchflaps could be fitted. The wing was totallynew, being of an ogival shape with the rootchord extending over almost the entire lengthof the fuselage. The quite sharp leading edgehad the remarkable sweep angle of 78°, be-fore curving out to a sweep angle of 55° overthe outer wings. There was no droop (down-ward camber) along the leading edge. On the

trailing edge of each wing were four fullypowered surfaces, the inner pair being plainflaps and the outer pair elevens (surfaces act-ing as both elevators and ailerons). The wingwas incredibly thin, thickness/chord ratiobeing only 2.3 per cent inboard and 2.5 at thetip. Thus, the control-surface power unitswere faired in underneath, the outer fairingsextending over the entire chord of the wing.The wing leading edge was made detachableso that different shapes could be tested.Among other modifications was an increasein fuel capacity to 3,270 litres (719 Imperialgallons), and of course there was no provi-sion for armament. Partly because of a 'chick-en and egg' situation, in which Mikoyan wasuncertain precisely what shape to make thewing, whilst the purpose of the Analog was toteach Tupolev how to design the Tu-144'swing, the programme ran at least a year toolate to assist the design of the SST. Eventually0 VGudkov flew 23-11/1 on 18th April 1968,with civil registration SSSR-1966, the intendedfirst-flight year. The Tu-144 pilots flew this air-craft before first flying the 44-00 (first Tu-144)on 31st December 1968, with the 23-11/1 ac-companying it as chase aircraft. The 23-11/2differed mainly in that all eight wing movablesurfaces were elevens. It was first flown by1 Volk in late 1969. Later its starboard wingupper surface was tufted, photographed by acamera on the fin (later a second camera wasadded looking back from behind thecanopy). Most of the second aircraft's flyingwas done with a large LERX (leading-edgeroot extension) giving increased area fromthe new curved front portion. The 2I-11/2 car-ried out extensive aerodynamic and controlresearch before going to the WS Museum atMonino. The 2I-11/1 was crashed on 28th July1970 by an LII pilot performing unauthorisedlow-level aerobatics. Mikoyan did not act onthe suggestion of the main 23-11 test pilotsthat he should develop a fighter version.

Ye-8

So different in appearance as hardly to beconsidered a MiG-21 version, these two air-craft were considered as prototypes of a pos-sible improved fighter. They resulted from aKremlin decree of spring 1961 calling for 'aversion of the MiG-21 capable of destroyinghostile aircraft at night or in bad weather'.This was intended to become the MiG-23. Thekey feature was use of the Volkov KB's Sapfir21 (Sapphire) radar. This was far too bulky tofit inside any possible MiG-21 nosecone, andthe answer was to feed the engine by a com-pletely new inlet under the fuselage. Therewas an advantage in doing this in that the inletcould be given variable geometry with mov-

able walls, and auxiliary inlets under the wingleading edge. On each side of the nose, justbehind the radar, was a canard foreplane ofcropped delta shape, with anti-flutter rodssimilar to those of the Ye-6T/3. Normally freeto align themselves with the airflow, at Machnumbers in excess of 1.00 they were lockedat zero incidence. The effect was dramatic: at15,000m (49,200ft) they enabled the acceler-ation in a sustained turn to be increased from2.5 g to 5.1 g, and they gave significantly en-hanced lift in all flight regimes. Other modifi-cations included a slightly lowered horizontaltail and a large underfin which was folded tostarboard when the landing gear was extend-ed. All might have been well had not the de-sign team elected also to exchange the R-l 1engine for the immature R-21, from the Met-skhvarishvili KB, with afterburning rating of7,200kg (15,873 Ib). Ye-8/1 was flown byMosolov on 5th March 1962, and destroyed on11 th September by catastrophic failure of theengine. Ye-8/2, which had blown flaps, firstflew on 29th June 1962 but suffered so manyengine faults this otherwise promising aircraftwas abandoned.

Photographs on the opposite page:

Top and centre left: Two views of Ye-50-1.

Centre right: Ye-50-2 with rocket engine in action.

Bottom: Ye-50-3.

112

M i G - 2 1 E X P E R I M E N T A L V E R S I O N S

113

M i G - 2 1 E X P E R I M E N T A L V E R S I O N S

Ye-6T/l (Ye-66A)

Left: Drawing of Ye-50A.

Below left: Ye-6/3T.

Below right: Ye-6T/l (Ye-66A).

Photograph on the opposite page:

MiG-21 PD (23-31).

114

M i G - 2 1 E X P E R I M E N T A L V E R S I O N S

MIG-21PD (23-31)

MiG-21 I/I (Analog)

MiG-211/2(underside view)

115

M i G - 2 1 E X P E R I M E N T A L V E R S I O N S

116

M i G - 2 1 E X P E R I M E N T A L V E R S I O N S

Photographs on the opposite page:

Top: MiG-21 PD (23-31).

Centre left: MiG-211/1 with 44-00 (first prototype Tu-144).

Centre right: MiG-211/1.

Bottom: MiG-21 PD (23-31) at Domodedovo Air Parade, July 1967.

Photographs on this page:

Top left: MiG-211/2 with one wing tufted.

Top right: Ye-8/2.

Right: Model of Ye-8 interceptor project.

Ye-8

117

M i G - 2 1 E X P E R I M E N T A L V E R S I O N S / M 1 G - 2 3 P D , 2 3 - 0 1

Above left and right: Two views of Ye-8/2.

Left: Ye-8 cutaway.

1VKG-23PD, 23-01Purpose: To evaluate a STOL fighter largerthan the MiG-21.Design Bureau: OKB-155 of A I Mikoyan.

By the 1960s, though the MiG-21 was goingfrom strength to strength, the family of so-called heavy interceptors were being over-taken by the Ye-155 project (which becamethe MiG-25), and, by now facing severe com-petition from Sukhoi, there was an urgentneed for a new tactical family more capablethan the MiG-21. The new engine KB ofK Khachaturov had produced an outstandingnew engine, the R-27-300 (as before, the suf-fix -300 signified Factory No 300), an after-burning turbojet with maximum thrust of7,800kg (17,196 Ib). This was intermediate be-tween MiG-21 engines and those of the big in-terceptors. Mikoyan began studying futureprospects for this engine in 1960. In 1964 heobtained an order for the 23-01 with a deltawing and a lift-engine bay, and in 1965 he wasordered to build the competing 23-11 with no

lift engines but a variable-geometry 'swingwing'. Even though the 23-01 was managedby V A Mikoyan, second son of the GeneralConstructor's brother Anastas, President ofthe Supreme Soviet, it was considered in theOKB (correctly, as it turned out) to be a wasteof time. This was because of the Americanfixation on the VG wing for the F-l 11. Despitethis, the 23-01 was the subject of meticulouseffort. The wing was like a scaled-up versionof the blown-flap MiG-21, almost as large as aYe-152, but with different main landing geargeometry. The tailplanes were of a new de-sign, with sharp taper (almost becomingdelta shape) and tips cropped at the Machangle. The fuselage was totally new, with anose designed to accommodate a powerfulradar fire-control system (not fitted), lateralinlets with sliding centrebodies for the mainengine, and a lift-engine bay between themain-engine ducts almost identical to that ofthe 23-31. The two RD-36-35 lift turbojets hada combined thrust of only 4,700kg (10,362 Ib),

and as this was a mere 29.5 per cent of thegross weight the 23-01 was never flown slow-er than 150km/h (93mph). Thus, it was not fit-ted with reaction-control jets. The landinggears were new, the large KT-133 main-wheels being housed upright in the sides ofthe fuselage and the nose unit having twinwheels, power steering and retracting not for-wards but backwards. The KN-type seat wasinstalled in a cockpit similar to that of con-temporary MiG-21s. Ostapenko began thebrief factory test programme on 3rd April1967. He was soon joined by Fedotov, butlong before the 23-01 was completed Mikoy-an had ceased to be interested in lift jets. Withone eye on disinformation the number 23was painted on the fuselage, an inoperativeGSh-23L gun was fitted, and dummy VympelR-23R and R-23T missiles were hung underthe wings. The 23-01 was then briefly demon-strated at the big airshow at Moscow Do-modyedovo on 9th July 1967.

118

M 1 G - 2 3 P D , 23-01

MJG-23PD, 23-01

DimensionsSpanLength (excl PVD boom)Wing area

WeightsEmptyLoaded

7.72m16.8m40.0m2

12,020kg16,000kg

PerformanceTake-off run (light) 1 80-200 mLanding run (with parabrake) 250 m

25 ft m in55 ft 1% in430.6ft2

26,500 Ib35,273 Ib

59I-656 ft820ft

Two views of 23-01, with dummy R-23guided missiles.

119

M i G 105-

MiG 105-11Purpose: To investigate the low-speedhandling within the atmosphere of an orbitalshape.Design Bureau: OKB-155 of AI Mikoyan.

By 1965 the Mikoyan OKB was deeply into thetechnology of reusable aero-space vehicles.Under 'oldest inhabitant' G Ye Lozino-Lozin-skiy a shape was worked out called BOR(from Russian for pilotless orbital rocket air-craft), and in turn this was the basis for themanned Epos (an epic tale). The BOR test ve-hicles had been fired by rocket and recoveredby parachute, but a manned vehicle had toland in the conventional way. It was consid-ered prudent to build a manned test vehicleto explore low-speed handling and landing.Called 105-11, -12 and -13, only the first is be-lieved to have flown. The OKB pilot wasAviard Fastovets, and he began high-speedtaxi tests at Zhukovskii in September 1976. Onl l th October 1976 he took off and climbedstraight ahead to 560m (1,837ft). He landed asplanned at an airfield about 19km (12 miles)ahead. On 27th November 1977 he entered105-11 slung under the Mikoyan OKB's Tu-95K

(previously used for cruise-missile tests) andlanded on an unpaved strip after release at5,000m (16,400ft). The 105-11 made sevenfurther flights, the last in September 1978. Itwas then retired to the Monino museum.

The 105-11 was almost the size of a MiG-21,and was likewise a single-jet tailless delta.The fuselage had a broad 'waverider' shape,with a flat underside, and the cockpit at thefront was entered via a roof hatch. From thesides projected small swept wings withelevens, and there was a large fin and rudder.The engine was an RD-36-35K turbojet de-rived from the previously used lift engines,rated at 2,000kg (4,409 Ib). It was fed by a dor-sal inlet with an upward-hinged door to fairthe engine in when in high-speed glidingflight. Features of the eventual hypersonicEpos included a flat unfaired tail end to thebroad fuselage, the upper surface comprisinglarge upward-hinged airbrakes, and a struc-ture designed to accommodate severe ther-mal gradients, though the 105-11 was neverdesigned to fly faster than Mach 0.8. Early test-ing was done with rubber-tyred wheels onthe front two retractable legs and steel skis on

the rear pair (the OKB record that the runwaywas lubricated by crushed melons). For theair-drop tests all four legs had steel skids.

The brief flights of the 105-11 confirmed thedesign of a manned aero-space vehicle, lead-ing to the Buran (see later).

DimensionsSpan

Length (excluding multi-vanePVD instrument boom)

Area of wing andlifting body

Weights

EmptyFuelLoaded

Performance

Maximum speed (design)

(actually reached) aboutLanding speed

6.7m

10.6m

24.0 nf

3,500kg500kg4,220kg

Mach 0.8800km/h250-270 km/h

21 ft 11% in

34ft93/Sin

258ft2

7,716 Ib1,102 Ib9,300 Ib

500 mph155-168 mph

105-11, with skids

120

MiG 105-1 1 / MiG 1 .44

Above left and right: Two views of 105-11.

Left: 105-11, with skids, preserved at Monino.

MiG 1.44Purpose: Technology test-bed to supportthe 1.42 multirole fighter.Design Bureau: ANPK (AviatsionnyiNauchno-Promishlennyi Kompleks) MiG,now the main design unit of RSK 'MiG'.

In 1983 the large and powerful MiG OKBbegan general parametric study of an MFI(Mnogofunktsionahl'nyi Frontovoi Istrebitel,multirole tactical fighter). This was to be a to-tally new aircraft as ahead of global competi-tion as the MiG-29 had been. It was to belarger than the MiG-29, to serve as a succes-sor to the long-range MiG-31 and MiG-31Minterceptors, but also with the supermanoeu-vrability needed for close combat and theability to fly air-to-ground missions as well. In1986 the Council of Ministers issued a direc-tive ordering MiG, Sukhoi and Yakovlev tomake proposals for a 'fifth-generation' fighterto counter the threat posed by the USAF's Ad-vanced Tactical Fighter, which later led to theF-22A Raptor. The WS called the require-ment I-90 (Istrebitel, fighter, for the 1990s).The MiG project staff eventually settled ontwo configurations, called Izdelye (product)1.41 and 1.43. After prolonged discussion withthe WS, features of both were combined inthe 1.42. In late 1986 contracts were placedfor a static-test airframe, a dynamic and fa-tigue-test airframe and two flight articles, aswell as for the totally new AL-41F engine,

N-014 radar and various special test rigs.Supervised by General Constructor RostislavApollosovich Belyakov, detailed design pro-ceeded under Chief Project Engineer GrigoriiSedov, later succeeded by Yuriy Vorotnikov.So great was the designers' faith in the 1.42that complete manufacturing documentationand software was completed at an earlystage. Largely computerised manufacturingbegan at the Mikoyan experimental shop in1989. The first flight article, designated 1.44, isa simplified technology demonstrator toprove the aerodynamics and flying qualities,performance and propulsion. Compared withthe 1.42 it has an almost pure delta wing (in-stead of a cranked leading edge) and a slight-ly different air inlet system, and lacks theradar, mission avionics and internal weaponsbay. By 1991 the 1.44 was structurally com-plete, but was awaiting flight-cleared en-gines, the agregat (accessory gearbox) andseveral other components. By this time col-lapse of the Soviet Union had begun to cut offfunding and seriously delay the programme.The original first-flight date of 1991 -92 was for-gotten, but in December 1994 the 1.44 wascompleted and brought by road to the OKB'sflight-test facility at the Zhukovskii NIl-WS(air force flight-test institute). On 15th De-cember 1994 Roman Taskaev, then Chief TestPilot, began fast taxying trials. Though sever-al crucial elements had not been cleared for

flight it was hoped to display the aircraft 'Blue01' at the MAKS 1995 show in August 1995.However, in May 1995 the hope of imminentflight trials was dashed when ANPK MiG be-came part of MAPO, whose sole interest wasproducing aircraft, such as the MiG-29 andvarious other types (by no means all of MiGdesign) to raise money. Things changed inSeptember 1997, when Sukhoi flew the rivalS-37 and Mikhail Korzhuyev was appointedANPK MiG's General Director. He was deter-mined not to let this rival, and possible link tothe next generation, languish in its hangar anylonger. In December 1995 he got the WS todeclassify photographs taken on first rolloutin 1994. He then obtained permission forguests, including Defence Minister IgorSergeyev, to walk round the 1.44 on 12th Jan-uary 1999. On that occasion the aircraft rolledout under its own power (with astonishingquietness), Vladimir Gorboonov in the cock-pit. At least one observer was impressed, AirForce/Air-Defence Force C-in-C Col-Gen Ana-toliy Kornookov saying 'This aircraft can doeverything you want it to'. Gorboonov beganthe much-delayed flight-test programme on15 February 2000, Korzhuyev saying 'We canmake the first five or six flights without exter-nal financing'.

The 1.44 is an extremely large single-seater,designed to fly significantly faster than any air-craft it might encounter. Each wing is an al-

121

M i G 1 .44

most pure cropped delta with a thickness/chord ratio of about 3.5 per cent and leading-edge angle of about 48° (50° over the inner-most section). On the leading edge arealmost full-span hinged flaps, while on thetrailing edge are large inboard and outboardflaperons driven by power units in underwingfairings. Unlike the MiG-29, the wing is notblended into the fuselage, nor does it have aLERX (leading-edge root extension). As farforward as possible without interfering withpilot view are enormous canard foreplanes,driven over a large angular range. Each hasa sharp dogtooth, and a second smaller dog-tooth due to the fact that these are 1.42 ca-nards which do not perfectly match the largebulging fixed roots of the 1.44. Like the MiG-29 a structural beam projects behind eachwing to carry the outward-sloping upper fins,but these beams are much further apart.Thus, there is now a wide space between thebeam and the adjacent engine, and in this isplaced a secondary elevator, driven by a pow-erful actuator in a projecting fairing. Each finhas an inset rudder, and under the beams arevertical underpins with powered rudders. The

basic aircraft is designed to be longitudinallyunstable and to fight at alphas (angles of at-tack) up to at least 100°, which explains theunprecedented 16 flight-control surfaces.These are needed because, unlike the F-22(say Mikoyan) the basic aircraft is designedfor close air combat. At high alphas powerfullift is generated by the canards and by the flatnose and huge flat underside of the fuselage.Absence of LERXs means that, instead ofthere being an inlet under each wing, there isa single giant rectangular inlet a considerabledistance below the forward fuselage. In viewof the high design Mach number, the upperwall is fully variable, the sides are cut sharplyback in side view, and the lower lip hingesdown in high-alpha flight. The ducts divergeimmediately to pass the nose gear, and thenrise over the weapons bay (in this prototypeoccupied by instrumentation). The facesof the engines cannot be seen externally.The Saturn (Lyul'ka) AL-41F augmented tur-bofans are quite close together. Prototypeengines were made available because, un-like the S-37, the Mikoyan aircraft is the offi-cial choice as the next-generation fighter. Dry

and maximum ratings are approximately12,000kg (26,455 Ib) and 20,000kg (44,090 Ib).This engine, said General Designer Dr ViktorChepkin, was designed for 'the new tacticalfighters of the 1990s'. In 1993 he told co-au-thor Gunston that the dry weight of the AL-41Fis 'about the same as that of the previous-gen-eration engines with half the power', the ac-tual T/W (thrust:weight ratio) being 11.1compared with 8 for the AL-31F. On the pub-lic rollout of the 1.44 the engines were aston-ishingly quiet. By 1997 a total of 27 AL-41 andAL-4 IF engines had run, and extensive flighttesting had taken place under a Tu-16 and inthe left position of a MiG-25. T/W ratio of theclean aircraft is no less than about 1.33. Thenozzles are circular, with petals giving a vari-able convergent/divergent profile, their innerfaces being coated with a tan-coloured ce-ramic. Each nozzle can be vectored over lim-its of ±15° vertically and ±8° horizontally. Inthe nose is a forked pair of pilot tubes. Thecanopy swings up and back on four parallelarms. Above the huge wing the fuselage hasvisible waisting, and the broad but shallowcentral spine (which can readily be enlarged

Mikoyan 1.44

122

MiG 1.44

Mikoyan 1.44

if necessary) terminates in a capacious bayfor a braking parachute. The landing gears allhave levered trailing-link suspension, the sin-gle-wheel main units swinging forward intocompartments beside the 'weapons bay' andthe steerable twin-wheel nose unit retractingbackwards to lie between the ducts. There isno problem with nosewheel slush enteringthe ducts, the height of the landing gearsbeing dictated by landing attitude. ThoughBlue 01 has the full Avionika KSU-I-42 digitalcontrol system, which interlinks all the flightcontrols and engine nozzles, it does not havethe intended Fazotron N-014 (beetle) multi-mode radar nor the aft-facing radar and coun-termeasures which in the 1.42 would occupythe two tailcones. In an armed aircraft provi-sion would be made for a heavy load ofweapons internally and on wing pylons (the1.44 has hardpoints for six), and also for a30mm gun. Dielectric flush antennas face inall directions, though in the 1.44 many areempty. The 1.44 lacks a RAM (radar-ab-sorbent material) coating, but Mikoyan claimthe RCS (radar cross-section) of the MFIwould be 'similar to that of the smaller F-22'.

Had the MFI progressed according to its

original schedule it could well have been, ifnot a world-beater, at least a formidable rivalto the much slower F-22. As it is, unless ANPKMiG can find a rich foreign partner, it couldgradually be overtaken by foreign competi-tors. In any case, the days when MiGs soldpartly because of their low price are over.Several analysts consider that a productionMFI would have to be priced at not less thanUS$100 million. Indeed, Korzhuyev has goneso far as to suggest that, instead of being onestep away from a production MFI, the 1.44must be regarded as 'a flying laboratory to as-sist the development of a new fighter that willbe smaller and cheaper'.

123

Dimensions (estimated)Span about

Length aboutWing /canard area about

WeightsWeight empty aboutLoaded (normal)

(maximum)

PerformanceMaximum speed(high altitude)

Maximum cruisingspeed (dry thrust)

Range (internal fuel)

not less than

15.5m20.7m

120m2

18 tonnes27 tonnes35 tonnes

2,765 km/h

l,800km/h

3,000 km

50 ft 1014 in67 ft 11 in

1,292 ft2

39,683 Ib59,500 Ib77,160 Ib

1,718 mph (Mach 2.6)

1,1 18 mph (Mach 1.69)

1,864 miles

MiG 1 .44

124

Views of Mikoyan 1.44

M O L N I Y A B U R A N B T S - 0 0 2

Molniya Buran BTS-002Purpose: To develop the optimum Buranlanding profiles and techniques and trainCosmonauts to fly the Buran spacecraft.Design Bureau: NPO Molniya, Moscow,General Director Gleb E Lozino-Lozinskii.

In 1976 the various A I Mikoyan spacecraft -Spiral and Epos, and the 105-11 describedpreviously-were terminated and replaced bythe Buran (Snowstorm) programme. Thiswas assigned to NPO Energiya for the rocketlaunch vehicle, with a total thrust at boostseparation of 4,037 tonnes (8,900,000 Ib), andNPO Molniya for the reusable winged orbiter.Lozino-Lozinskii, then 67, was transferredfrom the MiG OKB to head the Molniya team.In 1978 work began on a series of BTS (initialsfrom Russian for Big Transport Ship) projectswhich eventually totalled eight, BTS-001through BTS-006 plus BTS-011 and BTS-015.Of these BTS-002 was a complete mannedair vehicle to explore the landing profilesand handling, and - together with prolongedtraining on various other aircraft, notably aTu-154LL - train the future crews. More than7,000 atmospheric entries, glides and land-

ings had been simulated mathematically, andin tunnel testing of models, but there was nosubstitute for actually flying a Buran type ve-hicle. In summer 1984 BTS-002 was taken byVM-T carrier aircraft to Jubilee airfield nearthe Cosmodrome at Baikonur. Here it begantaxi testing on 29th December 1984.

Almost a year then elapsed before the firstflight, on 10th November 1985 This was a sin-gle take-off, wide circuit and landing, lasting12 minutes. The Commander was Igor P Volkand the pilot Rimantas A A Stankyavichus.This crew flew many other missions, togeth-er with five other Cosmonauts. An importantflight was No 8, on 23rd December 1986,when the Volk/Stankyavichus crew made thefirst 'hands off automatic approach and land-ing from a height of 4km.

The last flight of BTS-002 took place on 15thApril 1988, just over seven months before thefirst launch of a Buran in November 1988made the 'atmospheric analog' redundant.It made a final high-speed taxi test on 20th De-cember 1989 and was then retired, but placedon view to the public at MosAero-92 atZhukovskii.

The airframe of BTS-002 was geometricallyidentical to the Buran, and it had the sameflight-control system and software. The fourlarge elevens, four sections of rudder (upperand lower left and upper and lower right,which split apart to act as airbrakes) anddoor-type ventral airbrake were identical. Sowere the twin-wheel landing gears, K-36Lseats and triple cruciform braking para-chutes. On the other hand it was devoid of the38,000 ceramic tiles and of virtually all thecomplex on-board systems of the spacecraft.

DimensionsSpanLengthWing area

WeightsEmpty, similar to Buran

23.92 m36.367 m250 nf

82 tonnesLoaded, less than the orbiter 96 tonnes

PerformanceNormal maximum speedon each flight

Normal peak of trajectoryEndurance

600 km/h4,000 mSOmin

78 ft 53/4 in119 ft 33/ in2,690ft2

180,77615211, 640 Ib

373 mph13,123ft

BTS-002

125

M O L N I Y A B U R A N B T S - 0 0 2 / M O S K A L Y O V S A M - 4 S I G M A

In particular, the propulsion systems were to-tally different. The orbiter had no main en-gines, relying totally on the mighty launchrocket, but it did have two OMEs (orbital ma-noeuvring engines) and 42 small thrusters forattitude control in space. The BTS-002 need-ed none of these, but instead had four Lyul'-ka AL-21F-3 afterburning turbojets, eachrated at 11,200kg (24,800 Ib) thrust. Thesewere arranged one on each side of the rearfuselage and one on each side at the base of

the fin. Of course it also needed a conven-tional kerosene fuel system. The engineswere used only for taxying to the runway andfor take-off and landing. The important part ofthe flight had to be a glide, simulating the or-biter. Presence of the four air-breathing en-gines was said to have little effect upon thevehicle's flight characteristics.

BTS-002 did everything it was designed todo. Unfortunately, the main Buran pro-gramme eventually ran eight years later and

Two views of BTS-002.

overran its budget severely. Nevertheless, inthe opinion of Vyacheslav Filin, Deputy Gen-eral Constructor at NPO Energiya, 'Had it notbeen for existence of the Buran system therewould have been no Reykjavik meetingwhere Reagan suggested sharing Star Warstechnology and which led to strategic armsreduction'.

Moskalyov SAM-4 SigmaPurpose: To create a fighter withunprecedented speed.Design Bureau: Aleksandr SergeyevichMoskalyov, initially in Leningrad and later atthe VGU and Aircraft Factory No 18, Voronezh.

Moskalyov was a talented young designer/pilot who achieved success with convention-al aircraft, notably the SAM-5 light transport(SAM stood for Samolyot [aeroplane] Alek-sandr Moskalyov). He also persistently stroveto create highly unconventional aeroplanesof tailless configurations. The first of the latterseries was the Sigma, named for the letter ofthe Greek alphabet. He sketched this in 1933whilst working at the Krasnyi Letchik (Redflyer) factory in Leningrad, and worked onrocket propulsion with V P Glushko in a seri-ous endeavour to design an aeroplane toreach l,000km/h (621 mph), and if possible toexceed Mach 1 (the first project in the worldwith this objective). When it was clear that arocket engine with adequate thrust was manyyears distant, he recast the design with pistonengines. He was working on this when he leftLeningrad to be a lecturer at the VGU, theState University at Voronezh. Under the guid-ance of A V Stolyarov he tested models in theVGU's newly built high-speed tunnel. InSeptember 1934 he submitted his preliminaryreport on SAM-4 to the GlavAviaProm (direc-torate of aircraft industries), whose Director,11 Mashkevich, berated Moskalyov for sub-

mitting such 'unimaginable exotics'.By 1933 Moskalyov had decided a suitable

configuration for a fast aircraft was an all-wing layout with a 'Gothic delta' plan shape,with trailing-edge elevens and Scheibe sur-faces (fins and rudders on the wingtips). Thedrawing shows two main wheels in the frontview, but this may be an error as Moskalyovfavoured a single centreline gear and, asshown, skids on the wingtip fins. The drawingshows a single propeller, but in fact Moskaly-

ov intended to use two Hispano-Suiza 12 Ybrsengines, each of 860hp (these were latermade in the USSR under licence as theM-100), driving separate contra-rotating pro-pellers. The stillborn rocket version wouldhave had a prone pilot, but the piston-en-gined SAM-4 featured a conventional en-closed cockpit; the designer did not explainwhy this was offset to port.

This proposal was altogether too 'far out'for Mashkevich. No data survives.

126

SAM-4 Sigma project

M O S K A L Y O V S A M - 6

Moskalyov SAM-6Purpose: To test an aeroplane with landinggears on the centreline.Design Bureau: S A Moskalyov at VGU andGAZNolS.

Unaware of the fact that Bartini had alreadyflown the Stal'-6 (see page 16), Moskalyov de-cided in 1933 that it would be prudent to builda simple low-powered aeroplane to investi-gate the landing gear he proposed to use forhis fighter, with a single mainwheel and skidsunder the wingtips and tail. It was flown inearly 1934, but later in that year it was modi-fied into the SAM-65/s.

The SAM-6 had a conventional tail, thoughits moment arm was very short and the air-craft was dominated by its relatively hugewing. The structure was wood, with fabric-covered control surfaces. The engine was athree-cylinder M-23 rated at 65hp. Behind thesmall fuel tank was the open cockpit. TheScheibe fins were not fitted with rudders, andwere described by the designer as 'plates'.Initial testing was done in early 1934 oncentreline tandem skis. Later the front skiwas replaced by a wheel on a sprung leg in-side a trouser fairing. After rebuilding as theSAM-66/s testing continued in 1935. This hadtandem cockpits with hinged hoods, and inits final form a conventional landing gear wasfitted with two trousered mainwheels.

According to Shavrov 'experiments showedthat the centreline gear was quite practical'.Moskalyov intended to use such landing gearon the SAM-7, but ultimately decided not to(see original drawing of that aircraft). The fol-lowing specification refers to the SAM-6t»/s.

Top right: SAM-6.

J

SAM-66/s

127

DimensionsSpan

LengthWing area

Weights

EmptyFuelLoaded

Performance

Speed at sea level

Service ceilingRangeLanding speed

8.0m4.5m12.0m2

380kg50kg500kg

130km/h3,000 m200km

55km/h

26 ft 3 in14 ft 9 in129ft2

838 IbHOlbl,102lb

81 mph9,842ft124 miles34 mph

M O S K A L Y O V S A M - 7 S I G M A

Moskalyov SAM-7 SigmaPurpose: To build a superior two-seatfighter.Design Bureau: A S Moskalyov, at GAZNo 18, Voronezh.

In 1934 Moskalyov was engaged in engineer-ing later versions of TB-3 heavy bomber forproduction. This enabled him to use one ofthis bomber's engines and propellers topower a fighter (though it was hardly ideal forthe purpose). Despite the fact that it was farmore complex than any of his previous air-craft, and also had advanced all-metal con-struction, the SAM-7 was completed inOctober 1935. Pilots considered it potentiallydangerous, and factory testing was confinedto taxying at progressively higher speeds, ulti-mately making short hops in a straight line.

The SAM-7's configuration was describedby Shavrov as 'one of the world's most un-

orthodox', but in fact the wing was of fairlynormal design, with straight equal taper andan aspect ratio of 4.6. Aerofoil profile was R-II, and the thickness/chord ratio 12 per cent,without twist. Apart from this the Sigma (thedesigner's second use of this name) was in-deed unconventional. There was no tail. Onthe wingtips were Moskalyov's favouredScheibe fins, fitted with fabric-covered horn-balanced rudders. On the wing trailing edgewere outboard ailerons and inboard eleva-tors which, when depressed to a slight angle,were intended also to serve as slotted flaps(though it is difficult to see how they could doso without putting the aircraft into a dive). Themain landing gears had single struts, rakedforward, with a track of 2.8m (9ft 2in), andwere pivoted to the front spar to retractinwards. The surviving drawing shows a tail-wheel, but Shavrov says there was a non-cas-

toring tailskid. The structure was almostwholly Dl duralumin, the maximum wingskin thickness being 2.5mm. The nose inletserved the carburettors. The 830hp M-34 en-gine drove a four-blade wooden propeller,and was cooled by a surface evaporative(steam) system similar to that of the Stal'-6.For use at low speeds a normal honeycombradiator could be cranked down behind thecockpit. The intended armament was twoShKAS fixed above the engine, fired by thepilot, and a second pair mounted on a pivotand aimed by the rear gunner.

One cannot help being astonished thatMoskalyov was able to obtain funds to buildthis aircraft, because there is no mention ofany official approval of the design (whichwould almost certainly have been refused).One feels sympathy with the test pilots, whowere probably right to be hesitant.

Original OKBdrawing of SAM-7.

Artist's impression of SAM-7.

128

DimensionsSpan (Shavrov) 9.46 m 31 ft 14 in

(OKB drawing) 9.6 m to centrelines of fins

Length 7.0 mWing area 20.0 m2

Weights

Empty 940 kgLoaded 1,480kg

PerformanceMax speed (estimated)

at sea level 435 knVhat altitude 500km/h

Service ceiling (estimated) 9,200 m

Range (estimated) 800 kmThe only measured figure was

the landing speed of 1 38 km/h

22 ft 11!* in215ft2

2,072 Ib3,263 Ib

270 mph311 mph30,184ft497 miles

86 mph

M O S K A L Y O V SAM-9 S T R E L A

Moskalyov SAM-9 StrelaPurpose: To test at modest speeds anaircraft with a 'Gothic delta' wing of very lowaspect ratio.Design Bureau: A S Moskalyov, from 1936head of his own OKB-31 at Voronezh.

Always eager to build his incredible SAM-4dart-like fighter, Moskalyov was rebuffed inthese efforts until in 1936 US magazines fea-tured futuristic fighters with low-aspect-ratiowings, shaft drives and prone pilots. Thisspurred GUAP to invite Moskalyov at least totry out his radical ideas with a simple aircraftwith an engine of modest power. Followingtunnel tests by V P Gorskiy at CAHI (TsAGI),the SAM-9 was built in 70 days, and flown onskis in early 1937 by N S Rybko at Voronezh.Following six flights by Rybko and A NGusarov, it was taken to Moscow and testedin short hops by Rybko and A P Chernavskii,finally making eight full flights in the hands ofRybko. The aircraft was tricky, demanding anangle of attack of 22° at take-off and landing,and being unable to climb higher than 1,500m(4,921ft). Despite this the NKAP (state com-missariat for aviation industry) suggested thatMoskalyov should produce a fighter with a0.975 aspect ratio wing, and this led to the RM-l.SAM-29.

The SAM-9 Strela (Arrow) was made ofwood, with a brilliant surface finish, thecable-operated rudder and elevons havingfabric covering. The thick aerofoil was ofRAF.38 profile, with local modifications. Thecockpit was placed between the two mainspars, with a hinged canopy. The engine wasa Renault MV-4 aircooled inverted 4-cylinderrated at 140hp. The neat main landing gearshad pivoted rubber-sprung cantilever legs forskis or wheels, and the tailskid did not castor.The rudder and broad-chord elevons had trimtabs.

DimensionsSpanLengthWing area

WeightsEmptyFuel and oilLoaded

PerformanceMaximum speed actuallyreached, at sea level

Altitude reachedTake-off run aboutLanding speed/

run

3.55m6.15m13.0m2

470kg60+10 kg630kg

310km/h1,500m200m102km/h100m

I l f t 5 3 / 4 i n20 ft 2 in140 ft2

l,0361b132+22 Ibl,3891b

195 mph4,921 ft656ft63 mph328ft

Without the support of CAHI (TsAGI) andthe (mistaken) belief that such aircraft wereplanned in the USA, this project would prob-ably have got nowhere. As it was, the SAM-9merely showed that such aircraft could fly,

but with difficulty. In a recent display of mod-els of Moskalyov aircraft the SAM-9 was de-picted entirely doped red except for thepropeller blades, and with a placard givingspeed and altitude as 340km/h and 3,400m.

129

SAM-9 Strela

M O S K A L Y O V S A M - 1 3

Moskalyov SAM-13Purpose: To design a small fighter with'push/pull' propulsion.Design Bureau: A S Moskalyov, OKB -31 atVoronezh.

This small fighter was unconventional in lay-out, but used an ordinary wing, and had noth-ing to do with the designer's previous fighterconcepts. According to Shavrov 'Fokker de-signed an almost exact copy of the SAM-13,known as the D.23...' In fact it was the otherway about, because Moskalyov began this de-sign in 1938, immediately after the D.23 hadbeen exhibited at the Paris Salon. The singleprototype was first flown by N D Fikson in late1940, 18 months after the Dutch fighter, andproved difficult to handle, to need inordinate-ly long runs to take off and land, and to havea sluggish climb and poor ceiling. Its designerworked round the clock to improve it, and by

spring 1941 it was undergoing LII testing inthe hands of Mark L Gallai. Apart from the factthe nose gear never did retract fully, it was bythis time promising, and it was entered for thesummer high-speed race, but the German in-vasion on 22nd June stopped everything. TheNo 31 OKB was evacuated, but this aircrafthad to be left behind so it was destroyed. TheOKB documents have not been found.

The SAM-13 was powered by two 220hpRenault MV-6 inverted six-cylinder aircooledengines driving 2.2m (7ft 21/2in) two-bladevariable-pitch propellers. Between them wasthe pilot, and Moskalyov fitted the rear pro-peller with a rapid-acting brake to make itsafer for the pilot to bail out. The small two-spar wing was sharply tapered, and was fittedwith split flaps inboard of the booms carryingthe single-fin tail. Apart from welded steel-tube engine mounts, the structure was wood-

SAM-13 in erectingshop, dated20th February 1940

en, with polished doped ply skin. The mainlanding gears retracted inwards and the noseunit aft. One drawing shows the nose unit(which had a rubber shimmy damper) tohave had a levered-suspension arm for theaxle. The intended armament, never fitted,comprised four 7.62mm ShKAS, two abovethe front engine and two at the extremities ofthe wing centre section.

Moskalyov knew that the MV-6 was avail-able for licence-production in the USSR, andthought this aircraft might make good use ofsome. Even had the programme continuedwithout interruption it is hard to envisage theSAM-13 being adopted by the WS.

SAM-13

Dimensions (note: Shavrov's dimensions are incorrect)Span

LengthWing area

WeightsEmptyLoaded

PerformanceMax speed (design figures)at sea levelat 4,000m (13,123 ft)

Service ceiling (estimate)

Range (estimate)Landing speed

7.3m

7.85m9.0m'

754kg1,183kg

463km/h680km/h10,000m

850 miles125km/h

23ftll^in

25 ft 9 in96.9ft2

l,6621b2,608 Ib

288 mph423 mph32,808 ft

528 miles78 mph

130

M O S K A L Y O V S A M - 2 9 , R M - 1 / M Y A S I S H C H E V M-50 A N D M - 5 2

Moskalyov SAM-29, RM-1Purpose: To renew attempt to build arocket-engined interceptor.Design bureau: A S Moskalyov, No 31.

During the Great Patriotic War practical rock-et engines for manned aircraft became avail-able. Moskalyov never forgot that he hadbeen invited by the NKAP to build a fighterwith the so-called Gothic delta wing of 0.95aspect ratio. In 1944, despite much otherwork, he collaborated with L S Dushkin inplanning what was to be the ultimate Strela

fighter. This time most of the technology ex-isted, and S P Korolyov lent his support, butonce the War was over such a project wasjudged to be futuristic and unnecessary.Moskalyov's OKB was closed in January 1946,and he returned to lecturing, but he contin-ued to study this project for two further years.

The final SAM, also called Raketnyi Moska-lyov, would have followed the usual Strelaform in having a Gothic delta wing and nohorizontal tail. The wing was fitted withelevens and blended into a needle-nosed

Two sketches, one called SAM-29,the other RM-1.

fuselage carrying a large fin and rudder. TheDushkin RD-2M-3V engine, rated at 2,000kg(4,409 Ib) thrust at sea level and much moreat high altitude, was installed at the rear andfed with propellants from tanks filling most ofthe airframe. Two cannon would have beeninstalled beside the retracted nose landinggear.

This was yet another of this designer's nearmisses, all of which stemmed from his abun-dance of enthusiasm.No data survives.

Myasishchev M-50 and M-52Purpose: To design a long-range supersonicbomber.Design Bureau: OKB-23 of VladimirMikhailovich Myasishchev, Moscow.

In 1955, when the Myasishchev OKB was stillstriving to develop the huge 3M subsonicbomber, this design bureau was assigned theadditional and much more difficult task ofcreating a strategic bomber able to makedash attacks at supersonic speed. The needfor this had been spurred by the threat of theUSAF Weapon System 110, which materi-alised as the XB-70. The US bomber was de-signed for Mach 3, but in 1955 this wasconsidered an impossible objective for theSoviet Union. From the outset it was recog-nized that there could be no question of com-peting prototypes from different designteams. Even though the Myasishchev OKBwas already heavily loaded with completingdevelopment of the huge M-4 strategicbomber and redesigning this into the 3M pro-duction version, this was the chosen designbureau. In partnership with CAHI (TsAGI),wind tunnels were built for Mach 0.93,3.0 and6.0. The two partners analysed more than 30

possible configurations, initially in theIzdeliye (product) '30' family (VM-32, taillessVM-33 and VM-34). The basic requirementwas finally agreed to specify a combat radiusnot less than 3,000km (1,864 miles) and ifpossible much more, combined with a dashspeed (with engine afterburners in use) ofMach 2. This demanded an upgraded aircraft,and the result was the '50' series, starting withthe M-50. Under chief designer GeorgiNazarov this was quickly accepted, and theinitial programme comprised a static-testspecimen and two flight articles, comprisingone M-50 followed by an M-52. OKB pilotsN I Goryainov and A S Lipko flew the M-50 on27th October 1959. Modified with afterburn-ing inboard engines, it continued testing inlate 1960, but was by this time judged to be oflimited value, and to be consuming fundsneeded for ICBMs (intercontinental ballisticmissiles) and space projects. The OKB-23was closed, and its personnel were trans-ferred to V N Chelomey to work on ICBMsand spacecraft. Myasishchev was appointedDirector of CAHI. To the protestations ofsome, the virtually complete M-52 wasscrapped, and six later 50-series projects re-

mained on the drawing board. However, forpropaganda purposes the M-50 was kept air-worthy and made an impressive but rathersmoky flypast at the Aviation Day parade atMoscow Tushino on 9th July 1961, naturallycausing intense interest in the West. Afterbeing photographed with different paintschemes, and the successive radio callsigns022, 023,12 and 05, it was parked in the nose-high take-off attitude at Monino.

Apart from the totally different wing, inoverall configuration, size and weight theM-50 exactly followed the M-4 and 3M family.Despite this every part was totally new, to thelast tyre and hydraulic pump. The wing was ofpure delta shape, with CAHI R-II profile ofonly 3.5 to 3.7 per cent thickness, and with aleading-edge angle of 50° from the root to theinboard engines at 55 per cent semi-span,and 41° 30' from there to the tip. The tip wascropped to provide mountings for the out-board engines. The leading edge was cam-bered but fixed, while the trailing edgecarried rectangular double-slotted flapsand tapered outboard flaperons. At the timethis was by far the largest supersonic wingever flown. Structurally it was based on a

131

M Y A S I S H C H E V M - 5 0 A N D M - 5 2

rectangular grid with four transverse sparsand seven forged ribs on each side, the skinbeing formed by forged and machined pan-els. The enormous fuselage was of almostperfect streamline form, which like the wingwas skinned with forged and machined pan-els. Only a small two-bay section in the noseformed the pressure cabin for the pilot andnavigator seated in tandem downward-eject-ing seats. These were lowered on cables forthe crew to be strapped in at ground level,then winching themselves into place. Therewas neither a fin nor fixed tailplanes. Insteadthe tail comprised three surfaces, each with aforward-projecting anti-flutter weight anddriven by a quadruple power unit in the twinduplex hydraulic systems. A back-up me-chanical control was provided, with rods andlevers, but it was expected that this wouldlater be removed. Several possible engineswere studied, the finalists being VADo-brynin's VD-10 and P F Zubts' 16-17, whichwas replaced by the 17-18. Construction ofthe aircraft outpaced both, and in the end theM-50 had to be powered by two DobryninVD-7 turbojets on the underwing pylons andtwo more on the wingtips. As these were tem-porary they were installed in simple nacelleswith plain fixed-geometry inlets. Rated at9,750kg (21,4951b), these were basically thesame engines as those of the 3M. Likewisethe main landing gears appeared to be simi-lar to those of the previous bomber, but in factthey were totally new. One of the basic designproblems was that the weapons bay had to belong enough to carry the l lm (36ft) M-61cruise missile internally. This forced the reartruck, bearing 63 per cent of the weight, to bequite near the tail, reducing the effective mo-

ment arm of the tailplanes and threatening tomake it impossible for the pilot to rotate theaircraft on take-off. One answer would havebeen to use enormous tailplanes, greatly in-creasing drag, but a better solution was to dowhat the OKB had pioneered with the M-4and 3M and equip the steerable front four-wheel landing gear with a double-extensionhydraulic strut. Triggered by the airspeedreaching 300km/h (186mph), this forcibly ro-tated the aircraft 10° nose-up. Another uniquefeature was that each main gear incorporateda unique steel-shod shoe which, after land-ing, was hydraulically forced down on to therunway, creating a shower of sparks but pro-ducing powerful deceleration, even on snow.For stability on the ground twin-wheel tip pro-tection gears were fitted, retracting forwardsimmediately inboard of the wingtip engines.All fuel was housed in the fuselage, and yetanother unique feature was that to cancel outthe powerful change in longitudinal trimcaused by the transonic acceleration to su-personic flight fuel was rapidly pumped fromNol tank behind the pressure cabin to No 8tank in the extreme tail (and pumped back ondeceleration to subsonic flight). Over 10 yearslater the same idea, credited by Myasishchevto L Minkin, was used on Concorde. Flighttesting of the M-50 at Zhukovskii was remark-ably rapid, though the aircraft proved stub-bornly subsonic, stopping at Mach 0.99 evenin a shallow dive at full power. In early 1960the M-50 was modified with afterburningVD-7M engines with a maximum rating of16,000kg (35,275 Ib) on the inboard pylonsand derated VD-7B engines rated at 9,500kg(20,944 Ib) on the wingtips. This was consid-ered to offer the best compromise between

M-50 in final form

available thrust, mission radius and propul-sion reliability. The engine installations wereredesigned, all four having large secondarycooling airflows served by projecting ram in-lets above the nacelle. The outer engineswere mounted on extensions to the winghousing new wingtip landing gears which re-tracted backwards.

The M-52 was under construction from No-vember 1958 and differed in many respects. Itwas to be powered by four Zubts 17-18 bypassengines each rated at 17,700kg (39,021 Ib). Allfour were served by efficient variable multi-shock inlets. The inner engines were 'set atan angle in relation to the chord line' and theouters were attached to larger pylons withforward sweep. The nose was redesignedand housed navigation/bombing radar, thecrew sat side-by-side, a small horizontal sur-face was added on top of the rudder, a re-tractable flight-refuelling probe was added,the interior was rearranged, a remotely con-trolled barbette was fitted in the tail with twinGSh-23 guns, and provision was made tocarry one M-61 internally or four Kh-22 cruisemissiles scabbed on semi-externally in pairsconforming to the Area Rule. This aircraft wasstructurally complete in 1960 but when OKB-23 was closed it was scrapped.

The M-50 was an extraordinary example ofan aircraft which physically and financiallywas on a huge scale yet which had very limit-ed military value. Not least of the remarkablefeatures of this programme was its relativefreedom from technical troubles, eventhough virtually every part was totally new.

Dimensions (M-50 in 1960)Span (over outer engines) 35. 1 mLength 57.48 mWing area 290.6 m2

WeightsEmpty 76,790 kgNormal loaded 203,000kg

PerformanceMax speed (estimated) 1 ,950 km/hCruising spee 800 km/hService ceiling 16,500mPractical range (estimated) 7,400 kmLanding speed (lightweight) 215 km/h

1 1 5 f t 2 i n188 ft 7 in3,128ft2

1 69,290 Ib447,531 Ib

1,212 mph (Mach 1.84)497 mph54,134ft4,598 miles133.6 mph

132

M Y A S I S H C H E V M-50 A N D M-52

Four views of M-50 prototype at different periods.

M-52

133

M Y A S I S H C H E V 3M-T A N D V M - T A T L A N T

Myasishchev 3M-T and VM-T AtlantPurpose: To transport outsize cargoes.Design Bureau: EMZ (Eksperimental'nyiMashinostroitel'nyi Zavod, experimentalengineering works) named forV M Myasishchev.

After directing CAHI (TsAGI) from 1960, Mya-sishchev returned to OKB No 23 in early 1978in order to study how a 3M strategic bombermight be modified to convey large spacelaunchers and similar payloads. In particular

VM-T No 2 (01502) with Buran

an aircraft was needed to transport to theBaikonur launch site four kinds of load: thenose of the Energiya launcher; the secondportion of Energiya; the Energiya tank; andthe Buran spacecraft, with vertical tail andengines removed. These loads typicallyweighed 40 tonnes (88,183 Ib) and had adiameter of 8m (26ft). Myasishchev had pre-viously calculated that such loads could beflown mounted above a modified 3Mbomber. He died on 14th October 1978, theprogramme being continued by V Fedotov.While design went ahead, three 3MN-IItanker aircraft were taken to SibNIA (theSiberian State Research Instiutute named forSAChaplygin) and put through a detailedstructural audit preparatory to grafting on anew rear fuselage and tail, and mountings forthe external payload. The modified aircraftwere designated 3M-T. All were rebuilt withzero-life airframes and new engines, but ini-tially without payload attachments. One wasstatic-tested at CAHI while the other two werecompleted and flown, tne first on 29th April1981. After a brief flight-test programme theywere equipped to carry pick-a-back pay-loads, and in Myasishchev's honour redesig-nated VM-T Atlant. The first flight with apayload was made by AKucherenko andcrew on 6th January 1982. Subsequently thetwo Atlant aircraft carried more than 150 pay-loads to Baikonur.

The most obvious modification of these air-craft was that the rear fuselage was replacedby a new structure 7m (23ft) longer and withan upward tilt, carrying a completely new tail.This comprised modified tailplanes and ele-vators with pronounced dihedral carrying in-ward-sloping fins and rudders of almostperfectly rectangular shape, with increasedtotal area and outside the turbulent wakefrom any of the envisaged payloads. Less ob-vious was the fact that, even though the max-imum take-off weight was less than that forthe bomber versions, the airframe wasstrengthened throughout. As time betweenoverhauls was not of great importance theoriginal four VD-7B engines were replaced bythe VD-7M. These were RD-7M-2 engines,originally built for the Tu-22 supersonicbomber with afterburners and variable noz-zles, which had had the afterburner replacedby a plain jetpipe and fixed-area nozzle.Thrust was 11,000kg (24,250 Ib). These werein turn replaced by the VD-7D, rated at10,750kg (23,700 Ib). Each aircraft was fittedwith 14 attachment points above the fuselageand on lateral rear-fuselage blisters for thefour different kinds of supporting structure,each being specially tailored to its payload.They were also equipped with a modified

134

M Y A S I S H C H E V 3M-T A N D V M - T A T L A N T

flight-control and autopilot system. The for-ward fuselage was furnished with work sta-tions for a crew of six. The aircraft were givencivilian paint schemes, one being registeredRF-01502 and the other being RF-01402 andfitted with a flight-refuelling probe. To supporttheir missions the PKU-50 loading and un-

loading facility was constructed at spacecraftfactories, including NPO Energiya at MoscowKhimki, and at the Baikonur Cosmodrome.These incorporated a giant gantry for careful-ly placing the payloads on the carrier aircraft.

Despite the turbulent aerodynamics down-stream of the external payloads, this dramat-

ic reconstruction proved completely success-ful. In the USA a 747 was used to airlift ShuttleOrbiters, but no other aircraft could have car-ried the sections of Energiya.

Three views of VM-T Nol (01402), two showing Energiya main tanks.

Below: VM-T No 2 with Energiya second-stage tank.

VM-T with Energiya payloads

135

Dimensions

Span

Length (no probe)

Wing area

WeightsEmptyMaximum payload

Maximum take-off

Performance

Cruising speedCruise altitude typicallyRange (maximum fuel)

53.16m58.7m

351.78m2

81,200kg50 tonnes

192,000kg

540 km/h8,500 m3,000 km

174 ft 5 in

192 ft 7 in

3,787 ft2

179,01 2 Ib11 0,229 Ib423,280 Ib

290 knots, 335.5 mph27,887 ft1,864 miles

compared with 10,950 km for the 3MN.

M Y A S I S H C H E V M - 1 7 S T R A T O S F E R A

Myasishchev M-17 StratosferaPurpose: To fly reconnaissance missions atvery high altitude.Design Bureau: EMZ named forV M Myasishchev.

Though not an experimental aircraft, the M-17qualifies for this book because of its nature,its ancestry, and the fact that it was the basisfor the M-55 research aircraft. The concept ofmanned reconnaissance aircraft penetratinghostile airspace at extreme altitude was com-

mon in the Second World War, and in theCold War reached a flash point on 1st May1960 when the U-2 of F G Powers, a CIA pilot,was shot down over Sverdlovsk. One of theAmerican alternatives studied and then actu-ally used was unmanned balloons launchedin such a way that prevailing winds wouldcarry them across Soviet territory. They couldchange altitude, and could carry not only re-connaissance systems but also explosivecharges. This threat could have been serious,

M-17Chaika

and the PVO (air defence forces) found it dif-ficult to counter. Though still at CAHI, Mya-sishchev was made head of a secret EMZtasked with Subject 34, a high-altitude bal-loon destroyer. Called Chaika (Gull) from itsinverted-gull wing, it was to be powered by asingle Kolesov RD-36-52 turbojet of 12,000kg(26,4551b) thrust. To reduce jetpipe lengththe tail was carried on twin booms. In thenose was to be radar and the highly pressur-ized cockpit, while between the engine inletducts was a remotely controlled turret hous-ing a twin-barrel GSh-23 gun. Secretly built atKumertau helicopter plant in Bashkirya, theChaika was first flown in December 1978 byK V Chernobrovkin. He had been engaged intaxi tests, and had not meant to take off but ina snowstorm became airborne to avoid hit-ting the wall of snow on the right side of therunway. In zero visibility he hit a hillside. Theprogramme was relocated at Smolensk,where the second aircraft was constructed toa modified design, designated M-l 7. The first,No 17401, was first flown by E VChePtsov atZhukovskii on 26th May 1982. It achieved alift/drag ratio of 30, and between March andMay 1990 set 25 international speed/climb/height records. In 1992 it investigated the'hole' in the ozone layer over the Antarctic.The second M-17, No 17103, was equippedwith a different suite of sensors. From the M-17 was derived the M-55 Geofizka describednext.

M-l 7 prototype

136

M Y A S I S H C H E V M - 1 7 S T R A T O S F E R A

The M-17 had an all-metal stressed-skinstructure designed to the low factor of 2. Theremarkable wing had an aerofoil of P-173-9profile and aspect ratio of 11.9, and on theground it sagged to an anhedral of-2° 30'. Theoriginal wing had 16 sections of Fowler flapand short ailerons at the tips, but it was re-designed to have a kinked trailing edge withsimplified flaps and longer-span two-partailerons. Large areas of wing and tail wereskinned with honeycomb panels. Flight con-trols were manually operated, in conjunctionwith a PK-17 autopilot. The tricycle landinggears retracted hydraulically, the 210kg/cm2

(3,000 lb/in2) system also operating other ser-

vices including three airbrakes above eachwing. The engine was an RD-36-51V, with atake-off rating of 12,000kg (26,455 Ib) andnominal thrust of half this value. Cruise thrustat 21,000m (68,898ft) was 600kg (1,32315). T-8V kerosene was housed in two 2,650 litremain tanks, two 1,550 litre reserve tanks anda 1,600 litre collector tank, a total of 10,000litres (2,200 Imperial gallons). The pressur-ized and air-conditioned cockpit housed a

very fully equipped K-36L seat, and amongother equipment the pilot wore a VKK-6D suitand VK-3M ventilated suit, and a ZSh-3M pro-tective helmet and KM-32 mask overlain by aGSh-6A pressurized helmet. Avionics wereextremely comprehensive.

The M-17 fulfilled all its design objectives.The successive changes in both mission andaircraft design were caused solely by politicalfactors.

M-17 production

137

DimensionsSpan 40.32 mLength 22.27 mWing area 137.7m2

WeightsEmpty 11,995kgLoaded 18,400kgMaximum take-off 1 9,950 kg

PerformanceMaximum speedat 5 km (16,404 ft) 332km/hat 20 km (65,617 ft) rising to 743 km/h

Service ceiling from max take-off weight,reached in 35 min 21 ,550 m

Range at 20 km at Mach 0.7with 5 % reserve 1,315km

Take-off runat 18,400 kg (40,56415) 340m

Landing speed/run 1 88 km/hat 16,300 kg (35,935 Ib) 950m

132ft3Kin73 ft Kin1,482ft2

26,444 Ib40,564 Ib43,981 Ib

206 mph462 mph

70,700 ft

81 7 miles

1,115ft117 mph3,117ft

M-17No2

M Y A S I S H C H E V M-55 G E O F I Z K A

Myasishchev M-55 Geofizka

Purpose: To study the ozone layer andperform many other surveillance tasks.Design Bureau: EMZ named for V MMyasishchev, General Designer V K Novikov.

The M-l 7 proved so successful in its basicallypolitico-military role that it was decided in1985 to produce a derived aircraft specificallytailored to Earth environmental studies. Thefirst M-55, No 01552, was first flown on 16thAugust 1988, the pilot being Nil Merited PilotEduard V Chel'tsov who had carried out theinitial testing of the M-l 7. Three further exam-ples were built, Nos 55203/4/5. Further single-seaters, plus the M-55UTS dual trainer, theGeofizka-2 two-seat research aircraft andother derived versions, have been shelvedthrough lack of funds.

Structurally the M-55 was designed to aload factor increased from 2 to 5. This result-ed in a new wing which instead of havingleft/right panels joined on the centre line hasinner and outer panels joined to a centre sec-tion. Aspect ratio is reduced to 10.7, and aero-dynamically the wing retains the P-173-9profile but has redesigned flaps, ailerons andupper-surface airbrakes. The horizontal tail ismodified, with full-span elevator tabs andsquare tips. The fuel capacity is increased to

M-55

138

MYASISHCHEV M-55 GEOFIZKA / NIAI LK-1

10,375 litres (2,282 Imperial gallons), andrange/endurance was further increased bychanging to a pair of P A Solov'yov D-30-10Vturbofans each rated at 9,500kg (20,944 Ib)take-off thrust, and with a combined cruisethrust at 21km (68,898ft) of 670kg (l,4771b).Apart from the landing gear the aircraft wasalmost totally redesigned, the front of the na-celle being much deeper and more capa-cious, the engine bays being lengthened, andthe flight controls being operated by a dual-channel digital system with manual rever-sion. In standard form the M-55 carries apayload of up to 1.5 tonnes (3,307 Ib), typical-ly comprising a Radius scanning radiometerwith swath width of 20km (12.4 miles), a

choice of IR linescanners with swath width of25km (15.5 miles), an Argos optical scannerwith swath width of 28km (17.4 miles), anA-84 optical camera with swath width of120km (74.6 miles) and a choice of SLARs(sideways-looking airborne radars) with max-imum swath width of 50km (starting at 30kmand extending to 80km) on each side. Cover-age of 100,000km2 (38,610 square miles) perhour is matched to an instrumentation trans-mission rate of 16 Mbits per second.

The EMZ have created a versatile researchand geophysical aircraft which is being pro-moted for such varied tasks as search/rescue,mapping, ozone studies, hailstorm preven-tion and agricultural monitoring.

DimensionsSpanLengthWing area

WeightsEmptyMaximum take off weight

PerformanceMaximum speedat 5 km (16,404 ft)

37.46m22.867 m131.6m2

13,995kg23,800kg

332 km/hat 20 km (65,61 7 ft) rising to 750 km/h

Practical ceiling 2 1,850mEnduranceat practical ceilingat a cruise height of 1 7 km

Max range on direct flightTake-off/landing

in 35 min

2hrs 14 min6 hrs 30 min4,965kmSimilar to M- 17.

122 ft 10% in75 ft M in1,417ft2

30,853 Ib52,469 Ib

206 mph466 mph(71,686ft)

(55,774ft)3,085 miles

NIAI LK-1Purpose: To build a more efficient lighttransport.Design Bureau: NIAI, initials from ScientificResearch Aero Institute, Leningrad, formedby the LIIPS, the Leningrad Institute forAerial Communication; designersAI Lisichkin and V F Rentel.

Even though it went into production andeveryday use, this aircraft qualifies by virtue of

its extraordinary layout, with the wing blend-ed into the fuselage. The prototype, with civilregistration LI 300, was first flown byA Ya Ivanov in May 1933. Despite the fact thatthe pilot had no view except over a sector ofabout 100° to the left side, Ivanov's opinionwas favourable because the aircraft handledwell. After four months of testing in Leningradthe LK-1 was flown to Moscow. There it wastested by the Nil, as a result of which a small

series of 20 were built. These saw Aeroflotservice in the Arctic, on occasion being fittedwith skis or floats.

LK stood for Leningradskii Kombinat, andthe prototype was also unofficially called Fan-era-2 (Plywood 2). Though basically a simpleall-wood machine, powered by a l00hp M-l 1engine, it strove to gain in lift/drag ratio byblending the wing root into the fuselage. In-deed, it could be considered as an all-wing

LK-1 series aircraft

139

N I A I L K - 1 / N I A I R K , L I G - 7

NIAI RK, LIG-7Purpose: To evaluate an aeroplane with awing of variable area.Design Bureau: NIAI, Leningrad.

In 1936 Grigorii (according to Shavrov, Georgii)Ivanovich Bakshayev, aged 18, joined the UKGVF, the instructional combine of the civil airfleet. He was eager to test his belief that a su-perior aeroplane could be created by arrang-ing for it to have a large wing for take-off andlanding and a smaller wing for cruise. As theUK GVF was in Leningrad the NIAI adoptedthe idea. Called RK (Razdvizhnoye Krylo, ex-tending wing), and also LIG-7 because it wasthe seventh project of the Leningrad InstituteGVF, the aircraft was built quickly and wasfirst flown in August 1937. Remarkably, the

system worked smoothly and reliably (betterin the air than on the ground), and it led to theeven more unconventional RK-I fighter.

Apart from the wing the RK was a simplemonoplane of mixed construction, with en-closed cockpits for a pilot and observer andpowered by an uncowled l00hp M-l 1 enginedriving a laminated-wood propeller. It had atwo-spar wing of constant narrow-chord M-6profile, braced by pairs of wires above andbelow to the top of the pilot's hood and to apyramid truss under the fuselage. At the rootwas what looked like the root section of amuch larger wing, with CAHI (TsAGI)-846aerofoil profile, but with a span of only 50cm(1ft 7%in). Inside this, nestling tightly like a setof Russian Matroshka dolls, were five further

plywood wing sections each of 50cm span.The observer could crank these out by a cablemechanism, each adding 45cm (1ft 5%in) tothe span of the large-chord region. It took 30to 40 seconds to crank the telescopic sectionsout to their full extent, covering 60 per cent ofthe semi-span, and 25 to 30 seconds to windthem back.

Seemingly a 'crackpot' idea, the RK per-formed even better than prediction. It is diffi-cult to account for the fact that it got nowhere.The answer must be that it introduced an el-ement of complexity and possible seriousdanger, sufficient to dissuade any later de-signer from following suit.

RK, LIG-7

140

aircraft with the nose engine and rear fuse-lage attached to the thickened centre wing.This central portion contained two pairs ofseats, that on the left in front being for thepilot. The entire front and top of this cabinwas skinned in transparent panels, thosealong the sides sloping at 60°, two of themforming doors. The prototype had a ring-cowled engine, spatted main wheels and abroad but squat fin and rudder. Productionaircraft had no cowling or spats, but had a re-designed wing root and a narrower rear fuse-lage and completely redesigned vertical tail.

Several designers attempted a cabin of thiskind, but all the others were very large air-

craft. In fact whether a blended wing/bodyaircraft can be hyper-efficient is doubtful,though the LK-1 did have useful STOL (shorttake-off and landing) qualities.

Dimensions (production aircraft)SpanLengthWing area

WeightsEmptyFuel/oilLoaded

PerformanceMaximum speedTime to climb 1 kmService ceilingRangeTake-off runLanding speed/run

12.47m8.87m27.6m2

746kg170kg1,160kg

154km/hlOmin3,370m850km200m65km/h120m

40ft 11 in29 ft Win297 ft2

1,645 Ib375 Ib2,557 Ib

96 mph(3,281 ft)11,000ft528 miles656ft40 mph394ft

N I A I R K , L I G - 7 / R K - I , R K - 8 0 0

DimensionsSpanLengthWing area (minimum)

(maximum)

WeightsEmptyLoaded

11.3m

7.34m16.56m2

23.85 nf

667kg

897kg

37 ft % in

24 ft 1 in

178.25ft2

256.72 ft2

l,4701bl,9781b

Performance (small wing)Maximum speedTime to climb 1,000m

to 2,000m

Service ceilingTake-off runLanding speed/

run

Performance (large wing)Maximum speedService ceilingTake-off runLanding speed/run (both large wing)

156km/h7.5 min14.5min2,900m250m105km/h210m

143km/h3,100m135m

68km/h110m

97 mph3,281 ft

6,561 ft

9,514ft820ft65 mph

689ft

89 mph

10,171 ft443ft42 mph

361ft

Two views of RK, LIG-7.

NIAI RK-I, RK-800Purpose: To create a fighter with variablewing area.Design Bureau: NIAI, Leningrad.

From the start of his telescopic-wing studiesyoung Bakshayev had really been thinkingabout fighters. He had regarded the RK mere-ly as a preliminary proof-of-concept exercise.He calculated that a fighter able to retractmost of its wing area and powered by the M-105 engine ought to be able to reach a world-record 800km/h (497mph), overlooking thefact that a fighter with a relatively small wingwould have poor combat manoeuvrability.Indeed, as described below, he found a wayto make the relative difference between thesmall and large wings even greater than in theRK, the ratio of areas being 2.35:1. In October1938 he submitted a preliminary designsketch for the RK-I (Russian abbreviation forextending-wing fighter). After much argu-ment the concept was accepted by CAHI(TsAGI) and the WS. A one-fifth-scale modelwas tested in a CAHI (TsAGI) tunnel from Jan-uary 1939, but it was difficult to find an indus-trial base capable of building even theprototype. Worse, the RK-I attracted the at-tention of Stalin, who took a keen interest incombat aircraft. Excited, he demanded thatthis aircraft should use the M-106 engine, themost powerful then on bench test. Under

some difficulty a prototype RK-I was com-pleted in early 1940, but the M-106 engine(later designated VK-106) was still far fromready. The aircraft could have flown with theM-105, but nobody dared to fit anything butthe engine decreed by Stalin. In order to do atleast some testing a full-scale model was con-structed with the nose faired off, fixed landinggears and a projecting canopy, with no at-tempt to simulate armament or the radiatorducts in the rear fuselage. This mock-up wasthen tested in the CAHI (TsAGI) full-scale tun-nel. The resulting test report was generallyfavourable, but noted that sealing betweenthe telescopic wing sections was inadequate.The CAHI (TsAGI) aerodynamicists neverthe-less concluded that with the M-106 the speedmight be 780km/h (485mph). Lacking an en-gine the project came to a halt, and after theGerman invasion in June 1941 it was aban-doned. Bakshayev was appointed to super-vise increased production of the 156km/h(97mph) U-2 (Po-2) at Factory No 387.

The lifting surfaces of the RK-I were unique,and quite unlike anything attempted by anyother designer. The aircraft was all-metal, thelarge fuselage being a light-alloy monocoquewhich would have housed the 1,800hp M-106in the nose with the oil cooler underneathand surrounded by two 20mm ShVAK can-non and two 7.62mm ShKAS machine guns.

Behind the firewall were successively the fueltanks, backwards-retracting single-strut mainlanding gears, enclosed cockpit and the gly-col coolant radiator with controllable airducts on each side of the rear fuselage. Theamazing feature was that there were twowings of equal span and narrow taperingchord, one in front of the cockpit and the sec-ond, set at a slightly lower level, behind. Eachhad upper and lower skins of spot-weldedSOKhGSA stainless steel, and the rear wingwas fitted with three hinged trailing-edge sur-faces on each side serving as flaps andailerons. These movable surfaces, like thetail, were made of light alloy. The unique fea-ture was that on this aircraft the root of thelarge wing extended completely around thefront wing and back almost to mid-chord ofthe rear wing. Nested inside it were 14 furtherwing profiles, which in 14 seconds could bewinched out over the entire span by an elec-tric motor and cable track along the rear wingleading edge, which was at right angles to thelongitudinal axis. Each section of the largewing comprised a Dural leading edge and ribwith a fabric skin, the first section sealing theside of the fuselage in the high-speed condi-tion and serving as a wing end-plate in the ex-tended low-speed configuration. Shavrovgives the weight of all 28 telescopic sectionsas approximately 330kg (727.5 Ib). Changing

141

RK-800

to the large-area configuration was intendedto have no significant effect on the rod-oper-ated flight controls, a fact confirmed by CAHI(TsAGI). Bakshayev left drawings showingthat a production aircraft would have hadonly nine larger telescopic sections, and vari-ous other changes.

Had an M-106 engine been available thisaircraft might have flown. Pilots would thenhave been able to assess whether (as seemsdoubtful) the ability to fly with much less wing

area than needed for take-off and landingreally offered any advantage to an aircraftdesigned to engage in close combat.

RK-I, RK-800, with lowerside view showing full-scale model.

Sketches of RK-I showing its two configurations.

142

DimensionsSpanLengthWing area (large)

(small)

WeightsEmptyLoaded (estimate)

Performance (estimated)Max speed (small wings)EnduranceLanding speed (large wing)

8.2m8.8m28.0m2

11.9m2

not recorded3,100kg

780 km/h2 hrs 27 min115 km/h

26 ft 10s/, in28 ft 1014 in301 ft2

128ft2

6,834 Ib

485 mph

7 1.5 mph

N l K I T I N PSN

Nikitin PSN

Original 1936 version of PSN(lower side view, 1938 PSN-1).

Purpose: A series of air-launchedexperimental gliders intended to lead to air-to-surface missiles.Design Bureau: Initially OKB-21, later OKB-30, chief designer N G Mikhel'son, laterVV Nikitin.

In 1933 S F Valk proposed the developmentof a pilotless air-launched glider with an au-topilot, infra-red homing guidance and largewarhead for use as a weapon against ships, orother major heat-emitting targets. From 1935this was developed in four versions which in1937 were combined into the PSN (from theRussian abbreviation for glider for specialpurposes). At this stage chief designer wasMikhel'son (see previous entry on MP). Theconcept was gradually refined into the PSN-1,of which a succession of ten prototypes werelaunched from early 1937 from under thewings of a TB-3 heavy bomber. By 1939 the to-tally different PSN-2 was also on test. Alsodesignated TOS, these were initially droppedfrom the TB-3 and later towed behind a TB-7and possibly other aircraft. In each case theglider was to home on its target at high speedafter release from high altitude.

The PSN-1 was a small flying boat, with sta-bilizing floats under the high-mounted wing.

It had a cockpit in the nose, where in theplanned series version the warhead wouldbe. In the DPT version the payload was a533mm (1ft 9in) torpedo hung underneath.Once the basic air vehicle had been perfect-ed the main purpose of flight testing was todevelop the Kvant (quantum) infra-red guid-ance. In contrast the PSN-2 was a twin-floatseaplane with a slim fuselage, low wing anda large fin at the rear of each float. This againwas flown by human pilots to develop Kvantguidance. After release from the parent air-craft the manned gliders made simulated at-

tacks on targets before turning away to alighton the sea. The planned pilotless missileswere intended to be expendable, and thushad no need for provisions for alighting.

Neither of the PSN versions made it to pro-duction, these projects being stopped on 19thJuly 1940. In retrospect they appear to havebeen potentially formidable.

Two PSNs afloat.

143

N l K I T I N PSN

Left: PSN-1, with bomblet container,under wing of TB-3.

Bottom: PSN-2 without payload.

PSN-2 (side view shows dottedoutline of bomblet dispenser).

144

Dimensions (piloted versions)

PSN-1SpanWeight emptyPayload

PSN-2SpanLengthDesign mission of pilotlessversion 40 km (25 miles) at

8.0m970kg1 tonne

7.0m7.98m

700 km/h

26 ft 3 in2,1381b2,205 Ib

22 ft UK in26 ft 2% in

435 mph

N I K I T I N - S H E V C H E N K O I S - 1

Nikitin-Shevchenko IS-1Purpose: To create a fighter able to fly as abiplane or monoplane.Design Bureau: OKB-30, Chief DesignerV V Shevchenko.

There is some dispute over who was respon-sible for the experimental IS fighters. Gener-ally ascribed to VV Nikitin, in more recentaccounts he is hardly mentioned and all cred-it is given to Shevchenko who is quoted assaying 'IS stands for losif Stalin'. In fact,though the conception was indeed Shev-chenko's, he was an NIl-WS test pilot whowas occasionally employed by Nikitin. Designof the IS series was carried out in partnershipwith Nikitin, and IS actually meant IstrebitelSkladnoi, folding fighter. Surprisingly, it wasalso given the official GUAP designation I-220,even though this was also allocated to a high-altitude MiG fighter. The idea was that the air-craft should take off as a biplane, with a shortrun, and then fold up the lower wing under-neath the upper wing in order to reach highspeed as a monoplane. Shevchenko promot-ed the idea in November 1938, getting an en-thusiastic response, and therefore in 1939demonstrated a detailed working model builtat the Moscow Aviatekhnikum (MAT). Hisproject captivated Stalin and Beria, whowanted the aircraft flying in time for the Oc-tober Revolution parade in November 1939.Shevchenko was given 76 million roubles and

facilities at Factory No 156, while the OKB-30design team eventually numbered 60. TheIS-1 was first flown by V Kuleshov on 29th May1940, and the lower wings were first folded byG M Shiyanovon 21st June 1940. Shevchenkostates that Shiyanov carried out LII testing andcompleted his report on 9th January 1941. Ac-cording to Shevchenko, glowing accountswere also written by such famous test pilotsas Suprun and Grinchik. In fact, Shavrovrecords that 'State tests were considered un-necessary, as the maximum speed was only453km/h'. As it was so much slower than theLaGG, MiG and Yak fighters, this aircraft was

put into storage after the German invasion,together with the IS-2.

As far as possible the IS-1 resembled the ex-isting production fighter, the I-153. It had thesame 900hp M-63 engine, driving a HamiltonVISh propeller of 2.8m (9ft 2in) diameter, andapart from the extra 'wing fold' lever thecockpits were identical. The airframe was all-metal, the fuselage framework being weldedSOKhGSA steel tube, with removable metalpanels to the front of the cockpit and fabricaft, while each wing had similar constructionfor the two spars, but DIG light-alloy ribs andflush-riveted DIG skins. The tail was DIG with

IS-1

145

N l K I T I N - S H E V C H E N K O I S - 1 / 2

fabric covering. After take-off the pilot select-ed 'chassis up', folding the main landinggears inwards by the 60-ata (882 lb/in2) pneu-matic system. He could then select 'wingfold', whereupon a pneumatic ram andhinged levers on each side folded the lowerwing. The inboard half was then recessedinto the fuselage and the hinged outer half(which remained horizontal throughout) wasrecessed into the upper wing to complete itsaerofoil profile. The planned armament wasfour ShKAS in the inner gull-wing part of theupper wing. There was no cockpit armour.

Though it may have seemed a good idea,the realization was a disappointment. Apartfrom the overall inferiority of the IS-1 's perfor-mance, it was nonsense to reduce wing areain an aircraft needing the maximum possiblecombat agility, and moreover to try on theone hand to increase wing area for take-off

DimensionsSpan (upper)

(lower, extended)LengthWing area (as biplane)(upper only)

WeightsEmptyLoaded

PerformanceMaximum speedTime to climb 5 kmService ceiling (as biplane)RangeTake-off run (biplane)Landing speed (biplane)

8.6m6.72m6.79m20.83 nf13.0m2

1,400kg2,300 kg

453km/h5.0 min8,800 m600km250m115km/h

28 ft n in22 ft !4 in22 ft 3% in224 ft2

140ft2

3,086 Ib5,070 Ib

281 mph16,404ft28,870 ft373 miles820ft7 1.5 mph

and landing whilst simultaneously leavinghalf the upper (main) wing with a huge hol-low on the underside which destroyed theaerofoil profile. A detail is that with the wings

folded there was nowhere for spent cartridgecases to escape.

Previous page and below: Views of IS-1.

Nikitiii Shevcheiiko IS-2

Purpose: Improved version of IS-1Design Bureau: OKB-30, chief designerV V Shevchenko

The initial funding allocated to Shevchenko'sproject actually paid for two prototypes.Though construction of both began in parallelit was soon decided to incorporate improve-ments in the dubler (second aircraft). Desig-nated IS-2, and also known as the I-220t>/s,this emerged from GAZ No 156 in early 1941.Surviving documents differ. One accountstates that the IS-2 'was ready in January1941...the War broke out and only four testflights were carried out.' Three other ac-counts, in Russian, French and English, statethat the aircraft was completed in April 1941but had not flown when the Germans invad-ed. Shavrov is non-committal, but notes thatall performance figures are estimates. The

walk-round outdoor photos were all takenwith snow on the ground.

The IS-2 was a refined derivative of the IS-1.The engine was an M-88 14-cylinder radialrated at l,100hp, neatly installed in a long-chord cowl with a prominent oil-cooler ductunderneath and driving a VISh-23 propellerwith a large spinner, but retaining Hucksstarter dogs. According to Podol'nyi, the fuse-lage cross-section was reduced (which iscertainly correct) and, while wing spans re-mained the same, chord was reduced inorder to increase aspect ratio and reducearea. Shavrov and a French author state thatthe wings of the IS-1 and IS-2 were geometri-cally identical. What certainly was alteredwas that the landing-gear retraction systemwas replaced by simply connecting the mainlegs to the wing linkage, so that a single cock-pit lever and a single pneumatic jack folded

the lower wings and the main landing gearsin a single movement. It is widely believedthat the IS-2 was not intended to fly in combatas a biplane, the benefits being restricted totake-off and landing. In the IS-1 documenta-tion the idea that the aircraft might be operat-ed as a biplane is never mentioned. If it were,then what was the point of the folding lowerwing? Further modifications in the IS-2 werethat the tail was redesigned, the tailwheelcould retract and the two inboard ShKASwere replaced by heavy 12.7mm Beresin BSguns.

By the time this aircraft appeared, eventhough it looked more modern than its pre-decessor, the WS was fast re-equipping withsimple monoplane fighters. These unques-tionably stood more chance against the Luft-waffe than the IS-2 would have done.

146

IS-1 inboard profile

N l K I T I N - S H E V C H E N K O I S - 2 / 4

IS-2 (enlarged side view shows monoplane)

Performance (estimated)Shavrov's speed of 588 km/h and ceiling of 1,100 m are suspect, andPodol'nyi's '600 km/h' is even less credible; the only plausible figureappears to be the 507 km/h (315 mph) of the French account.

Views of IS-2.

Nikitin Shevchenko IS-4

Purpose: This was intended to be theultimate biplane/monoplane fighter.Design Bureau: OKB-30, chief designerV V Shevchenko

Dismissed by Shavrov in a single line, the IS-3and IS-4 were the last of Shevchenko's con-vertible biplane/monoplane projects. No IS-3documents have been found, but brief detailsand a three-view drawing exist of the IS-4.Unlike its predecessors, this was a 'cleansheet of paper' aircraft, an optimised fuselagefitted with shutters to cover the retractedlower wing and landing gear. The latter wasof the nosewheel type, the cockpit was en-

closed, and armament was to be the same asthe IS-2. The engine selected was Klimov'sM-120, with three six-cylinder cylinder blocksof VK-105 type spaced at 120°, rated atl,800hp. When it was clear that this enginewould not be ready Shevchenko reluctantlyswitched to the equally massive AM-37 Vee-12, rated at l,380hp. In about 1942 he revisedthe IS-4 so that it would have been poweredby a 2,000hp M-71F radial, and would havebeen fitted with slats on the upper wing toeliminate tail buffet. No photographs of theIS-4 have been found, though two documentsinsist that it was built and one even statesthat it flew.

Little need be added, beyond the reportthat, despite the considerable increase inweight over the previous IS fighters, the wingswere smaller. Even with slats it is difficult tosee how the landing speed could have beenslower. In the conditions prevailing during theWar it is stretching credulity to believe thatthis aircraft could have been built.

Shevchenko persisted with his biplane/monoplane idea too long. His last project wasthe IS-14 of 1947, a jet with monoplane wingswhich not only were pivoted to vary thesweepback up to 61° but could also (bymeans unstated) vary the span.

147

DimensionsSpan (upper) 8.6 m

(lower, extended) 6.72 mLength 7.36 mWing area (as biplane) 20.83 m2

(upper only) 13.0m2

WeightsLoaded, Shavrov's 'estimated 2,180 kg'

is probably a misprint for 2,810kg

28 ft n in22 ft tf in24 ft P/i in224ft2

140 ft2

6,195 Ib

N l K I T I N - S H E V C H E N K O I S - 4 , O O S S T A l ' - 5

IS-4 (side view shows monoplane, inset shows biplane with M-120 engine).

OOS Stal'-5Purpose: Flying-wing transport or bomber.Design Bureau: OOS, Russian for Sectionfor Experimental Aeroplane Construction,Moscow Tushino.

Along with Kozlov (see 'invisible aircraft'story) the chief designer at OOS was Alek-sandr Ivanovich Putilov, who joined fromCAHI (TsAGI) when OOS was just a group in-

terested in steel airframes. The Stal' (steel) 5was sketched in 1933 in two forms, as a trans-port and also as the KhB (Khimicheskii Boye-vik), an attack aircraft for spraying poison gas(obviously it could also carry bombs). In 1934a complete wing spar was made for statictest, and in late 1935 VVKarpov andYa G Paul actually flight-tested a scale modelwith a span of 6m (19ft 7in), wing area of

OOS Stal'-5

15.0m2 (161.5ft2) and two 45hp Salmson en-gines. It was difficult to fly, and the idea wasdropped.

Putilov's flying wing was to be powered bytwo 750hp M-34F water-cooled V-12 engines.The structure was to have been almost en-tirely Enerzh-6 stainless steel, skinned withBakelite-bonded veneer over the centre sec-tion and fabric elsewhere. The drawingshows the slotted flaps, elevator and four re-tractable wheels. The payload was to havebeen between the spars in the centroplan(centre wing), deep enough for people towalk upright.

Several designers, notably the AmericanBurnelli, tried to make extra-efficient aircraftalong these lines. None succeeded.

DimensionsSpanLengthWing area

Weights (estimated)EmptyLoadedNo other data.

23.0m12.5m120nf

5.5 tonnes8 tonnes

75 ft 5^ in4 1 f tl,292ft !

12,125 Ib1 7,640 Ib

148

Dimensions (estimated for final form, with M-7 IF engine)Span (upper) 7.5m 24 ft 714 in

(lower) 5.6m 18 ft 414 inLength 8.28m 27 ft 2 inWing area (biplane) 18.0m2 194 ff

(upper wing only) 10.0m2 108ft2

WeightsEmptyLoaded

PerformanceMax speed (monoplane)at sea level,at 6.0 km (19,685 ft)

minimum flying speed

2,140kg3,100kg

660km/h720km/h107km/h

4,718 Ib6,834 Ib

410 mph447 mph66.5 mph

P E T L Y A K O V Pe-2 E X P E R I M E N T A L V E R S I O N S

Petlyakov Pe-2 experimental versionsPurpose: To test various items on modifiedPe-2 aircraft.Design Bureau: Basic aircraft, '100' inspecial prison CCB-29 (TsKB-29), laterV M Petlyakov's own OKB.

Production of this outstanding fast tacticalbomber totalled 11,427. One of the experi-mental wartime versions was the Pe-2Sh(Shturmovik, assaulter) with various combi-nations of 20mm ShVAK cannon and 7.62mmShKAS either firing ahead from a gondola orinstalled in one or more batteries firingobliquely down from what had been the fuse-lage bomb bay. The Pe-2VI and Pe-2VB were

special high-altitude versions with pressur-ized cabins and VK-105PD engines with two-stage superchargers. The Pe-2RD was fittedwith a Dushkin/Glushko RD-1 or RD-lKhZrocket engine installed in the tailcone, withthe tanks and control system in the rear fuse-lage. This aircraft was tested in 1943 by MarkL Gallai. Like the similarly modified Tu-2, thePe-2 Paravan (paravane) had a 5m (16ft Sin)beam projecting ahead of the nose from thetip of which strong cables led tightly back tothe wingtips. While the Tu-2 had a tubularbeam, that of the Pe-2 was a truss girder, andthe balloon cables struck by the wires weredeflected further by large wingtip rails. From

1945 one Pe-2, as well as at least one Tu-2,was used by CIAM and Factory No 51 to flighttest a succession of pulsejet engines begin-ning with captured German Argus 109-014flying-bomb units. Test engines were mount-ed above the rear fuselage, with fuel fed bypressurizing the special aircraft tank to1.5kg/cm2 (21.31b/in2). In 1946-51, underV N Chelomey, Factory 51 improved this Ger-man pulsejet into a succession of enginesdesignated from D-3 to D-14-4. All the earlymodels were tested on the Pe-2, despitefatigue caused by the severe vibration.

Rear defence by aft-firing RO-82 rockets:RUB-2L dorsal and RUB-4 ventral.

Top left: Twin ShVAK-20 cannon in Pe-2Sh(two more were further back).

Right: Pe-2VI.

Below left: Pe-2RD (rocket engine fairing removed).

Below right: Pe-2 testing 109-014 pulsejet.

M9

P E T L Y A K O V Pe-8 E X P E R I M E N T A L V E R S I O N S

Petlyakov Pe-8 experimental versions

Purpose: To test various items on modifiedPe-8 aircraft.Design Bureau: Originally sub-group KB-1within special design bureau KOSOS,created in 1935 to manage the ANT-42 (ANTfrom Andrei N Tupolev). Prototype built atGAZ No 156, the special factory at the secureNKVD site where aircraft designers wereimprisoned. Petlyakov was rehabilitated inJuly 1940 and made General Constructor ofhis own OKB until he was killed in a Pe-2 on12th January 1942.

First flown on 27th December 1936, the ANT-42was redesignated Pe-8 for its lead designerduring 1943. Though built only in modestnumbers, this heavy bomber was by that timein service in versions powered by the AM-35A,the M-30, M-40 and ACh-30B diesels and theASh-82 radial. Because of the small numbersonly a handful were available for experimen-tal work, but the work they did was varied.One of the final batch of four, designatedPe-8ON (Osobogo Naznacheniya, special as-signment) and originally built as long-rangeVIP transports, was used to test a range ofspecial equipment for use in Polar regions, in-cluding navaids able to operate at 90° latitudeand long-range voice communications. Usingvarious engines, Pe-8 bombers tested a rangeof new designs of propeller, including types

later used for turboprops. At least three air-craft served CIAM and various engine KBs asengine test-beds, ten types of experimentalengine being mounted on the wings, on thenose or under the bomb bay.

The Pe-8 was also important in the devel-opment of many types of bomb and other air-launched weapon. Such work culminated inthe testing of captured German FilOS ('V.l')flying bombs and of the Soviet cruise missilesderived from it. Unlike the Germans, the MVS(ministry of weapons) decided that all theearliest trials should be of the air-launchedversions. Launching equipment was pro-duced at GAZ No 456 (General ConstructorIV Chetverikov, see earlier), and GAZ No 51produced three sets of pylons matched to thePe-8. The only other possible carrier of theoriginal single-engined missile was the Yer-2,but the Pe-8 was preferred because of itsgreater load-carrying ability and flight en-durance. Initially 63 German missiles werelaunched on the Dzhisak range nearTashkent between 20th March and late Au-gust 1945. In 1946 two more Pe-8 bomberswere taken from store at GAZ No 22 (the orig-inal Tupolev production plant at Kazan) andmodified to carry the improved lOKh (written10X in Cyrillic). Assisted by GAZ No 125 atIrkutsk, Factory No 51 produced 300 of thisversion, and 73 were tested from the Pe-8s

Top left: Pe-8 with ACH-30B diesel engines testingASh-21 on the nose.

Top right and above: Two views of Pe-8 (ASh-82engines) launcher for lOKh flying bombs.

between 15th December 1947 and 20th July1948. Most had speed increased from 600 to800km/h (497mph) by fitting the D-5 pulsejetengine, and nearly all had wooden wings. Inparallel the 14Kh was produced, with the D-5engine and tapered wings, ten being testedfrom Pe-8s between 1st and 29th July 1948.The final variant was the 16Kh Priboi (break-ers, surf), and though this could be launchedfrom a Tu-2 the Pe-8 remained the principalcarrier. This version had twin D-14-4 engines,twin fins, precision radar/radio guidance anda speed of 858km/h, later raised to 900km/h(559mph). It was tested by the Pe-8, Tu-2 andTu-4, but never entered service.

150

P O L I K A R P O V I - 1 5 A N D I - 1 5 3 W I T H G K

Polikarpov I-15 and I-153 with GK

I-15 with improved GK

I-153V

Purpose: To test pressurized cockpits.Design Bureau: OSK (Department forSpecial Construction), Moscow, leaddesigner Aleksei Yakovlevich Shcherbakov,and Central Construction Bureau (GeneralDesigner N N Polikarpov) whereShcherbakov also worked.

In 1935 Shcherbakov was sent to OSK to spe-cialize in the problems of high-altitude flight.He concentrated on the detailed engineeringof pressurized cockpits, called GK (Ger-meticheskaya Kabina, hermetic cabin). Bythis time the BOK-1 had already been de-signed and was almost ready to fly, butShcherbakov did not spend much time study-ing that group's difficulties. His first GK wastested on S P Korolyov's SK-9 sailplane, pre-decessor of the RP-318 described previously.The second was constructed in a previouslybuilt Polikarpov I-15 biplane fighter. Polikar-

pov's biplane fighters were noted for theiroutstanding high-altitude capability, and from1938 Shcherbakov spent most of his time asPolikarpov's senior associate. The modifiedaircraft first flew in 1938. Later in the sameyear an I-15 was tested with a very much bet-ter GK. In 1939 the definitive GK was tested onan I-153, an improved fighter whose designwas directed by Shcherbakov. The test-bedaircraft was designated I-153V (from Vysot-nyi, height). This cockpit formed the basis forthose fitted to MiG high-altitude fighters, be-ginning with the 3A (MiG-7, I-222). LaterShcherbakov managed GK design for fourother OKBs, and from 1943 created his ownaircraft at his own OKB.

No details have been discovered of thefirst GK, for the SK-9, and not many of thesecond, fitted to an I-15 with spatted mainlanding gear. Like other aircraft of the 1930s,the I-15 fuselage was based on a truss ofwelded KhMA (chrome-molybdenum steel)tubing, with fabric stretched over light sec-ondary aluminium-alloy structure. Accord-ingly, Shcherbakov had to build a completecockpit shell inside the fuselage, made of thinlight-alloy sheet. He had previously spent twoyears studying how to seal joints, and theholes through which passed wires to the con-trol surfaces and tubes to the pressure-fed in-struments. On top was a dome of duralumin,

Top left: I-15 with the first GK (canopy withportholes hinged open).

Above right: I-153V.

Left.I- 153V cockpit.

hinged upwards at the rear. In this were setrubber rings sealing 12 discs of Plexiglas, withbevelled edges so that internal pressure seat-ed them more tightly on their frames. Pilotssaid the view was unacceptably poor, as theyhad done with the original BOK-1. The instal-lation in the second aircraft, with normal un-spatted wheels, was a vast improvement.Overall pilot view was hardly worse than froman enclosed unpressurized cockpit (but ofcourse it could not compare with the originalopen cockpit). The main design problem wasthe heavily framed windscreen, with an opti-cally flat circular window on the left and theSR optical sight sealed into the thick windowin the centre. The main hood was entirelytransparent and hinged upwards. Behind, thedecking of the rear fuselage was also trans-parent. The I-153V had a different arrange-ment: the main hood could be unsealed andthen rotated back about a pivot on each sideto lie inside the fixed rear transparent deck.

Unknown in the outside world, by 1940Shcherbakov was the world's leading design-er of pressurized fighter cockpits.

151

P O L I K A R P O V I - 1 5 2 / D M - 2 A N D I - 1 5 3 / D M - 4

Polikarpov I 152 DM 2 and M53/DM-4Purpose: To test ramjet engines andinvestigate performance of aircraft thusboosted.Design Bureau: Joint effort byA Ya Shcherbakov (aircraft) and IgorA Merkulov (ramjet engines).

In July 1939 Merkulov proposed that simplesubsonic ramjets (PVRD) should be hungunder the wings of fighters to boost their per-formance. Given the go-ahead by Narko-mavprom, he collaborated with Shcherbakovin thus boosting Polikarpov biplane fighters.Bench testing the small DM-1 (Dvigatel'Merkulov) engine began in August 1939, andthe larger DM-2 (or DM-02) began bench test-ing a month later. In December 1939 twoDM-2 engines were attached under the lowerwings of I-152 (I-156/s) No 5942, then ski-equipped, at the M V Frunze Moscow CentralAerodrome. Towards the end of the monthpilot Piotr Loginov began flight testing withoutoperating the ramjets. In late December Logi-nov tested the fuel and ignition systems, andon 27th January 1941 official NIl-WS trials

began with the ramjets firing. This was thefirst flight in the world of any ramjet-equippedmanned aircraft. The DM-2 testing involved 54fiights by late June 1940, 34 by Loginov, 18 byA V Davydov and two by N A Sopotsko. By thistime Merkulov had extensively tested theconsiderably larger DM-4. On 3rd September1940 Loginov first flew an I-153 (No 6034) fit-ted with two DM-2 ramjets, and on 3rd Octo-ber he made the first flight of this aircraft withtwo DM-4s. The DM-4 was also flown underthe I-152. Use of the two biplanes as DM test-beds was abandoned in December 1940 after20 flights with DM-4s.

The Merkulov ramjets were simple profiledpropulsive ducts burning the same petrol(gasoline) fuel as the aircraft main engine.This was fed by an engine-driven auxiliarypump around the double-skinned jetpipethroat and nozzle to cool the inner wall. Stillliquid, the fuel was then sprayed into the in-terior duct where to initiate combustion itwas ignited electrically. The static-testedDM-1 had a diameter of 240mm (91/2in). TheDM-2, flown on the I-152, had a diameter of

400mm (1ft 3%in), length of 1.5m (4ft llin)and weight of 19kg (41.91b). The fabric cov-ering over the I-152 rear fuselage and tail wasreplaced by thin aluminium, flush-riveted.This proved to be a wise precaution, becausewith the ramjets operating the flame extend-ed beyond the tail of the aircraft. The DM-4had a diameter of 500mm (1 ft 7%in), length of1.98m (78in) and weight of 30kg (66 Ib).

The ramjets were never fired in the air foras long as a minute, though on bench test fivehours was once demonstrated. Most testswere in bursts of about ten seconds, andLoginov recorded the simplicity of controland smoothness of ramjet operation. The twoDM-2 ramjets boosted the maximum speed ofthe I-152 by a maximum of 20km/h (12.4mph),but at the cost of much poorer performanceand manoeuvrability with the ramjets inoper-ative. The DM-4 ramjets boosted the speed ofthe I-153 by a maximum of 51 km/h (31. 7mph),from 389 to 440km/h (241.7 to 273.4mph) butagain with severe penalties and with exces-sive fuel consumption.

I-156/s with two DM-02.

Above: I-156/s with DM-02.

Left. I-153 with DM-02.

152

P O L I K A R P O V I - 1 5 2 / D M - 2 A N D I - 1 5 3 / D M - 4 , P O L I K A R P O V M A L Y U T K A

M52 with DM-4

I-153 with DM-4

I-153 with DM 4.

Polikarpov MalyutkaPurpose: Short-range interceptor to defendhigh-value targets.Design Bureau: OKB of Nikolai NPolikarpov, evacuated to Novosibirsk.

This was the last aircraft of Polikarpov design,and he oversaw its progress himself. It was anOKB project, begun in June 1943. Construc-tion of a single prototype began in early 1944.Progress was rapid until 30th July 1944, whenPolikarpov suffered a massive heart attackand died at his desk. Even though the proto-type was almost complete, work stopped andwas never resumed.

The key to the Malyutka ('Little one') wasthe existence of the NIl-1 rocket engine. De-veloped by the team led by V P Glushko, thiscontrollable engine had a single thrust cham-ber fed with RFNA (concentrated nitric acid)and kerosene. Maximum thrust at sea levelwas 1,200kg, but in this aircraft the brochurefigure was 1,000kg (2,205 Ib). Bearing no direct

relevance to any previous Polikarpov fighter,the airframe had a curvaceous Shpon (plas-tic-bonded birch laminates) fuselage sittingon a wing of D-l stressed-skin construction.The tail was also D-l alloy. The pressurizedcockpit was in the nose, behind which wasthe radio, oxygen bottles asnd gun maga-zines, followed by a relatively enormous tankof acid and a smaller one of kerosene. The tri-cycle landing gears and split flaps were oper-ated pneumatically, and the armamentcomprised two powerful VYa-23 cannon.

Had it run a year or two earlier this mighthave been a useful aircraft, though it offeredlittle that was not already being done by the BIand Type 302. At the same time, the death ofthe General Constructor should not havebrought everything to a halt.

Dimensions (performance estimated)SpanLength

Wing area

WeightsEmpty

PropellantsLoaded

Performance

Max speed at sea levelTime to climb to 5 km

Service ceiling

7.5m7.3m

8.0m2

1,016kg

1,500kg

2,795kg

890 km/h1 min

16km

Landing speed (empty tanks) 135 km/h

24 ft n in23 ft 11 Min

86ft2

2,240 Ib3,307 Ib

6,162 Ib

553 mph16,404ft52,500 ft

84 mph

153

P O L I K A R P O V M A L Y U T K A / R A F A E L Y A N T S T U R B O L Y O T

Malyutka

Malyutka inboard profile

Rafaelyants TurbolyotPurpose: To evaluate a wingless jet VTOLaircraft.Design Bureau: Aram NazarovichRafaelyants, chief engineer of GVF (civil airfleet) repair and modification shops atBykovo.

Rafaelyants was working at Bykovo, on theVolga, in 1929-59. He had previously pro-duced two lightplanes, flying his RAF-2 toBerlin in 1927. In 1941 his RAF-1 Ibis transportnearly went into production. He worked onmany aircraft, and after 1945 handled pro-jects concerned with jet engines and theirtesting. The Rolls-Royce Thrust Measuring Rig('Flying Bedstead') of 1953 inspired him toproduce the Turbolyot. This was flown teth-ered to a gantry in early 1957, and was pub-licly demonstrated in free flight in October ofthat year. Nearly all the flying was done by he-licopter test pilot Yu A Garnayev. Because ofits historical interest, the Turbolyot is todaystored in the WS museum at Monino, al-though it was not a WS aircraft but a civilianflying test rig.

The engine selected was the Lyul'ka AL-9G,a single-shaft turbojet rated at 6,500kg(14,330 Ib). This was mounted vertically in thecentre of a cruciform framework of weldedsteel tube. The engine had special bearings

and lubrication, and was fitted with a high-capacity bleed collector ring. On each sidewas a fuel tank, with fuel drawn equally fromboth. In front was the enclosed pilot cab, witha door on the right. The bleed system servedfour pipes, one to each extremity of the vehi-cle, where downward- and upward-pointingnozzles were provided with a modulatingvalve under the management of the pilot'scontrol column. The same system also oper-

ated rods and levers governing a two-axis tilt-ing deflector ring under the engine nozzle.Each of the four main structural girders wasprovided with a long-stroke vertical landingleg with a castoring wheel.

This device never crashed, and provided asolid background of data for the Yak-36 andsubsequent jet-lift aircraft.

Turbolyot

154

S U K H O I S u - 5 , I - 1 0 7

Sukhoi Su-5,I-107Purpose: To create an interceptor withpiston engine plus VRDK propulsion.Design Bureau: P O Sukhoi, Moscow.

The urgent demand for faster fighters, to meetthe competition of German and Allied jets re-vealed in January 1944, is given in the story ofthe Mikoyan I-250 (N). Apart from MikoyanSukhoi was the only designer to respond tothis call, and (because the propulsion systemwas the same) he created a very similar air-craft. Two examples were funded, the secondbeing used for tunnel testing at CAHI (TsAGI).The red-painted flight article first flew - it is be-lieved, at Novosibirsk - on 6th April 1945, amonth after its rival. On 15th July 1945 the testprogramme was interrupted by failure of themain engine, and the opportunity was taken tofit a new wing with CAHI (TsAGI) laminar pro-file. In August the replacement engine failed.As no replacement VK-107A was available,and such aircraft were by this time outmoded,the test programme was discontinued.

The Su-5 was a conventional fighter of itstime, notable only for its small size and deepfuselage to accommodate the VRDK duct. Thesecond wing fitted had a 16.5-per-cent CAHI1VI0 profile at the root, thinned down to 11 percent NACA-230 near the tip. It was made inthree parts, with bolted joints outboard of thelanding gears. The split flaps spanned thisjoint. The Frise ailerons were fully balanced,the port surface having a trim tab. Most of thefuselage was occupied by the propulsion sys-tem. The VK-107A engine, rated at l,650hp,drove a four-blade 2.89m (9ft 5%in) propeller,with a clutched rear drive to a 13:21 step-upgearbox to the VRDK compressor. In the ductwere the carburettor inlets, radiator, sevencombustion chambers and double-wall pipeof heat-resistant steel leading to a variablepropulsive nozzle. The No 2 aircraft had a cir-cular multi-flap nozzle projecting behind thefuselage. In the left inner wing was a broad butshallow inlet for the ducted oil cooler, with exitunder the wing. This required a modifiedupper door to the left landing gear, with 650 x200 tyres and track of 3.15m (10ft 4in). The tail-wheel, with 300x125 tyre, retracted into anopen asbestos-lined box in a ventral fairing.The rudder and inset-hinge elevators all hadspring-tab drives. The cockpit had 10mm (%in)back armour and a sliding canopy, the No 2 air-craft having a transparent rear fairing. Threetanks housed 646 litres (142 Imperial gallons)of fuel, consumed in lOmin of VRDK opera-tion. Armament comprised one NS-23 with 100rounds and two UBS with 400 rounds abovethe engine.

Sukhoi said later this aircraft was a 'non-starter' from the outset.

Su-5 No 2 (upper side view, Nol)

Below: Su-5 No 2.

Su-5 No 2

155

DimensionsSpan

Length (Nol)(No 2)

Wing area

WeightsEmptyLoaded

Performance

Max speed at sea level

10.562m8.26m

8.51m17.0m2

2,954kg

3,804 kg

645 km/hat 7.8 km (25,590 ft) rising to 810 km/h

Time to climb to 5 km

Service ceilingRange

Take-offLanding speed/

run

5.7 min12.05km600km

345m140 km/h

600m

34 ft 1% in

26 ft min27f t 11 in

183ft2

6,512 Ib8,386 Ib

401 mph503 mph16,400ft

39,535ft

373 miles1,358ft87 mph1,969ft

S U K H O I S u - 7 R

Sukhoi Su-7RPurpose: To create a mixed-power (pistonengine plus rocket) fighter.Design Bureau: OKB of Pavel OsipovichSukhoi, Moscow. Note: this aircraft was notrelated to the later Su-7 jet fighter.

Having in 1941 seen the Su-2 attack bomberaccepted into production, Sukhoi subse-quently never dislodged the IL-2/IL-10, de-spite the excellence of different versions of

Aircraft A (Su-6). In 1942 he was authorized todevelop the A into a single-seat fighter Thisflew in late 1943 and underwent various mod-ifications, in its final form being tested byG Komarov between 31st January and 20thDecember 1945. By this time it was no longerof interest.

The Su-7R was based upon the airframe ofthe Su-6(A), but with a new all-metal semi-monocoque fuselage. The two-seat cockpit

was replaced by a single-seat cockpit with aunged canopy with a fairing behind it. An ad-ditional fuel tank replaced the internalweapons bay, and the large-calibre wingguns were removed, the armament beingthree synchronized ShVAK 20mm cannoneach with 370 rounds. At first the ASh-71 typeengine was retained, but this was soon re-placed by a smaller and less-powerful ASh-82FN, rated at l,850hp on 100-octane fueldriving an AV-9L four-blade propeller. In 1944a TK-3 turbosupercharger was added on eachside, and an RD-lKhZ rocket engine was in-stalled in a new extended tailcone. As de-scribed previously, this Dushkin/Glushkoengine had a single thrust chamber burningthe same petrol (gasoline) as the piston en-gine, which ignited hypergolically (instant re-action) when mixed with RFNA (red fumingnitric acid). The acid was housed in an addi-tional tank behind the cockpit, with accessthrough a dorsal hatch. This tank gave a con-tinuous burn time of about four minutes.When rocket power was selected, the pro-pellants were fed at a rate of 1.6kg (3.5 Ib) persecond, giving a thrust of 300kg (661 Ib) at sealevel and about 345kg (761 Ib) at high altitude.

By 1945 this aircraft was no longer compet-itive, and the rocket engine never went intoproduction. In any case, during a practice forthe first post-war air display in late 1945 therocket engine exploded, casing a fatal crash.

Left: Two views of Su-7R.

156

Dimensions (final standard)sPan 13.5mLen§'h 10.03mWing area 26.0m2

WeightsEmP'y 3,250kgFuel/oil/acid 480/50/1 80 kgLoaded 4j36okg

PerformanceMaximum speedat sea level (no rocket) 480 km/hat 7.5 km (24,600 ft) with rocket 680 km/hat 12 km (39,370 ft) with rocket 705 km/h

Service ceiling 12,750mRange (with full rocket bum) 800 kmTake-off 300 m

Landing speed/ 125 km/hrun 350m

44 ft 3^ in32 ft 103/i in280 ft2

7,1651b1,058/11 0/397 Ib9,612 Ib

298 mph423 mph438 mph41,831 ft497 miles984ft78 mph1,148ft

S L J K H O I S u - 1 7 , R

Sukhoi Su-17, RPurpose: To exceed Mach 1 and possiblyserve as the basis for a fighter.Design Bureau: P O Sukhoi, Moscow.Note: this aircraft was not related to lateraircraft with the same designation.

In late 1947 the Council of Ministers issued aplan for 1948-49 calling for the construction ofnew experimental aircraft. One type was toresearch high-subsonic, transonic and lowsupersonic speeds, and also if possible pro-vide the basis for the design of a supersonictactical fighter. Contracts were issued toYakovlev (Type 1000) and Sukhoi (Aircraft R).In each case funds were provided for oneflight article and one static test specimen, andSukhoi's design proceeded rapidly. From theoutset provision was made for two heavy can-non, and in 1949 the WS designation Su-17was issued. As early as July 1949 the flight ar-ticle was taken to LIl-MAP at Zhukovskii,where the assigned pilot, Sergei Anokhin, car-ried out increasingly fast taxi tests. Just as hewas about to make the first flight the Su-15radar-equipped interceptor suffered violentflutter and crashed, Anokhin ejecting. Ratherprecipitately, CAHI (TsAGI) blamed Sukhoi,and moreover claimed that the wing of Air-craft R was also torsionally weak and wouldflutter at high airspeeds. CAHI therefore re-fused to issue flight clearance for this aircraft.In turn this led Stalin to order that Sukhoi'sOKB should be liquidated on 1st November1949. It was reopened in 1953 after Stalin'sdeath.

This outstanding design was made possi-ble by the rapid development of the powerfulTR-3 (later called AL-5) afterburning axial tur-bojet by A M Lyul'ka, qualified in January1950 at 4,600kg (10,141 Ib), with a dry rating of4 tonnes (8,8181b). Had the Su-17 continuedit would certainly have later flown with morepowerful Lyul'ka engines. The propulsionsystem was 'straight through' from the plainnose inlet, which immediately divided to passeach side of the cockpit, to the tail. Amid-

ships, at Frames 15/15A and 20/20A, the mainwing spars passed through at mid-level. Thewing had CAHI (TsAGI)-9030 profile at theroot, changing to symmetric SR-3-12s at thetip, the !4-chord sweep being 50°. Above eachwing were two full-chord fences plus anotherfrom the leading edge to the aileron. Threetracks carried each of the Fowler-type flaps.High on the large vertical tail was mountedthe fixed tailplane, again with 50° ^-chordsweep and ground adjustable over the range± 1.5°. The port aileron and starboard elevatorhad tabs, and the rudder had a section of'knife' (thin strip behind the trailing edge).This aircraft pioneered Soviet use of hydrauli-cally boosted flight controls, on all axes. Allunits of the landing gear had levered suspen-sion, using high-pressure shock absorbers pi-oneered on the Su-15, and retracted into thefuselage. The nose unit had a 530 x 230mmtyre and retracted to the rear, while eachmain unit had an 800 x 225mm tyre and pneu-matic plate brake and retracted forwardsabout a skewed axis under the wing root, tobe covered by a large door. The ventral bulgeunder the tail had a steel underside and madeprovision for housing a cruciform brakingparachute. On each side of the rear fuselagewas a door-type airbrake, opened to 60°,which like the flaps, landing gear and flightcontrols, was operated by a hydraulic systemat what was then a new high pressure of211kg/cm2 (207-MPa, 3,000lb/in2). The cock-pit was pressurized, maintaining 0.65kg/cm2

(9.2 lb/in2) up to 7km (22,966ft) and holding aconstant dP of 0.3kg/cm2 (4.3 lb/in2) abovethat level. Like several previous Soviet air-craft, the pilot's ejection-seat was mounted ina nose section designed to separate from thefuselage in an emergency. The planar joint,sealed by an inflatable ring, sloped forward toavoid the nose-gear, and it could be brokenby firing a cordite charge at the bottom joint,allowing the nose to pivot and separate fromthe two upper connections. Separation wastriggered automatically if vertical accelera-

tion reached ± 18 g, or under pilot commcind.The separated nose streamed a droguewhich after a delay extracted the main ribbonparachute. The pilot could then eject, experi-encing a maximum of 5 g. The pilot could alsoeject normally, from the intact aircraft, butonly after jettisoning the sideways-hingedcanopy. A total of 1,219 litres (268 Imperialgallons) of fuel was housed in the fuselage,there being one metal and two bladder tanksbehind the cockpit and three metal tanks(one a toroidal hollow ring) around the jet-pipe. Provision was made for a jettisonable300 litre (66 Imperial gallon) tank to bescabbed under each wing, and for two N-37guns, each with 40 rounds, to be mounted inthe fuselage. The avionics were comprehen-sive, including vhf, radio compass, an IFFtransponder and precision radio altimeter.

There is no reason to doubt that this aircraftwould have been most valuable, and prevent-ing it from flying appears in retrospect to havebeen a serious error. The Soviet Union suf-fered from its thoughtless precipitate actions.

DimensionsSpanLengthWing area

WeightsEmptyLoaded

Performance (estimated)Max speed, at sea levelat 10 km (32,808 ft)

Time to climb to 10kmService ceiling

9.6m15.253m27.5 rrf

6,240kg7,390kg

l,252km/h1,152 km/h3.5 min15.5km

31 ft 6 in50 ft 1A in296 ft2

13,757 Ib16,292 Ib

778 mph (Mach 1.022)716 mph (Mach 1.08)(32,808ft)50,853 ft

Range (internal fuel at 10 km cruising at 830 km/h, 516 mph)550 km 342 miles

Take-off run 450m 1,476ftLanding speed/ 194 km/h 120.5 mph

run 660m 2,165ft

Su-17, R

157

S U K H O I S u - 1 7 , R / S U K H O I T-3 A N D PT-7

Left: Two views of Su-17, R.

Above: Looking back at the Su-17 with jettisonablecockpit removed.

Sukhoi T-3 and PT-7Purpose: To create a supersonic radar-equipped interceptor.Design Bureau: Reopened OKB-51 ofP O Sukhoi, Moscow.

After closure of his OKB, in December 1949Sukhoi became deputy to his old colleagueA N Tupolev, where among other things hecollaborated with CAHI (TsAGI) in establish-ing the best wing for supersonic fighters. Heplayed the central role in deciding on twocontrasting forms. For tactical fighters thechoice was an S (Strelovidnoye, arrow like)swept wing with a !4-chord sweep angle of 60°or 62°, and for radar-equipped interceptorsthe best answer was a T (Treoogol'noye,three-angled, ie delta) wing with J4-chordsweep angle of 57° or 60°. For obvious rea-sons, the latter type of wing was soon dubbedBalalaika. On Stalin's death Sukhoi appliedfor permission to reopen his OKB. This was atonce granted, and in May 1953 he gatheredhis team at the original premises at 23A Po-likarpov Street. Following from his aerody-namic research he received MAP contractsfor basically similar aircraft, S-l with the Swing and T-l with the T wing. As he chose tobuild large aircraft powered by a powerfulLyul'ka engine, which matured rapidly, theirdevelopment was swift. S-l led to the pro-duction Su-7 and many other aircraft. T-l wasreplaced on the drawing board by T-3, and

this was flown by V N Makhalin on 26th May1956. Just over a month later it was the finalaircraft in the parade of new fighters at Tushi-no on 24th June, causing intense interest andgreat confusion in the West. A few weeks be-hind came the PT-7. These were tested inten-sively by a pilot team which includedPronyarkin, Koznov, Kobishkan and the fu-ture Sukhoi chief test pilot Vladimir Ilyushin,son of the General Designer.

Like S-l, the T-3 had a barrel-like fuselage,much of its length being occupied by the bigafterburning AL-7F engine, rated at 9,000kg(19,840 Ib) with afterburner and 6,500kg(14,330 Ib) dry. The tails of the two aircraftwere almost identical, and there were onlyminor differences in the cockpit, landing gearand most of the systems. The wings of bothaircraft were in the low/mid position, at-tached by precision bolts to strong forged rootribs on heavy forged fuselage frames. Thewing had S-9s profile with a thickness/chordratio of 4.2 per cent over most of the span. Theshape was almost a perfect delta, with a lead-ing-edge angle of 60°. The leading edge wasfixed, while the trailing edge comprised rec-tangular slotted flaps with a maximum angleof 25° and sharply tapered ailerons with insethinges which extended to the near-pointedtips. Incidence was 0° and dihedral -2° (ie, 2°anhedral). Structurally the wing had threemain spars, each principally a machined forg-

ing, plus a rear spar to carry the trailing-edgesurfaces. The leading edge was attached tothe front of a further spar forming the front ofthe structural box. The forward triangleahead of Spar 1 and the volume betweenSpars 2 and 3 were sealed and formed inte-gral fuel tanks. The whole space betweenSpars 1 and 2 was occupied by the retractedmain landing gear. The flaps were driven attheir inboard ends by electro-hydraulicpower units inside fairings under the lowerwing surface. The circular-section fuselagewas liberally covered with access doors andhatches. The nose was just one of severalcontrasting answers tested by Sukhoi to theproblem of fitting radar into a supersonicfighter. The fire-control system was to be oneof the Uragan (Hurricane) family, with thesearch scanner at the top of the nose and theAlmaz (Diamond) ranging radar underneathinside the inlet. The main scanner was insidea low-drag radome in the form of a flattenedcone (with a curious upward tilt) from whichprojected the PVD-7 instrumentation boomcombining the pitot/static heads with pitchand yaw vanes. Additional instrument boomswere mounted inboard of each wingtip. Eventhough the T-3 was to be a supersonic aircraftthere seemed no alternative to making theradome over the ranging set a bluff hemi-sphere, which had an adverse effect on pres-sure recovery in the air inlet. The latter

158

S U K H O I T-3 A N D PT-7

immediately divided into left and right ductswhich quickly expanded into vertically sym-metric ducts along each fuselage wall. Thesecombined behind the cockpit into a circulartube passing above the wing and then ex-panding to fill virtually the entire fuselagecross-section to mate with the face of the en-gine compressor at Frame 29. BetweenFrames 31 and 32 on each side of the top of

Below: Two views of T-3.

the fuselage was a large grilled aperturethrough which hot air could be violently ex-pelled from the compressor during enginestart. At Frame 32 a bolted joint enabled theentire rear fuselage to be removed for servic-ing or changing the engine. At Frame 38 werehinged four door-type airbrakes with largeslot perforations. At Frame 43 were theskewed pivots for the horizontal tailplanes,each of which was a single-piece 'slab' with aleading-edge sweep of 60° and an anti-fluttermass projecting forwards near each tip. Thelarge fin curved away from a dorsal extension

in which a screwed panel gave access tothe power unit driving the rudder, whichwas hung on three inset hinges. Each tail sur-face had chem-milled skins attached to ribsat 90° to the surface rear spar. The fuselagetail end was mainly of titanium. The noselanding gear had a 660 x 200 tyre and retract-ed forwards. Each main unit had an 880 x 230tyre and, unlike the swept-wing Sukhois, re-tracted straight inwards. Track was 4.65m(15ft Sin) and wheelbase 5.05m (16ft 7in).The cockpit housed an ejection-seat andhad a bulletproof windscreen and one-piece

159

S U K H O I T-3 A N D PT-7

frameless canopy sliding to the rear. Amongthe comprehensive avionics suite were twoitems with antennas in the top of the fin, theslots for the Svod (Arch) navaid and SOD-57transponder and the RSIU-5V inside the di-electric fin cap. The wings were plumbed fordrop tanks, to be carried on pylons only just in-board of the instrument booms. The plannedarmament was two guns (Sukhoi assumedthe NR-30), and steel blast panels were pro-

vided in the sides of the forward fuselage. Be-fore the T-3 was completed the guns were re-placed by missiles. The intended weapon wasthe K-6, to be carried on interfaces attachedwhere the tanks would have been.

The PT-7 differed mainly in having an area-ruled fuselage, with a visibly waisted middlesection, and a new ranging radar with a point-ed downward-inclined radome projectingfrom the bottom of the nose. Other differences

included unperforated airbrakes and a revisedfin-cap antenna which extended around thetop of the slightly shortened rudder.

These aircraft were the first in what provedto be a long succession of prototype and ex-perimental aircraft in the search for the bestinterceptor. This underscored the SovietUnion's determination to accept nothing butthe best, because any of these aircraft couldhave been accepted for production.

Dimensions (T-3)Span 8.7 mLength (inc instrument boom) 18.82 mWing area (net) 24.9 m!

WeightsEmptyLoaded (normal)Maximum

PerformanceMaximum speedat 10 km (32,808 ft)

Service ceilingRange (internal fuel)(maximum)

7,490kg9,060 kg11,200kg

2,100 km/h18km1,440km1,840km

28ft6!fln61 ft m in268.8ft2

16,512 Ib19,974 Ib24,691 Ib

1, 305 mph (Mach 1.98)59,055 ft895 miles1,1 43 miles

Take-off and landing runs,both about 1,100m 3,600 ft

Dimensions (PT-7)Span 8.7m 28ft6^inLength (inc instrument boom) 18.82 m 61 ft 8% inWing area (net) 24.9m2 268.8ft2

WeightsIn each case approximately 150 kg (331 Ib) heavier than the T-3

PerformanceMaximum speedat 1 0 km (32,808 ft) 2,250 km/h 1 ,398 mph (Mach 2. 1 2)

Top: The T-3 at the 1956 Tushino Fly Past.

Bottom: PT-7 inlet.

160

S U K H O I T-3 A N D PT-7

T-3

T-3

T-5

PT-7

161

S U K H O I T-49

Sukhoi T-49Purpose: To create a further-improvedinterceptor.Design Bureau: OKB-51 of P O Sukhoi,Moscow.

In May 1958 the OKB-51 decided that, aftermore than four years of effort, they had stillnot found the best answer to the problem ofhow to arrange the radar, air inlet(s) and ar-mament of a single-engined supersonic inter-ceptor. It was recognized that guided missileswould be carried externally, probably underthe wings, leaving the nose free for radar, butthe engine inlet still posed a problem. ThePT-8 and T-47 had large radars centred in anose inlet, and this was considered to de-grade the aerodynamics. Accordingly a newarrangement was devised, and the OKB con-veniently were able to graft it on to the in-complete T-39 (T-3 derivative). The result

thus received the designation T-49. By June1958 work on the T-39 had been stopped, andthis project was transferred as a test-bedto the Central Institute of Aviation Motors.Conversion to the T-49 was completed by Oc-tober 1958. In 1959 M Goncharov was ap-pointed to supervise flight testing, but the T-49remained on the ground - much of the timebeing used for various tests - until in January1960 it was flown by Anatoly Koznov. He re-ported outstanding acceleration and good all-round performance, but by this time aircraftin this class had been overtaken by later tech-nology. In April 1960 the T-49 was damaged inan inflight accident, and though it was re-paired it never flew again.

The T-49 was by virtue of its ancestry verysimilar to the simpler versions of T-4 familyaircraft such as the production Su-9. Like thataircraft it was intended to be armed with two

guided missiles carried on pylons under theouter wings, but these would have been ofthe K-8 type as carried by the Su-11. The largefixed radome was uncompromised by the in-lets, which were located well back on eachside. In side elevation each inlet was vertical,seen from the front it formed a 90° segmentcurved round the side of the fuselage, and inplan it was swept back at 60°. To match pres-sure recovery over the whole range of flightMach numbers the inner wall was made vari-able in angle and throat area. The intentionwas to make the whole inlet system isentrop-ic (causing no change in entropy) to achievemaximum compression of the airflow. Likeseveral other Sukhoi designs of the periodthere were two vertical doors in each sideof the fuselage at Frame 7 to spill excessair from the ducts. The engine was a Lyul'kaAL-7F-100, with a dry rating of 6,900kg(15,212 Ib) and maximum afterburning thrustof 9,900kg (21,82515). This was achievedwithout the need for the injection of water,the T-39's rear-fuselage water tank being re-placed by one for fuel. Other features includ-ed steel doubler plates left over from the T-39near where gun muzzles would have beenhad they been fitted, tailplanes fitted withanti-flutter masses and driven over the ex-ceptional angular range +97-16°, and flapswhose trailing-edge roots were cut awayat 45°, which was also a feature of the pro-duction Su-11.

This promising aircraft was overtaken bygalloping technology.

Dimensions (Broadly similar to PT-7)Length 19.8mNo other data.

64 ft m in

This page and opposite top: Three views of T-49.

1G2

S U K H O I T-49

T-49

163

S U K H O I P - l

Suk hoi PI

Purpose: To create a more capableinterceptor for the IA-PVO (manned air-defence aviation).Design Bureau: OKB-51 of P O Sukhoi,Moscow.

In December 1954 the MAP (Ministry of Avia-tion Industry) requested studies of a newfighter, called P (Perekhvatchik, interceptor).Studies embraced single- and two-seat air-craft armed with every combination of guns,rockets and guided missiles, and with ninetypes of afterburning turbojet. On 19th Janu-ary 1955 the Council of Ministers orderedfrom Sukhoi prototypes of the P-l powered bya single AL-9 and the P-2 powered by twoVK-11 engines. Mockups were reviewed inlate 1955, and construction of the P-l was au-thorised, the P-2 being abandoned in early1956. OKB-51's factory constructed the single

P-l from August 1956. At a late stage it wasrecognized that the chosen engine would notbe ready in time, and the aircraft was re-designed for an engine of rather less thrust inorder to get it airborne. It was taken to theOKB's flight-test station on 10th June 1957,and was flown there by Nikolai Korovushkinon 12th July 1957. He was joined by EduardElyan, and Factory Testing was completed on22nd September 1958. The intended enginenever did become available, and Sukhoifailed to obtain an alternative (the R-15B-300went instead to the T-37). The P-l was trans-ferred to the experimental category and final-ly abandoned.

Intended for a more powerful engine, theLyul'ka AL-9 with an afterburning thrust of 10tonnes (22,046Ib), the P-l was thus largerthan all the other Sukhoi aircraft of its gener-ation. The wing was scaled up from the earli-

Three views of P-1.

er PT-8, which had introduced the feature ofa dogtooth discontinuity in the leading edgeto create a powerful vortex at large angles ofattack to keep flow attached over the uppersurface. Unlike the PT-8 the leading-edgesweep was reduced at a point ahead ofaileron mid-span from 60° to 55°. Otherwisethe wing followed Sukhoi practice with rec-tangular slotted flaps, sharply taperedailerons terminating inboard of the tips, land-ing gears retracting between Spars 1 and 2and integral tanks ahead of Spar 1 and be-tween Spars 2 and 3. The large fuselage wasexceptionally complex. In the nose was thesingle dish antenna of the Pantera (panther)search and fire-control radar, with the multi-function instrumentation boom projectingfrom the tip. With this aircraft Sukhoi gave up

164

S U K H O I P - l

P-l (Note: one side view states thatthe rockets were the 70mm NRS-70).

165

S U K H O I P - l / S U K H O I T-37

trying to put the air inlet in the nose, and theradome formed the entire nose of the aircraft.Next came the bay housing the radar's pres-surized container, around which was themain armament. After many changes thiscomprised five bays, each closed by a rapid-action door, each housing ten ARS-57 57mmspin-stabilized rockets. Upon automatic com-mand by the fire-control system, the rocketswere either rippled in rapid sequence or firedin a single salvo, the doors quickly hingeinginwards from the front and the rocket gasesbeing discharged through doors at the rearimmediately ahead of Frame 8 (the frontpressure bulkhead of the cockpit). Next camethe nose landing gear, with a K-283 wheelwith 570 x 140mm tyre, retracting to the rear,under the floor of the cockpit. The latter wasof course pressurized, and accommodatedthe pilot and radar operator on tandem KS-1ejection-seats under canopies hinged up-wards from the rear. Next came the lateral en-gine air inlets, which broke new ground inbeing circular (as they were cut back at aMach angle of 45° they were actually ellipses),standing slightly away from the fuselage toavoid swallowing boundary-layer air, andhousing a half-cone centrebody axially trans-lated to front or rear according to flight Machnumber. Downstream the air ducts, and thusthe fuselage outer walls, curved sharply in-wards to form the common tube feeding theengine. This gave area-rule flow over thewings (an account stating that this aircraft

was not area-ruled is mistaken). Additionalnon-integral tanks occupied the space be-tween the ducts, with piping in a dorsal spinelinking the canopies to the fin (a new featurefor Su aircraft). The engine was the well-triedAL-7F, rated at 6,850kg (15,101 Ib) dry and8,950kg (19,731 Ib) with afterburner. At dou-ble Frames 36/36A the tail could be removed.The tail was similar to that of other Sukhoiprototypes of the era. So were the three hy-draulic systems, the two flight-control sys-tems serving a BU-49 power unit for therudder, a BU-51 driving the one-piecetailplanes (this irreversible drive renderedanti-flutter masses unnecessary) and a BU-52with rod linkages to the ailerons. The autopi-lot system used the AP-28 on the tailplanesand AP-39 laterally. The primary hydraulicsystem also drove the landing gear, the mainunits having KT-72 wheels with l,000x280mm tyres, and the rocket doors, canopies,inlet centrebodies, flaps and (according todocuments, though these do not appear ondrawings and cannot be seen in pho-tographs) three airbrakes on the rear fuse-lage. Another puzzle is that one documentmentions two NR-30 guns under the nose(one on each side of the bottom rocket com-partment, and these are shown in one draw-ing), while another states that 'in the wingroot was an armament section', while twodocuments state that the main armamentcomprised two K-7 (replaced by K-8) guidedmissiles hung on underwing pylons. The lat-

ter would have been outboard, ahead of theailerons. Another document states that therewas provision for an external tank under thefuselage, but this would have been difficult toaccommodate because of the landing-geardoors and telemetry antenna. Other avionicsincluded RSIU-4V radio, SPU-2 intercom, Go-rizont (horizon) guidance and data link,SRZO-2 IFF, SOD-57M transponder, Sirena-2(siren) passive warning receiver, ARK-51ADF, MRP-56P marker receiver, GIK-1 andAGI-1 navaids, RVU radio altimeter and theRSBN-2 tactical landing guidance.

This complex aircraft never received theintended engine.

DimensionsSpanLength(incl instrument boom)

Wing area (gross)(net)

WeightsEmptyLoaded (normal)

(maximum)

PerformanceMaximum speed

at 15 km (49,2 13 ft)Time to climb to 15kmService ceilingRange (internal fuel)Landing speed

9.816m

21.83m44m2

28.1 nf

7,710kg10.6 tonnes11,550kg

2,050 km/h2.7 min19,500m1,250km220 km/h

32 ft n in

71 ft 71* in474ft2

302 ft2

16,997 Ib23,369 Ib25,463 Ib

1,274 mph (Mach 1.93)(49,213 ft)63,976 ft777 miles137 mph

Sukhoi T-37Purpose: To meet an IA-PVO demand for ahigh-performance automated interceptionsystem.Design Bureau: OKB-51 of P O Sukhoi,Moscow.

In late 1957 the threat of USAF strategicbombers able to cruise at Mach 2 (B-58)and Mach 3 (B-70) demanded a major up-grade in the PVO defence system. At the startof 1958 a requirement was issued for mannedinterceptors with a speed of 3,000km/h(l,864mph) at heights up to 27km (88,583ft).Mikoyan and Sukhoi responded. Creation ofthe T-3A-9 interception system was autho-rised by the Council of Ministers on 4th June1958. The air vehicle portion of this systemwas a derivative of the T-3 designated T-3A,and with the OKB-51 factory designation T-37.Detail design of this aircraft took place in thefirst half of 1959. In February 1960 the singleflight article was approaching completionwhen without warning the GKAT (State Com-mittee for Aviation Equipment) terminated

the programme and ordered that the T-37should be scrapped. The role was temporari-ly met by the Tu-128 and in full by theMiG-25P.

Though derived from the T-3 the T-37 wasan entirely new aircraft which, because ofaerodynamic guidance by CAHI (TsAGI) andthe use of the same type of engine, had morein common with the MiG Ye-150. The T-3A-9system comprised this aircraft plus the Looch(ray) ground control system, the ground andairborne radars, a Barometr-2 data link,Kremniy-2M (silicon) NPP (sight) system andtwo Mikoyan K-9 (R-38) missiles. The aircrafthad a wing which was basically a strength-ened version of the T-3 wing, with no dog-tooth and with anhedral increased to 3° (ie,-3° dihedral). Each flap could be extendedout on two rails to 25° and did not have aninner corner cut off at an angle. A more im-portant change was that to avoid scraping thetail on take-off or landing the main landinggears were lengthened, which meant that thewheels were housed at an oblique angle in

the bottom of the fuselage. The fuselage wastotally new, with a ruling diameter of 1.7m(12ft 7in). This was dictated by the TumanskiiR-l5-300 afterburning turbojet, with dry andreheat ratings of 6,840kg (15,080 Ib) and10,150kg (22,380 Ib) respectively. The TsP-1radar was housed in a precisely contouredradome whose external profile formed an Os-watitsch centrebody with three cone anglesto focus Shockwaves on the sharp inlet lip.The whole centrebody was translated to frontand rear on rails carried by upper and lowerinlet struts. Surplus air could be spilt throughtwo powered doors in each duct outer wall atFrame 8. The pressurized cockpit had a KS-2seat and a vee windscreen ahead of a low-drag upward-hinged canopy with a metal-skinned fixed rear fairing. The detachablerear fuselage was made mainly of welded ti-tanium, and terminated in an ejector sur-rounding the engine's own variable nozzle.Initially a sliding ring, this ejector waschanged to an eight-flap design during proto-type manufacture. Ram air cooling inlets

166

S U K H O I T-37

were provided at Frames 25 and 29, and in thedetachable rear section were four door-typeairbrakes. Under this section were two radialunderfins, each incorporating a steelbumper. Pivoted 140mm (51/2in) below mid-level the tailplanes had 5° anhedral and didnot need anti-flutter rods as they were irre-versibly driven over a range of ±2°. Each mainlanding gear had levered-suspension carryinga plate-braked KT-89 wheel with an 800 x200mm tyre. The long nose gear had a power-steered lower section with a levered-suspen-sion K-283 wheel with a 570x140mm tyre,and retracted backwards. A total of 4,800litres (1,056 Imperial gallons) of fuel could behoused in three fuselage tanks (No 3 being ofbladder type) and Nos 4 and 5 between wingspars 2 and 3. Provision was made for a 930litre (204.6 Imperial gallon) drop tank. Missilepylons could be attached ahead of theailerons. Avionics included the radar, RSIU-5A vhf/uhf with fin-cap antennas, RSBN-2Svod (arch) navaid and SOD-57M transpon-der (both with fin slot antennas), Put (course)longer-range navaid, MRP-56P marker receiv-er, SRZO-2 Khrom-Nikel (chrome-nickel) IFF,Lazur (azure) beam/beacon receiver of theLooch/Vozdukh (rising) ground control sys-tem, KSI compass system and a ventral bladeantenna for the flight-test telemetry.

Like the rival Mikoyan Ye-150 series (whichwere produced more quickly) this weaponsystem was overtaken by later designs.

DimensionsSpan 8.56 mLength overall 1 9.4 1 3 mWing area (gross) 34 m2

(net) 24.69 m2

WeightsEmpty 7,260kgLoaded (normal) 1 0, 750 kg(maximum) 12 tonnes

Performance (estimated)Max speed at 1 5 km (49,2 1 3 ft) 3,000 km/hService ceiling 25-27 kmRange 1,500km

(with external tank) 2,000 km

28 ft 1 in63ft8!iin366 ft2

265.8ft2

1 6,005 Ib23,699 Ib26,455 Ib

1,864 mph (Mach 2.8)82,02 I-88,583 ft932 miles1,243 miles

T-37

Two artist's impressions of a T-37.

167

S U K H O I T-58VD

Sukhoi T-58VDPurpose: To provide full-scale STOL jet-liftdata to support the T6-1.Design Bureau: OKB-51 of P O Sukhoi,Moscow.

Early history of the T6-1 (see page 178) re-volved around how best to create a formida-ble tactical aircraft with a short field length.One of the obvious known methods of mak-ing a STOL (short take-off and landing) air-craft was to fit it with additional jet enginesarranged vertically to help lift the aircraft atlow speeds. In January 1965 the T-58D-1, thefirst prototype of what was to become the Su-15 interceptor, was taken off its normal flightprogramme and returned to an OKB factory.Here it was modified as the T-58VD, the des-ignation meaning Vertikalnyye Dvigateli, ver-tical engines. Managed by R Yarmarkov, whohad been leading engineer throughout T-58Dtesting, ground running trials of the VD beganin December 1966. This work required anenormous test installation built at the OKB-51which used a 15,000hp NK-12 turboprop toblast air at various speeds past the T-58VDwhile it performed at up to full power on allfive engines. It was mounted on a special

platform fitted with straingauges to measurethe thrust, drag and apparent weight. Whenthese tests were completed, the T-58VD wastaken to the LII at Zhukovskii where it beganits flight-test programme on 6th June 1966.Initial testing was handled by YevgeniiSolov'yov, who was later joined by the OKB'sVladimir Ilyushin. On 9th June 1967 this air-craft was flown by Solov'yov at the Domodye-dovo airshow, where NATO called it'Flagon-B'. Its basic test programme finishedtwo weeks later. It then briefly tested the ogi-val (convex curved) radome used on later Su-15 aircraft and the UPAZ inflight-refuellingpod. It was then transferred to the MoscowAviation Institute where it was used as an ed-ucational aid.

The original T-58D-1 was built as an out-standing interceptor for the IA-PVO air-de-fence force, with Mach 2.1 speed andarmament of K-8M (R-98) missiles. Poweredby two R-l 1F2S-300 turbojets (as fitted to theMiG-21 at that time), each with a maximumafterburning rating of 6,175kg (13,6131b), ithad pointed delta wings with a leading-edgeangle of 60°, fitted with blown flaps. Thewings looked very small in comparison with

the fuselage, which had backswept rectangu-lar variable-geometry engine inlets on eachside. To convert it into the T-58VD a com-pletely new centre fuselage was spliced in.This used portions of the original air ducts tothe main engines but separated them by newcentreline bays for three lift jets. The front bayhoused a single RD-36-35 turbojet ofP A Kolesov design with a thrust of 2,300kg(5,1801b). One of the wing main-spar bulk-heads came next, behind which was a bayhousing two more RD-36-35 engines in tan-dem. Each bay was fireproof and fitted withall the support systems shown to be neededin previous jet-lift aircraft. On top were largelouvred inlet doors each hinged upward atthe rear, while underneath were pilot-con-trolled cascade vanes for vectoring the lift-jetthrust fore and aft. Another important modifi-cation was to redesign the outer wing fromjust inboard of the fence, reducing the lead-ing-edge sweep to 45° and extending theaileron to terminate just inboard of the newsquared-off tip. Apart from the missile pylons

This page and opposite top: Views of T-58VD, oneshowing its final use at the MAI.

168

S U K H O I T - 5 8 V D / S U K H O I S - 2 2 I

military equipment was removed, and a newtelemetry system was fitted with a distinctivetwin-blade antenna under the nose.

The jet-lift conversion reduced take-offspeed and ground run from 390km/h(242mph) and 1,170m (3,839ft) to a less fran-tic 290km/h (ISOmph) and only 500m(1,640ft). Landing speeds and distances werereduced from 315km/h (196mph) and1,000m (3,281ft) to 240km/h (149mph) and600m (1,969ft). This was achieved at the ex-pense of reduced internal fuel capacity andsharply increased fuel consumption at take-off and landing. Moreover, it was discoveredduring initial flight testing that the longitudinallocations of the three lift engines had beenmiscalculated. Operation of the front RD-36-35 caused a nose-up pitching moment whichthe pilot could not counteract at speedsbelow about 320km/h (199mph), so this liftengine could not be used on landings.

T-58VD

Sukhoi S-22IPurpose: To modify a tactical fighter to havea variable-sweep wing.Design Bureau: OKB-51 of P O Sukhoi,Moscow.

Spurred by the USAF/USN TFX programme,Sukhoi (and later Mikoyan) researched air-craft with variable sweepback, also calledVG, variable-geometry, 'swing wings'. Exten-sive model testing began at CAHI (TsAGI) in1963. In early 1965 Sukhoi OKB DeputyN G Zyrin was appointed Chief Designer ofthe project, with V Krylov team leader. To testfull-scale wings the OKB-51 factory selected aproduction Su-7BM which it had already beenusing for a year to test other advances. L Moi-seyshchikov was appointed chief flight-testengineer. Modification of the aircraft tookplace in January-July 1966, and VladimirIlyushin made the first flight on 2nd August1966. Later LII pilots evaluated the aircraft,and on 9th July 1967 OKB pilot Evgeny Kuku-shev flew it publicly at the Domodyedovo airdisplay. Testing was completed at the end of

1967, and though this was clearly an interimaircraft the Council of Ministers decreed thatseries production should begin in 1969. Unex-pectedly, derived versions remained in pro-duction to 1991, over 2,000 being delivered.

It was by no means certain that an existingwing could be modified with variable sweep-back. The problem was to minimise weightgrowth whilst at the same time almost elimi-nating longitudinal shift in centre of pressure(wing lift) and centre of gravity. The originalwing had the considerable leading-edgeangle of 63°, matched to the supersonic max-imum speed attainable. The intention was toenable the wing to pivot forward, to increasespan and lift at low speeds. Doing so wouldnaturally move the centre of pressure for-wards, and at the same time it would alsomove the centre of gravity forwards. The ob-jective was to make these cancel out. Thiswas achieved by pivoting only the outer 4.5m(14ft 9in), placing the pivots close behind themain landing gear in a region well able to dif-fuse the concentrated loads into the struc-

ture. Each outer panel was driven hydrauli-cally forward to a minimum sweep of 30°. Fol-lowing tunnel testing of models, threesections of slat were added over almost thewhole span of each pivoted leading edge. In-board of the pivot the existing fence wasmade deeper and extended under the lead-ing edge to serve as a stores pylon (plumbedfor a tank). Among structural changes, theupper and lower skins were each reinforcedbetween the fence and flap by pairs of axialstiffeners (thus, eight in all).

Though empty weight was increased from8,410kg (18,541 Ib) to the figure given below,and internal fuel was reduced by 404 litres (89Imperial gallons), flying at 30° sweep extend-ed both range and endurance, and enabledmuch heavier external loads to be lifted fromshort fields. Pilots reported very favourably onall aspects of handling, except for the fact thatat extreme angles of attack there was no stall-warning buffet.

169

S U K H O I S - 2 2 I / T -4 , 100

Two views of the S-22I.

Sukhoi T-4, 100Purpose: To create a Mach-3 strategicweapons system.Design Bureau: P O Sukhoi, Moscow, withmajor subcontract to TMZ, TushinoMachine-Building Factory.

This enormous project was triggered in Dec-ember 1962 by the need to intercept the B-70(or RS-70), 'A-ll ' (A-12, later SR-71), HoundDog and Blue Steel. At an early stage the mis-sion was changed to strategic reconnais-sance and strike for use against major surfacetargets. It was also suggested that the basic airvehicle could form the starting point for thedesign of an advanced SST. From the outsetthere were bitter arguments. Initially thesecentred on whether the requirement shouldbe met by a Mach-2 aluminium aircraft orwhether the design speed should be Mach 3,requiring steel and/or titanium. In January

1963 Mach 3 was selected, together with a de-sign range at high altitude on internal fuel of6,000km (3,728 miles). General ConstructorsSukhoi, Tupolev and Yakovlev competed,with the T-4, Tu-135 and Yak-33 respectively.The Yak was too small (in the TSR.2 class)and did not meet the requirements, andthough it looked like the B-70 the Tupolevwas an aluminium aircraft designed for Mach2.35. From the start Sukhoi had gone for Mach3, and its uncompromising design resultedin its being chosen in April 1963. This wasdespite the implacable opposition not onlyof Tupolev but also of Sukhoi's own deputyYevgenii Ivanov and many of the OKB'sdepartment heads, who all thought this de-manding project an unwarranted departurefrom tactical fighters. Over the next 18 monthstheir opposition thwarted a plan for the for-mer Lavochkin OKB and factory to assist the

T-4, and in its place the Boorevestnik (stormypetrel) OKB and the TMZ factory were ap-pointed as Sukhoi branch offices, the Tushinoplant handling all prototype construction. Aspecial WS commission studied the projectfrom 23rd May to 3rd June 1963, and a furthercommission studied the refined design inFebruary-May 1964. By this time the T-4 wasthe biggest tunnel-test project at CAHI(TsAGI) and by far the largest at the Central In-stitute of Aviation Motors. The design wasstudied by GKAT (State aircraft technicalcommittee) from June 1964, and approved byit in October of that year. By this time it hadoutgrown its four Tumanskii R-15BF-300 orZubets RD-17-15 engines and was based onfour Kolesov RD-36-41 engines. In January1965 it was decided to instal these all close to-gether as in the B-70, instead of in two pairs.Mockup review took place from 17th January

170

DimensionsSpan (63°) 10.03m 32 ft 10% in

(30°) 13.68m 44ftl03/4inLength overall 1 9.03 m 62 ft 5!4 inWing area (63°) 34.45m2 370.8ft2

(30°) 38.49m2 414.3ft2

WeightsEmpty 9,480kg 20,899 IbNo further data, but abundant data exists for production successors.

S U K H O I T-4 , 100

to 2nd February 1966, with various detach-able weapons and avionics pods being of-fered. Preliminary design was completed inJune 1966, and because its take-off weightwas expected to be 100 tonnes the Factorydesignation 100 was chosen, with nicknameSotka (one hundred). The first flight articlewas designated 101, and the static-test speci-men 100S. The planned programme then in-cluded the 102 (with a modified structurewith more composites and no brittle alloys)for testing the nav/attack system, the 103 and104 for live bomb and missile tests and deter-mination of the range, the 105 for avionics in-tegration and the 106 for clearance of thewhole strike/reconnaissance system. On 30thDecember 1971 the first article, Black 101,was transferred from Tushino to the LIIZhukovskii test airfield. On 20th April 1972 itwas accepted by the flight-test crew, VladimirIlyushin and navigator Nikolai Alfyorov, andmade its first flight on 22nd August 1972. Thegear was left extended on Flights 1 through 5,after which speed was gradually built up toMach 1.28 on Flight 9 on 8th August 1973.There were no serious problems, though theaft fuselage tank needed a steel heat shieldand there were minor difficulties with the hy-draulics. The WS request for 1970-75 includ-ed 250 T-4 bombers, for which tooling wasbeing put in place at the world's largestaircraft factory, at Kazan. After much furtherargument, during which Minister P V Demen-t'yev told Marshal Grechko he could have hisenormous MiG-23 order only if the T-4 wasabandoned, the programme was cancelled.Black 101 flew once more, on 22nd January1974, to log a total of lOhrs 20min. Most of thesecond aircraft, article 102, which had beenabout to fly, went to the Moscow Aviation In-stitute, and Nos 103-106 were scrapped. Backin 1967 the Sukhoi OKB had begun workingon a totally redesigned and significantly moreadvanced successor, the T-4MS, or 200. Ter-mination of the T-4 resulted in this even moreremarkable project also being abandoned. In1982 Aircraft 101 went to the Monino muse-um. The Kazan plant instead produced theTu-22MandTu-160.

In all essentials the T-4 was a clone ona smaller scale of the North American B-70.The structure was made of high-strength tita-nium alloys VT-20, VT-21L and VT-22, stain-less steels VIS-2 and VIS-5, structural steelVKS-210 and, for fuel and hydraulic piping,soldered VNS-2 steel. The wing, with 0° an-hedral, had an inboard leading-edge angle of75° 44', changed over most of the span to60° 17'. Thickness/chord ratio was a remark-

Four views of the T-4 NolOl

171

S U K H O I T-4, 100

able 2.7 per cent. The leading edge was fixed.The flight controls were driven by irreversiblepower units in a quadruplex FBW (fly-by-wire) system with full authority but automat-ic manual reversion following failure of anytwo channels. They comprised four elevenson each wing, flapped canard foreplanes anda two-part rudder. The fuselage had a circulardiameter of 2.0m (6ft 6%in). At airspeedsbelow 700km/h (435mph) the nose could bedrooped 12° 12' by a screwjack driven by hy-draulic motors to give the pilot a view ahead.Behind the pilot (Ilyushin succeeded in get-ting the proposed control wheel replaced bya stick) was the navigator and systems man-ager. Both crew had a K-36 ejection-seat,fired up through the normal entrance hatch,and aircraft 101 also had a pilot periscope. Be-hind the pressure cabin was a large refriger-ated fuselage section devoted to electronics.Next came the three fuel tanks, filled with 57tonnes (125,661 Ib) of specially developedRG-1 naphthyl fuel similar to JP-7. Each tankhad a hydraulically driven turbopump, andthe fuel system was largely automated. A pro-duction T-4 would have had provision for alarge drop tank under each wing, and for airrefuelling. Behind the aft tank were systemscompartments, ending with a rectangulartube housing quadruple cruciform brakingparachutes. Under the wing was the enor-

mous box housing the air-inlet systems andthe four single-shaft RD-36-41 turbojets, eachwith an afterburning rating of 16,000kg(35,273 Ib). An automatic FBW system gov-erned the engines and their three-sectionvariable nozzles and variable-geometry in-lets. Each main landing gear had four twin-tyred wheels and retracted forwards, rotating90° to lie on its side outboard of the engineduct. The nose gear had levered suspensionto two similar tyres, with wheel brakes, andused the hydraulic steering as a shimmydamper. It retracted backwards into a baybetween the engine ducts. The four auto-nomous hydraulic systems were filled withKhS-1 (similar to Oronite 70) and operatedat the exceptional pressure of 280kg/cm2

(3,980 lb/in2). A liquid oxygen system was pro-vided, together with high-capacity environ-mental systems which rejected heat to bothair and fuel. The crew wore pressure suits.The main electrical system was generated as400-Hz three-phase at 220/115 V by four oil-cooled alternators rated at 60 kVA. Aircraft101 never received its full astro-inertial navi-gation system, nor its planned 'complex' ofelectronic-warfare, reconnaissance andweapon systems. The latter would have in-cluded two Kh-45 cruise missiles, developedby the Sukhoi OKB, with a range of 1,500km(932 miles).

Like the B-70 this was a gigantic pro-gramme which broke much new ground (theOKB said '200 inventions, or 600 if you includemanufacturing processes') yet which was fi-nally judged to have been not worth the cost.

DimensionsSpanLengthWing area

WeightsEmpty (as rolled out)

(equipped)Loaded (normal)(maximum)

Design PerformanceMax and cruising speedat sea level

Service ceilingRange(clean)(drop tanks)

Take-off run(normal loaded weight)

Landing speed/runwith parachutes

22.00m44.50m295.7m2

54,600kg55,600kg114,400kg1 36 tonnes

3,200 km/hl,150km/h24kmat 3,000 knYh6,000 km7,000km

1,000m260 km/h950m

72 ft 2% in146ft3,183ft2

1 20,370 Ib122,575 Ib252,205 Ib299,824 Ib

1,988 mph (Mach 3.01)715 mph (Mach 0.94)78,740 ft1,864 mph (Mach 2.82)3,728 miles4,350 miles

3,281 ft161.6 mph3,117ft

1: Hinged nose2: Pilot's cockpit3: Entry hatch4: Foreplane5: Navigator's cockpit6: Entry hatch7: Pressurized electronics bay8: Forward fuel tank9: Mechanical, electrical and

fuel services10: Main fuel tanks11: Aft fuel tank12: Rear spar13: Elevon14: Fin15: Tail trimming tank16: Fin antennas

17: Rudder power units18: Upper rudder19: Brake-parachute compartment20: Nol engine21: Left main landing gear22: Centroplan (centre section of wing)23: Nose landing-gear door24: Steerable nose landing gear25: Intake splitter

T-4 (100)

172

S U K H O I 100L

Sukhoi 100LPurpose: To test wing forms for the 100aircraft.Design Bureau: P O Sukhoi, Moscow.

Another of the aircraft used to provide re-search support for the 100, or T-4, was thismodified Su-9 interceptor. In the period 1966-70 this aircraft was fitted with a succession ofdifferent wings. Most testing was done at LIIZhukovskii.

The 100L was originally a test Su-9, withside number (callsign) Red 61 (the same asfor the T6-1, and also for the first two-seatMiG-21, but this had finished testing at LII be-fore the 100L arrived). The aircraft was fittedwith telemetry with a diagonal blade antennaunder the nose, but apparently not with a cinecamera at the top of the fin. The various testwings were manufactured by adding to theexisting Su-9 wing box, in most cases aheadof the wing box only. The first experimentalwing was little changed in plan view: the wingwas given an extended sharp leading edgewhich extended the tip to a point. Three fur-ther wings with sharp leading edges were

tested, as well as one with a 'blunt leadingedge'. This meant that it was the sharplyswept inboard leading edge that was blunt,because at least one of the wings was fittedwith a leading edge which in four stages in-creased in sweepback from tip to root tomeet the fuselage at 75°. All the test wings hadperforated leading edges from which smoketrails could be emitted. Further testing wasdone with a sharp-edged horizontal tail.

Results from this aircraft were aerodynam-ic, not structural, but they materially assistedthe design of the 100.

100L'Red 61'test bed.

100L, plan view showing first and third wings.

100L

173

S U K H O I 100L / 1 0 0 L D U

Two views of the 100L with different wings.

Sukhoi 100LDUPurpose: To flight-test canard surfaces.Design Bureau: P O Sukhoi, Moscow

As explained in the history of the T-4, thisenormous project required back-up researchright across Soviet industry. The Sukhoi OKB

itself took on the task of investigating theproposed canard surfaces. As the only vehicleimmediately available was a two-seat Su-7U,with a maximum Mach number of 2 insteadof 3, the resulting aircraft - with designation100LDU - ceased to be directly relevant to the

T-4 and became instead a general canardresearch vehicle. It was assigned to LIl-MAPtest pilot (and future Cosmonaut) Igor Volk,and was tested in 1968-71.

The basic Su-7U, powered by an AL-7FI-200 with a maximum afterburning rating of10,100kg (22,282 Ib), was subjected to minormodifications to the rudder and braking-parachute installation, and was fitted withfully powered canard surfaces on each sideof the nose. These were of cropped deltashape, with a greater span and area thanthose of contemporary experimental MiGaircraft, and with anti-flutter rods which werelonger and nearer to the tips.

This aircraft fulfilled all test objectives,though the numerical data were of onlymarginal assistance to the T-4/100 designteam.

100LDU

174

S L I K H O I 0 2 - 1 0 , O R L 0 2 - 1 0

Sukhoi 02-10, or L02-10Purpose: To investigate direct side-forcecontrol.Design Bureau: P O Sukhoi, Moscow.

In 1969 this Su-9 was modified for the LII,which wished to investigate the application ofdirect side force. The LII had been concernedat American research into direct lateral or ver-tical force which could enable a fighter torise, fall, move left or move right withoutchanging the aircraft's attitude. In otherwords such an aircraft could keep pointing ata target in front while it crabbed sideways (forexample). Testing began in 1972. In 1977 theaircraft was returned to a Sukhoi OKB factoryand had the upper nose fin removed, testingcontinuing as a joint LII/Su programme. It wasfurther modified in 1979.

Originally this aircraft was a production Su-9 interceptor, though it never saw active ser-vice. In its first 02-10 form is had substantialvertical fins added above and below the nose.Each fin was pivoted at mid-chord and fully

Three different versions of L02-10 test-bed.

powered. The pilot was able to cut the nosefins out of his flight-control circuit, leavingthem fixed at zero incidence. When theywere activated, movement of his pedalsdrove the fins in unison with each other andin unison with the rudder. The two canardfins moved parallel to the rudder, to cause theaircraft to crab sideways. Each surface was ofcropped delta shape, with a lower aspectratio than the horizontal canards of theS-22PDS. Compared with the lower fin theupper surface had significantly greater height,and it was mounted slightly further forward.Each was fitted with an anti-flutter rod mass,

which during the course of the programmewas moved from 40 per cent of fin height (dis-tance from root to tip) to 70 per cent. After the02-10's first series of tests the upper nose finwas removed (leaving its mounting spigot stillin place). Later a cine camera was installedon the fin to record lateral tracking across theground, and in some of the later tests thewings were fitted with smoke nozzles alongthe leading edge, to produce visible stream-lines photographed by a camera in a box im-mediately ahead of the radio antenna.

This aircraft generated useful information,but the idea has never been put into practice.

175

S U K H O I T6-1

Sukhoi T6-1Purpose: To create a superior tactical attackbomber.Design Bureau: P O Sukhoi, Moscow.

As noted in the story of the S-22I (S-32), publi-cation of the formidable requirements for theUSAF's TFX programme spurred a responseby the USSR. These requirements called forlong range with a heavy bombload and theability to make a blind first-pass attack at su-personic speed at low level 'under the radar'.There was obvious need to replace the IL-28and Yak-28, and the task appeared to call foreither the use of a battery of special lift en-gines or a VG (variable-geometry, ie variable-sweep) wing. Sukhoi OKB was entrusted withthis important task, and took a 'belt and braces'approach. To get something flying quickly itdecided to put VG wings on the outstandingSu-7B, resulting in the S-22I described previ-ously. For the longer term it launched devel-opment of a new aircraft, the S-6. This was firstdrawn in 1963, and it was to have a fixedswept wing, two Metskvarichvili R-21F-300 en-gines each with a wet afterburning rating of7,200kg (15,873 Ib), pilot and navigator seatedin tandem, and the Puma navigation andweapon-delivery system. Five hardpointswere to carry a load of 3 tonnes (6,614 Ib),take-off weight being 20 tonnes (44,090Ib),and maximum speed was to be l,400km/h(870mph) at very low level and 2,500km/h(l,553mph, Mach 2.35) at high altitude. Short-take-off capability was to be provided by twolarge take-off rockets. As a cover, and to assist

in obtaining funds more quickly, the S-6 wasredesignated T-58M to look like a member ofthat interceptor family, but in 1964 it was ter-minated. This was partly because of in-tractible problems with the engine (see MiGYe-8), and partly because of the good progresswith the T-58VD (see previous). In early 1965the S-6 was replaced by the T-6, later writtenT6. This was a significantly larger and morepowerful aircraft, even surpassing the F- l l l ,which was in production by then. After rolloutit was given the callsign Red 61 and first flownby the chief test pilot, Vladimir S Ilyushin, on2nd July 1967. It was fitted with a battery of liftjets, as in the T-58VD, and it was immediatelyfound that (as before) these caused aerody-namic and control difficulties. In 1968 the R-27main engines were removed and the com-plete rear fuselage and powerplant systemsmodified to take the Lyul'ka AL-21F engine,with a maximum afterburning rating of11,200kg (24,691 Ib). To improve directionalstability the wingtips were tilted sharply downin TSR.2 fashion, the anhedral being 72°. Largestrakes were added on each side of the rearfuselage, and the airbrakes deleted. To meetthe needs of radar designers the nose radomewas made shorter, with no significant effecton drag, and over the years numerous flushantennas and fairings appeared. Even afterthe decision was taken to change the designto have high-aspect-ratio 'swing wings' the T6-1continued testing systems and equipment. In1974, having made over 320 test flights, it wasretired to the WS Museum at Monino.

T6-1 as originally built

In fact, the design of the T6-1 had been evenmore strongly influenced by the British TSR.2,with a fixed-geometry delta wing of short spanand large area and fitted with powerful blownflaps. Before the first aircraft, the T6-1, wasbuilt the wing was modified with the leading-edge angle reduced from 60° to 45° outboardof the flaps, ahead of the conventionalailerons. As originally built, the large fuselagehoused two Khachaturov (Tumanskii KB) R-27F2-300 engines each with a wet afterburn-ing rating of 9,690kg (21,3651b), fed bysharp-edged rectangular side inlets with aninner wall variable in angle and throat area.Downstream of the inlets the fuselage had abroad box-like form able to generate a con-siderable fraction of the required lift at super-sonic speed at low level. Ahead of the inletswas an oval-section forward fuselage housingtwo K-36D seats side-by-side, as in the F-l l l ,an arrangement which was considered an ad-vantage in a first-pass attack and also to assistconversion training in a dual version. Therewere left and right canopies each hinged up-ward from the broad spine downstream. Thewidth of the cockpit left enough space be-tween the engine ducts for a considerable fueltankage as well as two pairs of RD-36-35 liftjets, installed in a single row as in the T-58VD.No attempt was made to bleed any engines toprovide air for reaction-jet controls, becausethe T6-1 was not designed to be airborne atlow airspeeds. The one-piece tailplanes werein fact tailerons, driven individually by KAU-125 power units to provide control in roll aswell as pitch. For operation from unpavedstrips the levered-suspension main landinggears had twin wheels with tyres 900 x230mm, retracting forwards into bays underthe air ducts, while the steerable nose gearagain had twin wheels, 600 x 200mm, withmudguards, retracting to the rear. At the ex-treme tail an airbrake was provided on eachside, requiring a cutaway inboard trailingedge to the tailplanes, and between the jetnozzles under the rudder was a cruciformbraking parachute. For the first time the avion-ics were regarded as a PNK, a totally integrat-ed navigation and attack 'complex', and theT6-1 played a major role in developing this. Itwas fitted with four wing pylons with inter-faces for a wide range of stores, as well as twohardpoints inboard of the main-gear bays, themaximum bombload being 5 tonnes(ll,0201b). The production Su-24 has eighthardpoints for loads up to 8 tonnes (17,637 Ib).

The T6-1 was a stepping-stone to a family ofpowerful and formidable aircraft which in2000 are still in service with Russia andUkraine. Unquestionably, the lift jets were notworth having.

176

S U K H O I T6-1

Above left, right andbelow: Three views ofT6-1 as originally built

177

Top: T6-1 aftermodification.

DimensionsSpan

Length (as modified)Wing area

Weights

Empty not reportedLoaded (normal)(maximum)

The production Su-24MKis cleared to

Performance

Max speed at sea levelat high altitude

Take-off field length

(normal weight)

9.2m

23.2m51m2

26,100kg

28 tonnes

39,700 kg

l,468km/h,

2,020 km/h,

350m

30 ft Kin

76ftP/4in550 ft2

57,540 Ib61,728 Ib

87,522 Ib

912mph(Machl.2)

l,255mph(Machl.9)

1,148ft

S U K H O I T-10

SukhoiT-10Purpose: To create a superior heavy fighter.Design Bureau: P O Sukhoi, Moscow.

In 1969 the IA-PVO, the manned interceptordefence force, issued a requirement for a to-tally new heavy interceptor. This was neededto replace the Tu-128, Yak-28P and Su-15 indefending the USSR against various cruisemissiles, as well as the F-l 11 and other newWestern fighters and tactical aircraft. A spe-cific requirement was to combine long-rangestandoff-kill capability with performance andcombat agility superior in a close dogfight toany Western aircraft. The formal competitionwas opened in 1971. Though Mikoyan andYakovlev were invited to participate, all therunning was made by Sukhoi OKB, whichwas eager to move on from the T-4 and get anew production aircraft. With Sukhoi himselfsemi-retired, Yevgenii Ivanov was appointedchief designer, with Oleg Samolovich deputy.Sukhoi's two rival OKBs made proposals, butdid not receive contracts to construct proto-type aircraft to meet this requirement (thoughthe standoff-kill demand was also addressedby the later M1G-25P variants and MiG-31).

Sukhoi submitted two alternative proposals.Both were broadly conventional single-seattwin-engined aircraft with 'ogival Gothic'wings (almost delta-shape but with a double-curved leading edge) and horizontal tails, theonly new feature being twin vertical tails. Onehad side air inlets with horizontal ramps,while the other proposal had a fuselageblended into a wing mounted underneathand two complete propulsion systemsmounted under the wing. A detail was thatboth had outstanding pilot view with adrooped nose and bulged canopy. As thewing was more akin to a delta than to a sweptwing the project was given the designationT-l 0 in the T series (see T-3). The competitivedesign review was won by Sukhoi in May1972. CAHI (TsAGI) had tunnel-tested T-10models from 1969, and the work built up eachyear until 1974, demanding more tunnel test-ing than any previous Soviet aircraft exceptthe Tu-144. It was the unconventional config-uration that was chosen, with the fuselagetapering to nothing above the wing and beingreplaced by large engine gondolas under-neath. Drawings for the first prototype, the

T10-1, were issued in 1975. Construction washandled by the OKB factory, except for wingand tail surfaces which were made at theOKB's associated huge production facilitynamed for Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin atKomsomolsk-na-Amur in Siberia. VladimirIlyushin began a successful flight-test pro-gramme on 20th May 1977. Investigation ofbasic handling, including high-AOA (angle ofattack) flight, was completed in 38 flights bylate January 1978. Four wing fences wereadded, together with anti-flutter rods on thefins and tailplanes. Many further flights ex-plored the FEW (fly-by-wire) flight controlsand, after fitting no fewer than seven hard-points where pylons could be attached, theweapons control system. Red 10 was finallyput on display in the Monino Museum. T10-2began flying at the beginning of 1978, but asoftware error led to unexplored resonancewhich caused inflight breakup, killing EvgenySolov'yov. By 1978 the OKB was busy withT10-3, the first prototype fitted with the defin-itive engine, and this was flown by Ilyushin on23rd August 1979. In 1982 T10-3 was flown byOKB pilot Nikolai Sadovnikov from a simulated

T10-1 as built

178

S U K H O I T - 1 0

aircraft-carrier ramp, and it later made hook-equipped simulated carrier landings. T10-4,first flown by Ilyushin on 31st October 1979,tested the new engines and avionics. So greatwas the need to test avionics that the Komso-molsk factory was contracted to build fivefurther prototypes. These were designatedT10-5, -6, -9, -10 and -11 (T10-7 and -8 weresignificantly modified). These additional pro-totypes were generally similar to T10-3, apartfrom the fact that the fins were canted out-wards. The T10-5 flew in June 1980, and theremainder were all on flight test by autumn1982. Pavel Sukhoi died on 15th September1975, and was succeeded as General Con-structor by Mikhail P Simonov. Soon after hetook over, the first detailed information on theMcDonnell Douglas F-15 became available.Computer simulations found that the T-10 didnot meet the requirement that it should bedemonstrably superior to the USAF aircraft.Simonov ordered what amounted to a freshstart, telling the author 'We kept the wheelsand ejection-seat'. Designated T-10S, fromSeriynii, production, the new fighter can onlybe described as brilliant. Ever since the firstpre-series example, the T10-17, was flown byIlyushin on 20th April 1981 it has been theyardstick against which other fighters arejudged. An enormous effort was made by Nilusing T10-17 and T10-22 to clear the re-designed aircraft for production. The first trueseries aircraft, designated Su-27, was flown atKomsomolsk in November 1982.

The T-10 wing had 0° dihedral, and a sym-metric profile with a ruling thickness/chordratio of 3.5 per cent, rising to 5 per cent at theroot. The leading edge was fixed. It left thefuselage with a sharp radius and with asweep angle of 79°, curving round to 41° overthe outer panels and then curving back toKiichemann tips. The main torsion box hadthree spars and one-piece machined skins.Most of the interior was pressurized andformed an integral tank, while high-strengthribs carried armament suspension points.The oval-section fuselage forward sectionwas designed to accommodate the intendedlarge radar, followed by the cockpit with asliding canopy. Behind this came an equip-ment bay, followed by a humpbacked'forecastle tank' and then a broad wing cen-tre-section tank which could be consideredas part of both the wing and fuselage. A fur-ther tank was placed in the keel beam be-tween the engines. The latter were of theLyul'ka AL-21F-3 type, each with an after-burning rating of 11,200kg (24,691 Ib). Eachwas placed in a large nacelle or gondolaunder the wing, tilted outward because of theinboard wing's sharp taper in thickness. Eachengine air duct was fed by a wedge inlet be-hind the leading edge, standing well awayunder the wing's underskin to avoid swallow-

ing boundary-layer air. Each inlet contained avariable upper ramp, with auxiliary side inletsfor use on take-off, and a curved lower por-tion. The large engine gondolas providedstrong bulkheads on which were mountedthe two vertical fins and the tailplanes. TheAL-21 had its accessories mounted on top,and the massive structure and fins immedi-ately above made access difficult. Fromthe third aircraft the engine was the Lyul'kaAL-31F, which had been specially designedfor this aircraft. It had an afterburning ratingof 12,500kg (27,557 Ib), and offered severalother advantages, one being that it was half atonne (1,100 Ib) lighter than the AL-21F. It hadits accessories partly underneath and partlyfar forward on top, and the vertical tails weremoved outboard away from the engine com-partments. The main landing gears had large(1,030 x 350mm) tyres on single legs and re-tracted forwards, rotating the wheel through90° to lie flat in the root of the wing in a bayclosed by side doors and large front doorswhich served as airbrakes. The tall nose gearhad a single unbraked wheel with a 680 x260mm tyre. It retracted backwards, and wasfitted with an all-round mudguard to protectthe engine inlets. The main-wheel wells re-quired a thick inboard section of the wing ad-jacent to the engine gondolas, and this wascarried to the rear to provide strong beams towhich the tailplanes (and in the redesignedaircraft the fins) were pivoted. The T-10 flightcontrols comprised conventional ailerons,two rudders and the independently con-trolled tailplanes. All these surfaces were dri-ven by power units each served by both thecompletely separated 210kg/cm2 (2,987 lb/in2)hydraulic systems. These systems also drovethe plain flaps, landing gears (with indepen-dent airbrake actuation), nosewheel steering,

engine inlets and mainwheel brakes. The fly-by-wire system governed pitch control by thetailplanes used in unison, and provided three-axis stabilization. The mechanical controlsworked directly by the pilot's linkages to thesurface power units governed the aileronsand rudder. The five internal fuel tanks wereautomatically controlled to supply fuel with-out disturbing the aircraft centre of gravity.A special oxygen system was provided to en-sure engine restart and afterburner light-up athigh altitude. T10-1 was built with no provi-sion for armament, but in its modified state ithad seven hardpoints on which externalstores could be suspended.

Despite the fact that the basic aircraft hadto be completely redesigned, the T-10 familyof prototypes were stepping stones to thegreatest fighter of the modern era.

T10-1 after modernization.

179

Dimensions (T10-1 as built)SpanLengthWing area

WeightsWeight emptyLoaded

PerformanceMax speed at sea level,

at high altitude;Service ceilingRange

14.7m19.65m59.0 nf

18,200kg25,740kg

l,400km/h2,230 km/h17,500m3,100km

48 ft 2V, in64 ft 5K in635 ft2

40,1 23 Ib56,746 Ib

870 mph (Mach 1.145)1,386 mph (Mach 2.1)57,415ft1,926 miles

S U K H O I P -42 / T 1 0 - 2 4

Sukhoi P-42Purpose: To modify a T-10 (Su-27) to setworld records.Design Bureau: P O Sukhoi, Moscow,General Constructor M P Simonov.

According to Simonov, The idea of entering acompetition for world records for aircraft ofthis category was conceived during 1986. Werealised that this aircraft was capable of doingmany things. We were so confident that, forrecord setting, we decided not to build a ded-icated aircraft but took one of the pre-seriesones which had already flown. This then hadto be prepared in conformity with the strin-gent Federation Aeronautique Internationalerules. The aircraft was called the P-42 as atribute to the turning point in the Stalingradbattle in November 1942, when Soviet avia-tion had played a large part in crushing theenemy'. The OKB organised a team of designengineers, test pilots and supporting groundstaff under Chief Designer Rollan G Mar-tirosov (who later designed Ekranoplans).The modified aircraft was ready in October1986. In two flights, on 27th October and 15thNovember 1986 Viktor Pugachev set eightclimb-to-altitude records (four absolute andfour for aircraft of up to 16 tonnes take-offweight): he reached 3km (9,843ft) in 15.573

seconds and 6km (19,685ft) in 37.05 seconds.On 10th March 1987 and 23rd March 1988Nikolai Sadovnikov flew the P-42 to 9km(29,528ft) in 44.0 seconds, to 12km (39,370ft)in 55.20 seconds and to 15km (49,213ft) in70.329 seconds. On 10th June 1987 Sadovni-kov set a world class record by sustaining analtitude of 19,335m (63,435ft) in level flight.Another record set by Pugachev was lifting aload of 1 tonne (2,205 Ib) to 15km (49,213ft) in81.71 seconds.

The aircraft selected was T10-15. It wassimplified and its weight reduced until it wasable to take off at a weight of 14,100kg(31,08515). With AL-31F engines uprated to13,600kg (29,982 Ib) this gave a thrust/weightratio of 1.93, believed to be the highest of anyaircraft ever built. Modification to the equip-ment included removal of the radar and mili-tary equipment (including the GSh-301 gunand its ammunition container, wingtip mis-sile launchers and weapon hardpoints) andremoval of avionics other than the flight, nav-igation and communications needed for safeflight. Modifications to the airframe includedreplacement of the nose radome by a metalfairing, simplification of the wings by in-stalling a fixed leading edge and a fixed struc-ture in place of the flaperons, removal of the

ventral fins and the tops of the fins, replace-ment of the airbrake by a fairing and simplifi-cation of the airbrake supporting structure,removal of the parabrake container, simplifi-cation of the variable engine inlets whichwere locked in their optimum positions, andremoval of the mudguard from the nose-wheel. The aircraft was left unpainted.

The P-42 set a total of 27 world records.

Sukhoi T10-24Purpose: To evaluate Su-27 foreplanes.Design Bureau: P O Sukhoi, Moscow,General Designer M P Simonov.

In 1977 Simonov authorised studies into thepossibility of adding foreplanes (canard sur-faces) to the Su-27. Such surfaces appearedto offer improved controllability, especially inextreme manoeuvres at high AOA (angle ofattack), when flight testing had shown thatthe tailerons were in the wake of the wing.Following tunnel testing of models work con-tinued in 1979 in collaboration with CAHI

(TsAGI). This research revealed that in someflight conditions there were longitudinal-con-trol problems. A canard system free fromthese problems was devised in 1982, and inMay 1985 flight testing of the T10-24 began.

The Tl 0-24 was fitted with the PGO (Pered-neye Gorizontal'noye Opereniye, front hori-zontal tail). After prolonged research this wasfitted not on the forward fuselage, as in mostother canard aircraft, but to the leading edgesof the modified centroplan (centre wing).The two surfaces had a cropped-delta planshape, with a thickness/chord ratio of 3 per

cent, and they were mounted horizontallyand pivoted at about 60 per cent root chord.They were driven by power units linked to theFBW flight-control system. Depending uponthe flight regime they increased stability inpitch and roll and also instability in pitch.They significantly reduced trim drag, and theyincreased the maximum attainable lift coeffi-cient (at an AOA of 30°) from 1.75 to 2.1.

Testing the T10-24 substantiated the pre-dicted advantages and supported develop-ment of later fighters, beginning with thenaval Su-27K.

180

S L I K H O I Su- -37

Sukhoi Su-37Purpose: To create the optimised multirolefighter derived from the Su-27.Design Bureau: AOOT 'OKB Sukhoi',Moscow.

The superb basic design of the T-10 led notonly to the production Su-27 but also to sev-eral derivative aircraft. Some, such as theSu-34, are almost completely redesigned fornew missions. One of the main objectives hasbeen to create even better multirole fighters,and via the Su-27UB-PS and LMK 24-05Sukhoi and the Engine KB 'Lyul'ka-Saturn'have, in partnership with national laborato-ries and the avionics industry, created theSu-37. The prototype was the T10M-11, tailnumber 711, first flown on 2nd April 1996. Theengine nozzles were fixed on the first flight,but by September 1996, when it arrived at theFarnborough airshow, this aircraft had made50 flights with nozzles able to vector. At theBritish airshow it astounded observers bygoing beyond the dramatic Kobra manoeuvreand making a complete tight 360° somersaultessentially within the aircraft's own lengthand without change in altitude. Called Kulbit(somersault), this manoeuvre has yet tobe emulated by any other aircraft. In 1999low-rate production was being planned atKomsomolsk.

Essentially the Su-37 is an Su-35 with vec-toring engines. Compared with the Su-27 theSu-35 has many airframe modifications in-cluding canards, taller square-top fins (whichare integral tanks) and larger rudders, dou-ble-slotted flaps, a bulged nose housing theelectronically scanned antenna of the N011Mradar, an extended rear fuselage housing theaft-facing defence radar, twin nosewheelsand, not least, quad FBW flight controls ableto handle a longitudinally unstable aircraft.In addition to these upgrades the Su-37 hasAL-31FP engines, each with dry and aug-mented thrust of 8,500 and 14,500kg (18,740and 31,9671b) respectively. These engineshave efficient circular nozzles driven by fourpairs of actuators to vector ±15° in pitch.Left/right vectoring is precluded by the prox-imity of the enlarged rear fuselage, but engineGeneral Designer Viktor Chepkin says 'Differ-ential vectoring in the vertical plane is syn-onymous with 3-D multi-axis nozzles'. Inproduction engines the actuators are drivenby fuel pressure.

It is difficult to imagine how any fighter withfixed-axis nozzles could hope to survive inany kind of one-on-one engagement with thisaircraft.

DimensionsSpan (over ECM containers)LengthWing area

WeightsWeight emptyMaximum loaded

PerformanceMaximum speedat sea levelat high altitude

Rate of climbService ceilingRange (internal fuel)

15.16m22.20m62.0m2

1 7 tonnes34 tonnes

l,400km/h2,500 km/h230 m/s18,800m3,300 km

49 ft 8k! in72 ft 10 in667ft2

37,479 Ib74,956 Ib

870mph(Machl.l4)1,553 mph (Mach 2.35)45,276 ft/min61,680ft2,050 miles

Below: T1Q1A-11.

181

S U K H O I S-37 B E R K U T

Sukhoi S-37 BerkutPurpose: To provide data to support thedesign of a superior air-combat fighter.Design Bureau: AOOT 'OKB Sukhoi',Moscow.

Almost unknown until its first flight, this air-craft is one of the most remarkable in the sky.Any impartial observer cannot fail to see that,unless Sukhoi's brilliance has suddenly be-come dimmed, it is a creation of enormousimportance. Like the rival from MiG, it pro-vides the basis for a true 'fifth-generation'fighter which with rapid funding could swiftlybecome one of the greatest multirole fightersin the world. Unfortunately, in the Russia oftoday it will do well to survive at all, especial-ly as the WS has for political and personalityreasons shown hostile indifference. In fact on1st February 1996, when the first image of atotally new Sukhoi fighter leaked out in theform of a fuzzy picture of a tabletop model,the WS Military Council instantly proclaimedthat this aircraft 'is not prospective from thepoint of view of re-equipment within 2010-25'. In fact the first hint of this project cameduring a 1991 visit by French journalists toCAHI (TsAGI), when they were shown a

model of an aircraft with FSW (forward-swept wings) and canard foreplanes calledthe Sukhoi S-32. At the risk of causing confu-sion, Sukhoi uses S for projects and Su forproducts, the same number often appearingin both categories but for totally different air-craft (for example, the Su-32 is piston-en-gined). In December 1993, during theInstitute's 75th-birthday celebrations, its workon the FSW was said to be 'for a new fighterof Sukhoi design'. The model shown in Feb-ruary 1996 again bore the number '32' butclearly had tailplanes as well as canards. Ithad been known for many years that the FSWhas important aeroelastic advantages overthe traditional backswept wing (see OKB-1bombers and Tsybin LL). At least up to Mach1.3 (1,400 tol,500km/h, 870 to 930mph) theFSW offers lower drag and superior manoeu-vrability, and the lower drag also translates aslonger range. A further advantage is that take-offs and landings are shorter. The fundamen-tal aeroelastic problem with the FSW can bedemonstrated by holding a cardboard wingout of the window of a speeding vehicle. Acardboard FSW tends to bend upwards vio-lently, out of control. An FSW for a fast jet was

thus very difficult to make until the technolo-gy of composite structures enabled the wingto be designed with skins formed from multi-ple layers of adhesive-bonded fibres of car-bon or glass. With such skins the directions ofthe fibres can be arranged to give maximumstrength, rather like the directions of the grainin plywood. The first successful jet FSW wasthe Grumman X-29, first flown in December1984. This exerted a strong influence on theSukhoi S-32 design team, which underMikhail Simonov was led by First Deputy Gen-eral Designer Mikhail A Pogosyan, and in-cluded Sergei Korotkov who is today's S-37chief designer. From 1983 the FSW was ex-haustively investigated, not only by aircraftOKBs but especially by CAHI (TsAGI) and theNovosibirsk-based SibNIA, which tunnel-test-ed several FSW models based loosely on theSu-27. By 1990 Simonov was determined tocreate an FSW prototype, and three yearslater the decision had been taken not to waitfor non-existent State funds but instead to putevery available Sukhoi ruble into constructingsuch an aircraft. Despite a continuing ab-sence of official funding, this has proved to bepossible because of income from export

S-37 Berkut

182

S U K H O I S-37 B E R K U T

Above and below: Two views of S-37 Berkut.

sales of fighters of the Su-27 family. Construc-tion began in early 1996, but in that yearWestern aviation magazines began chantingthat the S-32 was soon to fly. Uncertain aboutthe outcome, Simonov changed the designa-tion to S-37, so that he could proclaim TheS-32 does not exist'. It had been hoped to flythe radical new research aircraft at the MAKS-97 airshow, but it was not ready in time. It wasa near miss, because the almost completedS-37 had begun ground testing in July, and byAugust it was making taxi tests at LIIZhukovskii, the venue for the airshow. AfterMAKS 97 was over it emerged again, and on25th September 1997 it began its flight testprogramme. The assigned pilot is Igor Vik-torovich Votintsev. A cameraman at the LIItook film which was broadcast on RussianTV, when the aircraft was publicised as theBerkut (golden eagle). On its first flight, whenfor a while the landing gear was retracted, theS-37 was accompanied by a chase Su-30 car-rying a photographer. It is a long way frombeing an operational fighter, but that is no rea-

son for dismissing it as the WS, Ministry ofDefence and the rival MiG company havedone. Fortunately there are a few objectivepeople in positions of authority, one beingMarshal Yevgenii Shaposhnikov, former WSC-in-C. Despite rival factions both within theWS and industry (and even within OKBSukhoi) this very important aircraft has madeit to to the flight-test stage. Whether it can bemade to lead to a fully operational fighter isproblematical.

The primary design objective of this aircraftis to investigate the aerodynamics and con-trol systems needed to manoeuvre at anglesof attack up to at least 100°. From the outset itwas designed to be powered by two AL-41Faugmented turbofans from Viktor Chepkin'sLyul'ka Saturn design bureau. In 1993 he con-fidentially briefed co-author Gunston on thisoutstanding engine. At that time it had alreadybegun flight testing under a Tu-16 and on oneside of a M1G-25PD (aircraft 84-20). Despitethis considerable maturity it was not clearedas the sole source of propulsion in time for theS-37, though the aircraft could be re-enginedlater. Accordingly the Sukhoi prototype is at

present powered by two AL-31F engines, withdry and afterburning thrusts of 8,100 and12,500kg (17,557 and 27,560 Ib), respectively.Special engines were tailored to suit the S-37installation, but at the start of the flight pro-gramme they still lacked vectoring nozzles.The engines are mounted only a short dis-tance apart, fed by ducts from lateral inlets ofthe quarter-circle type. At present the inletsare of fixed geometry, with inner splitterplates standing away from the wall of thefuselage and bounded above by the under-side of the very large LERX (leading-edge rootextension), which in fact is quite distinct fromthe root of the wing. The wing itself compris-es an inboard centroplan with leading-edgesweep of 70°, leading via a curved corner tothe main panel with forward sweep of 24° onthe leading edge and nearly 40° on the trailingedge. The forward-swept portion has a two-section droop flap over almost the wholeleading edge, and plain trailing-edge flapsand outboard ailerons. Structurally it is de-scribed as '90 per cent composites'. The mainwing panels are designed so that in a derivedaircraft they could fold to enable the aircraft

183

S U K H O I S-37 B E R K U T

Three views of S-37 Berkut.

to fit into the standard Russian hardened air-craft shelter. Aerodynamically the S-37 is an-other 'triplane', having canard foreplanes aswell as powered tailplanes. The former aregreater in chord than those of later Su-27 de-rivatives, the trailing edge being tapered in-stead of swept back. Likewise the tailplaneshave enormous chord, but as the leading-edge angle is over 75° their span is very short.As in other Sukhoi fighters, the tailplanes arepivoted to beams extending back from thewing on the outer side of the engines. Unlikeprevious Sukhois the tailplanes are notmounted on spigots on the sides of the beamsbut on transverse hinges across their aft end.These beams also carry the fins and rudders,which are similar to those of other Sukhoisapart from being further apart (a long wayoutboard of the engines) and canted out-ward. After flight testing had started the rud-ders were given extra strips (in Russia calledknives) along the trailing edge. When the S-37is parked, with hydraulic pressure decayed,the foreplanes, tailplanes and ailerons cometo rest 30° nose-up. The landing gear is almostidentical to that of the Su-27K, with twin steer-able nosewheels. In the photographs re-leased so far no airbrakes or centrelinebraking-parachute container can be seen. In-

ternal fuel capacity is a mere 4,000kg(8,8181b), though much more could be ac-commodated. The cockpit has an Su-27 typeupward-hinged canopy, and a sidestick onthe right. The airframe makes structural pro-vision for 8 tonnes (17,637 Ib) of external andinternal weapons, including a gun in the leftcentroplan. It is also covered in numerousflush avionics antennas, though the only onesthat are functional are those necessary foraerodynamic and control research. A bumpto starboard ahead of the wraparound wind-screen could later contain an opto-electronic(TV, IR, laser) sight, while the two tail beamsare continued different distances to the rearto terminate in prominent white domes,doubtless for avionics though they could con-ceivably house braking parachutes. Thesedomes stand out against the startling darkblue with which this aircraft has been paint-ed. Sukhoi has stressed that this aircraft in-corporates radar-absorbent and beneficiallyreflective 'stealth' features, though again theobjective is research. Also standing out visu-ally are the white-bordered red stars, thoughof course the aircraft is company-owned andbears 'OKB Sukhoi' in large yellow characterson the fuselage, along with callsign 01, whichconfusingly is the same as the MiG 1.44.

The Russians have traditionally had astrong aversion to what appear to be uncon-ventional solutions, and this has in the pastled to the rejection of many potentially out-standing aircraft. The S-37 has to overcomethis attitude, as well as the bitter politicalstruggle within the OKB, with RSK MiG, withfactions in the Ministry of Defence and airforce and, not least, two banks which are bat-tling to control the OKB.

DimensionsSpanLength (ex PVO boom)Wing area about

WeightsTake-off mass given as

16.7m22.6m67m2

24 tonnes

54 ft m in74 ft 1% in721 ft2

52,910 Ib(the design maximum is higher)

PerformanceDesign maximum speed 1,700 km/h, 1,057 mph (Mach 1.6)(which would explain the fixed-geometry inlets. At Mach numbersmuch higher than this the FSW is less attractive)At press time no other data had emerged.

184

T S Y B I N Ts-1 , LL

TsybinTs-1, LLPurpose: To study wings for transonic flight.Design Bureau: OKB-256, Chief DesignerPavel Vladimirovich Tsybin, professor atZhukovskii academy.

In September 1945 the LIl-MAP (Flight Re-search Institute) asked Tsybin to investigatewings suitable for flight at high Mach num-bers (if possible, up to 1). In 1946 numerousmodels were tested at CAHI (TsAGI), as a re-sult of which OKB-256 constructed the Ts-1,also called LL-1 (flying laboratory 1). Almostin parallel, a design team at the OKB led byA V Beresnev developed a new fuselage andtail and two new wings, one swept back andthe other swept forward. The LL-1 made 30flights beginning in mid-1947 with NIl-WSpilot M Ivanov, and continuing with Amet-Khan Sultan, S N Anokhin and N S Rybko. Oneach flight the aircraft was towed by a Tu-2.Casting off at 5-7km (16,400-23,000ft), the air-craft was dived at 45°-60° until at full speed itwas levelled out and the rocket fired. In win-ter 1947-48 the second Ts-1 was fitted withthe swept-forward wing to become the LL-3.This made over 100 flights, during which aspeed of l,200km/h (746mph) and Mach 0.97were reached, without aeroelastic problemsand yielding much information. The swept-back wing was retrofitted to the first aircraft tocreate the LL-2, but this was never flown.

The original Ts-1 (LL-1) was essentially all-wood. The original wing had two Delta (resin-bonded ply) spars, a symmetric section of 5per cent thickness, 0° dihedral and +2° inci-dence. It had conventional ailerons and plainflaps (presumably worked by bottled gaspressure). Take-offs were made from a two-wheel jettisonable dolly, plus a small tail-wheel. In the rear fuselage was a PRD-1500solid-propellant rocket developed by 11 Kar-tukov, giving 1,500kg (3,307 Ib) (more at highaltitude) for eight to ten seconds. Flight con-trols were manual, with mass balances. Onearly flights no less than one tonne (2,2051b)of water was carried as ballast, simulating in-strumentation to be installed later. This wasjettisoned before landing, when the aircraft(now a glider) was much more manoeu-vrable. Landings were made on a skid. Vari-ous kinds of instrumentation were carried,and at times at least one wing was tufted andphotographed. The LL-3 was fitted with ametal wing with a forward sweep of 30° (ac-cording to drawings this was measured onthe leading edge), with no less than 12° dihe-dral. The new tailplane had a leading-edgesweepback of 40°. To adjust the changed cen-tres of lift and of gravity new water tanks werefitted in the nose and tail. Both LL-1 and LL-3were considered excellent value for money.

LL-1, showing take-off trolley

LL-3

LL-2, with LL-3 shown dotted

LL-2, showing take-off trolley

185

T S Y B I N Ts -1 , L L

LL-3, showing take-off trolley

Left: LL-1.

Below left: LL-2.

Below: LL-2, left wing tufted.

186

Dimensions (LL-1)Span

Length

Wing area

Weights

EmptyLoaded

Landing

PerformanceMax speed reachedLanding speed

7.1m

8.98m

10.0m2

1 tonne2,039 kg

1,100kg

l,050km/h120km/h

23 ft 3^ in

29 ft 514 in

108ft2

2,205 Ib4,495 Ib

2,425 Ib

652 mph74.6 mph

Dimensions (LL-3)SpanLength

Wing area

WeightsLoadedLanding

PerformanceMax speed reachedLanding speed

7.22m

8.98m10.0m2

2,039kg1,100kg

l,200km/h120km/h

23 ft 814 in

29 ft 5^ in108ft2

4,495 Ib2,425 Ib

746 mph

74.6 mph

Tsybin RS

T S Y B I N RS

Purpose: To create a winged strategicdelivery vehicle.Design Bureau: OKB-256, Podberez'ye,Director P V Tsybin.

In the early 1950s it was evident that the forth-coming thermonuclear weapons would needstrategic delivery systems of a new kind. Untilthe ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile)was perfected the only answer appeared tobe a supersonic bomber. After much plan-ning, Tsybin went to the Kremlin on 4th March1954 and outlined his proposal for a Reak-tivnyi Samolyot (jet aeroplane). The detailedand costed Preliminary Project was issued on31st January 1956, with a supplementary sub-mission of a reconnaissance version called2RS. Korolyov's rapid progress with the R-7ICBM (launched 15th May 1957 and flown toits design range on 21st August 1957) causedthe RS to be abandoned. All effort was trans-ferred to the 2RS reconnaissance aircraft (de-scribed next).

The RS had an aerodynamically brilliantconfiguration, precisely repeated in theBritish Avro 730 which was timed over a yearlater. The wing was placed well back on thelong circular-section fuselage and had a sym-metric section with a thickness/chord ratio of2.5 to 3.5 per cent. It had extremely low as-pect ratio (0.94) and was sharply tapered onboth edges. Large-chord flaps were providedinboard of conventional ailerons, other flight

controls comprising canard foreplanes and arudder, all surfaces being fully powered. Thecockpit housed a pilot in a pressure suit, seat-ed in an ejection-seat under a canopy linkedto the tail by a spine housing pipes and con-trols. The RS was to be carried to a height of9km (29,528ft) under a Tu-95N. After releaseit was to accelerate to supersonic speed (de-sign figure 3,000km/h) on the thrust of two jet-tisoned rocket motors. The pilot was then tostart the two propulsion engines, mounted onthe wingtips. These were RD-013 ramjets, de-signed by Bondaryuk's team at OKB-670.Each had a fixed-geometry multi-shock inletand convergent/divergent nozzle matched tothe cruise Mach number of 2.8. Internal di-ameter and length were respectively 650mm(2ft IHin) and 5.5m (18ft 1/2in). The 1955 pro-ject had 16.5 tonnes of fuel, or nearly 3.5 timesthe 4.8-t empty weight, but by 1956 the latterhad grown and fuel weight had in conse-quence been reduced. The military load wasto be a 244N thermonuclear bomb weighing1,100kg (2,4251b). The only surviving drawingshows this carried by a tailless-delta missiletowed to the target area attached behind theRS fuselage (see below). Data for this vehicleare not known.

Outstandingly advanced for its day, had thisvehicle been carried through resolutely itwould have presented 'The West' with a seri-ous defence problem.

DimensionsSpan (over engine centrelines) 9.0 mBasic wing 7.77 mForeplane 3.2 mLength 27.5 mWing area 64 m2

WeightsEmpty 5,200 kgFuel 10,470kgMaximum take-off weight 2 1 , 1 60 kg

PerformanceRange at 3,000 km/h (1,864 mph, Mach 2.82)at 28 km (91 ,864 ft) altitude 13,500 km

Landing speed/ 245 km/hrun 1,100m

29 ft 6% in25ft53 /4in10 ft 6 in90 ft 2% in689ft2

ll,4641b23,082 Ib46,649 Ib

8,389 miles152 mph3,610ft

RS

187

T S Y B I N 2 R S

Tsybin 2RSPurpose: To create a strategicreconnaissance aircraft.Design Bureau: OKB-256, Podberez'ye,Director P V Tsybin.

As noted previously, the 2RS was launched asa project in January 1956. It was to be a mini-mum-change derivative of the RS, carried tohigh altitude under the Tu-95N and subse-quently powered by two RD-013 ramjets.However, it was decided that such an aircraftwould be operationally cumbersome and in-flexible, and that, despite a very substantialreduction in operational radius, it would bepreferable to switch to conventional after-burning turbojets and take off from theground. The revised project was called RSR(described later). The Ministry gave this thego-ahead on 31st August 1956, but work on

the 2RS continued until is was terminated inearly 1957. As it was no longer needed,Tupolev then stopped the rebuild of the Tu-95N carrier at Factory No 18 at Kuibyshev.

The 2RS would have differed from the RSprincipally in having the canard foreplanes re-placed by slab tailplanes. Behind these wasinstalled a braking parachute. Provision wasmade for large reconnaissance cameras inthe fuselage ahead of the wing. Survivingdrawings (below) also show provision for a244N thermonuclear weapon, this time as afree-fall bomb recessed under the fuselagefurther aft. Carrying this would have movedthe main landing gear unacceptably close tothe tail.

Though there was much to be said for airlaunch, the basic concept looked increasing-ly unattractive.

DimensionsSpan (over engine centrelines) 9.0 mLength 27.4 mWing area 64.0 m2

WeightEmpty 9,030 kgFuel 11,800kgLoaded (cameras only) 20,950 kg

PerformanceMax (also cruising) speed

at 20 km (65,61 7 ft) 2,700 km/hService ceiling 27 kmRange (high altitude) 7,000 kmLanding speed/ 230 km/hrun 800 m

29 ft 6% in89 ft 1 13/ in689ft2

19,907 Ib26,014 Ib46,1 86 Ib

1,678 mph (Mach 2.54)88,583 ft4,350 miles143 mph2,625 ft

2RS

188

T S Y B I N R S R

Tsybin RSRPurpose: To create an improvedreconnaissance aircraft.Design Bureau: OKB-256, Podberez'ye,Director P V Tsybin.

The preliminary project for the revised aircraft,able to take off in the conventional manner,was dated 26th June 1957. Design proceededrapidly, and in parallel OKB-256 created a sim-plified version, using well-tried engines, whichcould be got into the air quickly to provide data(see NM-1, next). These data became avail-able from April 1959, and resulted in significantchanges to the RSR (see R-020). The basic de-sign, however, can be described here.

Though the RSR was derived directly fromthe 2RS, it differed in having augmented by-pass turbojet engines (low-ratio turbofans)and strengthened landing gear for convention-al full-load take-offs. A basic design choicewas to make the structure as light as possibleby selecting a design load factor of only 2.5 andavoiding thermal distortion despite local skintemperatures of up to 220°C. By this means theuse of steel and titanium was almost eliminat-

DimensionsSpan (over engines) 1 0.23 m

(ignoring engines) 7.77 mLength (ignoring nose probe) 27.4 mWing area 64.0 m2

WeightsEmpty 8,800 kgFuel 12 tonnesLoaded 21 tonnes

PerformanceCruising speed 2,800 km/hat service ceiling of 26,700 m

Range 3,760 kmTake-off 1,300mLanding speed/run 245 km/h

(usingbraking parachute) 1 ,200 m

33ft63/iin25ft53/4in89 ft 10% in689ft2

1 9,400 Ib26,455 Ib46,296 Ib

1,740 mph (Mach 2.64)87,600ft2,336 miles4,265 ft152 mph3,937ft

ed, though some skins (ailerons, outer wingand tail torsion boxes) were to be in alumini-um/beryllium alloy. As before, the wing had at/c ratio of 2.5 per cent, 58° leading-edgesweep and three main and two secondaryspars. The tips, 86mm deep, carried Solov'yovD-21 bypass engines. These bore no direct re-lationship to today's D-21A1 by the same de-sign team. They were two-shaft engines with abypass ratio of 0.6, and in cruising flight theywere almost ramjets. Sea-level dry and aug-mented ratings were 2,200kg (4,850 Ib) and4,750kg (10,472 Ib) respectively. Dry enginemass was 900kg (l,9841b) and nacelle diame-ter was 1.23m (4ft 1/2in). The fuselage had afineness ratio of no less than 18.6, diameterbeing only 1.5m (4ft 1 lin). All tail surfaces hada t/c ratio of 3.5 per cent, and comprised a one-piece vertical fin with actuation limits of±18° and one-piece tailplanes with limits of+ 10°/-25°. All flight controls were fully pow-ered, with rigid rod linkages from the cockpitand an artificial-feel system. The main andsteerable nose landing gears now had twinwheels, and were supplemented by single-

wheel gears under the engines, all four unitshydraulically retracting to the rear. A brakingparachute was housed in the tailcone. A totalof 7,600kg (16,755 Ib) of kerosene fuel washoused in integral tanks behind the cockpitand behind the wing, plus 4,400kg (9,700 Ib) intwo slender (650mm, 2ft 1 V-im diameter) droptanks. An automatic trim control systempumped fuel to maintain the centre of gravityat 25 per cent on take-off, 45.0 in cruising flightand 26.4 on landing. In cruising flight the cock-pit was kept at 460mm Hg, and the pilot's pres-sure suit maintained 156mm after ejection. AnAPU and propane burner heated the instru-ment and camera pallets which filled the cen-tre fuselage, a typical load comprising twoAFA-200 cameras (200mm focal length) plusan AFA-1000 or AFA-1800 (drawings show fourcameras), while other equipment includedoptical sights, panoramic radar, an autopilot,astro-inertial navigation plus a vertical gyro, aradar-warning receiver and both active andpassive ECM (electronic countermeasures)

During construction this aircraft was modi-fied into the RSR R-020.

RSR

RSR inboard profile

189

T S Y B I N N M - 1

TsybinNM-1Purpose: To provide full-scale flight data tosupport the RSR.Design Bureau: OKB-256, Podberez'ye,Director P V Tsybin.

In autumn 1956 funding was provided for aresearch aircraft designated NM-1 (NaturnayaModel', life [like] model). This was to be a sin-gle flight article with an airframe based uponthat of the RSR but simplified, with proven en-gines and stressed for lighter weights. It wascompleted in September 1958. On 1st Octo-ber Amet-Khan Sultan began taxi testing, andhe made the first flight on 7th April 1959, witha Yak-25 flying chase. The flight plan called for

take-off at 220km/h, but after a tentativehop Sultan actually took off at 325km/h, andjettisoned the dolly at 40m (131ft) at 400km/h(248mph). The dolly broke on hitting therunway (on later flights it had an automaticparachute). Sultan easily corrected a slightrolling motion, and flew a circuit at 1,500m at500km/h before making a landing at 275km/h(90km/h faster than planned). AltogetherSultan and Radii Zakharov made 32 flights,establishing generally excellent flying quali-

ties (take-off, approach and landing 'easierthan MiG or Su aircraft') but confirming neu-tral or negative stability in roll.

NM-1

The five-spar 2.5-per-cent wing had con-stant-chord ailerons and flaps which wereunlike those of the RSR. On the tips were twoMikulin (Tumanskii) AM-5 turbojets eachrated at 2,000kg (4,409 Ib) thrust, in simple na-celles without inlet centrebodies. The pilotsat in an ejection-seat under a very smallcanopy; the low-drag RS-4/01 canopy, resem-bling that of the RSR, was never fitted. Alongthe centreline were a sprung skid, hydrauli-cally retracted into a long box, and a smalltailwheel, while hydraulically extended skidswere hinged under the nacelles. For take-offsa jettisonable two-wheel dolly was attachedunder the main skid. A door under the point-ed tailcone released the braking parachute.After the taxi tests, following recommenda-tions from CAHI (TsAGI) small extra wing sur-faces were added outboard of the engines.The fuselage contained two kerosene tanks,a hydraulic-fluid tank and a nose water tankto adjust centre of grravity to 25.5 per cent ofmean aerodynamic chord.

The NM-1 showed that the basic RSR con-cept was satisfactory.

Above: Three views of NM-1.

DimensionsSpan (between engine centrelines) 8.6 m

(overall)LengthWing area

WeightsEmpty

FuelLoaded

Performance

Max speed (achieved)

10.48m26.57 m64m2

7,850 kg1,200kg9,200 kg

500 km/h

28 ft n in34 ft 454 in87 ft y/, in689ft2

1 7,306 Ib2,646 Ib20,282 Ib

311 mphHigh performance not exploredTake-off runLanding run from

1,325m275 km/h1,180m

4,347ft171 mph3,871 ft

190

T S Y B I N R S R , R - 0 2 0

Tsybin RSR, R-020Purpose: To improve the RSR further.Design Bureau: OKB-256, Podberez'ye,later repeatedly transferred (see below).

Upon receipt of data from the NM-1, the RSRhad to be largely redesigned. Construction wasonly marginally held up, and in early 1959drawings for the first five pre-series R-020 air-craft were issued to Factory No 99 at Ulan-Ude.However, Tsybin's impressive aircraft had theircommercial rivals and political enemies, someof whom just thought them too 'far out', and inany case vast sums were being transferred tomissiles and space. On 1st October 1959President Khrushchyev closed OKB-256, andthe Ministry transferred the RSR programmeto OKB-23 (General Constructor VM Mya-sishchev) at the vast Khrunichev works. ThePoberez'ye facilities were taken over byA Ya Bereznyak (see BI story). The Khrunichevmanagement carried out a feasibility study forconstruction of the R-020, but in October 1960Myasishchev was appointed Director of CAHI(TsAGI). OKB-23 was closed, and the entireKhrunichev facility was assigned to giant spacelaunchers. The RSR programme was there-upon again moved, this time to OKB-52. Atfirst this organization's General ConstructorV N Chelomey supported Tsybin's work, but in-creasingly it interfered with OKB-52's mainprogrammes. In April 1961, despite the difficul-ties, the five R-020 pre-series aircraft were es-sentially complete, waiting only for engines. Inthat month came an order to terminate the pro-gramme and scrap the five aircraft. The work-force bravely refused, pointing out how muchhad been accomplished and how near the air-craft were to being flown. The managementquietly put them into storage (according to

V Pazhitnyi, the Tsybin team were told this was'for eventual further use'). Four years later,when the team had dispersed, the aircraftwere removed to a scrapyard, though someparts were taken to the exhibition hall at theMoscow Aviation Institute.

The airframe of the 1960 RSR differed in sev-eral ways from the 1957 version. To avoid sur-face-to-air missiles it was restressed to enablethe aircraft to make a barrel roll to 42km(137,800ft). The wings were redesigned witheight instead of five major forged and ma-chined ribs between the root and the engine.The leading edge was fitted with flaps, withmaximum droop of 10°. The trailing edge wastapered more sharply, and area was main-tained by adding a short section (virtually astrake) outboard of the engine. These exten-sions had a sharp-edged trapezoidal profile.According to Tsybin These extensions, addedon the recommendation of CAHI, did not pro-duce the desired effect and were omitted', butthey are shown in drawings. In fact, CAHI real-ly wanted a total rethink of the wing, as relatedin the final Tsybin entry. The tailplane was re-designed with only 65 per cent as much area,with sharp taper and a span of only 3.8m (12ft5%in). Its power unit was relocated ahead ofthe pivot, requiring No 6 (trim) tank to bemoved forward and shortened. The fin waslikewise greatly reduced in height and givensharper taper, and pivoted two frames furtheraft. The ventral strake underfin was replacedby an external ventral trimming fuel pipe. Themain landing gear was redesigned as a four-wheel bogie with 750 x 250mm tyres, and theoutrigger gears were replaced by hydraulicallyextended skids in case a nacelle should touchthe ground. The pilot was given a better view,

R-020

with a deeper canopy and a sharp V (instead offlat) windscreen. The camera bay was re-designed with a flat bottom with sliding doors.The nose was given an angle-of-attack sensor,and a pitot probe was added ahead of the fin.The drop tanks were increased in diameter to700mm (2ft 31/2in) but reduced in length to 5.8m(19ft) instead of 11.4m (37ft 4Min). Not least, theD-21 engines never became available, and hadto be replaced by plain afterburning turbojets.The choice fell on the mass-produced Tuman-skii R-l IF, each rated at 3,940kg (8,686Ib) dryand 5,750kg (12,676 Ib) with afterburner. Thesewere installed in longer and slimmer nacelles,with inlet sliding centrebodies pointing straightahead instead of angled downwards.

There is no reason to doubt that the pre-se-ries RSR, designated R-020, would have per-formed as advertised. It suffered from aKremlin captivated by ICBMs and space, whichtook so much money that important aircraftprogrammes were abandoned. The UnitedKingdom similarly abandoned the Avro 730, areconnaissance bomber using identical tech-nology, but in this case it was for the insane rea-son that missiles would somehow actuallyreplace aircraft. Only the USA had the visionand resources to create an aircraft in this class,and by setting their sights even higher theLockheed SR-71 proved valuable for 45 years.

DimensionsSpan (with small tip extensions) 10.66 mLength (excl nose probe) 28.0 mWing area 64 m2

WeightsEmpty 9,100kgFuel 10,700kgLoaded 19,870kg

PerformanceCruising speed at reducedaltitude of 12 km (39,370 ft) 2,600 km/h

Service ceiling 22,500 mRange 4,000 kmTake-off run 1,200mLanding speed/run 2 1 0 km/h(with braking parachute) 800 m

34 ft 1 13/ in91 ft 10% in689 ft2

20,062 Ib23,589 Ib43,805 Ib

1,616 mph (Mach 2.44)73,819ft2,486 miles take-off3,937ft130.5 mph2,625 ft

R-020 centre fuselage at MAI.

191

T S Y B I N R S R , R - 0 2 0 / RSR D E R I V A T I V E S

Tsybin RSR Derivatives

RSR as proposed by CAHI (TsAGI)

A-57

For interest, drawings are reproduced here ofvarious projects which stemmed from theRSR. The first shows the way CAHI (TsAGI)wanted it. The purist aerodynamicists in thatestablishment were convinced that this su-personic-cruise aircraft ought to have true su-personic wings, with sharp edges and atrapezoidal (parallel double wedge) profileinstead of a traditional curved aerofoil. As thiswould have meant a very long take-off runthey proposed to add substantial wings out-board of the engines, giving a span of 14.5m(47ft 6%in), requiring total redesign and a dra-matically inferior aircraft. The next drawingshows the awesome A-57, proposed in 1957by R L Bartini, who featured on previouspages. There were several versions of thisand the considerably smaller Ye-57. The A-57shown would have been powered by fiveKuznetsov NK-10 engines, each of 25,000kg(55,115 Ib) thrust. This 320 tonne (705,467 Ib)vehicle, with a length of 69.5m (228ft) andwing area of 755m2 (8,127ft2), was to havebeen water-based for operational flexibilityand to avoid having to use vulnerable airfields(though it also had skids for airfield landingsif necessary). It would have carried a 244Nthermonuclear bomb internally, as well as a2RS (later RSR) carried pick-a-back to the tar-get at 2,500km/h (l,553mph, Mach 2.35) toserve as an accompanying reconnaissanceaircraft. Together they could cover targetswithin a radius of 5,000km (3,107 miles), theTsybin 2RS reconnaissance vehicle using itsfuel only on the return flight. The final draw-ing shows the Tsybin RGSP, also dating from1957. This too would have been water-based,with a planing bottom, engines moved abovethe wings to avoid the spray (minimised bythe down-angled water fins), and with the ex-ternal tanks serving as wingtip buoyancy bod-ies. This version was not equipped for airfieldlandings.

RGSR

192

T U P O L E V A N T - 2 3 , I - 1 2

TupolevANT23,I-12Purpose: To build an improved fighterarmed with APK-4 guns.Design Bureau: Brigade led by ViktorNikolayevich Chernyshov in AGOS(Department of Aeroplane and HydroplaneConstruction), whose Chief Constructor wasA N Tupolev.

Towards the end of the 1930s there was greatactivity in the still chaotic aircraft industryof the embryonic Soviet Union. Part of this ef-fort was concerned with making use of thelarge-calibre recoilless guns devised by L VKurchevskii. These had various designations

but the most common was APK (Avto-matichyeskaya Pushka Kurchevskogo, auto-matic cannon Kurchevskii). Such guns wereinvented by Cdr Cleland Davis, of the US Navy,and developed in England from 1915. Theidea was that, if the recoil of the projectilecould be balanced by a blast of gas and pos-sibly an inert mass fired to the rear, then air-craft could use lightly made weapons of largecalibres. Russian copies were produced byProfessor B S Stechkin in 1922-26, and in 1930Leonid Vasil'yevich Kurchevskii restarted thiswork and developed a range of weapons ofdifferent calibres. Of these the most immedi-

ately important was the APK-4, with a calibreof 76.2mm (Sin). Together with the Grig-orovich Z (later I-Z) described earlier, theANT-23 was the first aircraft specially de-signed to use these guns. The AGOS design-ers had the idea that, instead of just hangingthe guns under the wings, they could be putinside strong tubes which could then attachthe tail to the wing. This enabled the centralnacelle to have an engine at each end,giving outstanding flight performance. Designbegan in June 1930, and the first flightwas made by Ivan Frolovich Kozlov on 29thAugust 1931. On 21st March 1932 he was

ANT-23 as modified (upper side view, original form)

193

T U P O L E V A N T - 2 3 , I - 1 2

undertaking firing trials at about 1,000m(3,280ft) when the diffuser section at the rearof the left gun exploded. This severed the tailcontrols in that boom, but he managed tomake a normal landing, the boom collapsingduring the landing run (he received the Orderof the Red Star). The fault was soon correct-ed, and from autumn 1931 a second proto-type (called a doobler), the ANT-236/s, wasbuilt. This received service designation I-12,and was also named Baumanskii Komsomo-lets after the revolutionary who until his deathin 1905 had worked next to the AGOS site. Itincorporated various minor improvements,one of which was to arrange for the pilot inemergency to detonate a charge which sev-ered the drive shaft to the rear propeller priorto baling out. Work was halted during the in-vestigation into the accident to the first air-craft, and by 1933 the I-12 was overtaken bythe Grigorovich IP family and the DIP, ANT-29.Work on it was stopped on 1st January 1934.

Structurally the ANT-23 followed Tupolevtradition in that it was a cantilever monoplanemade entirely of aluminium alloy, but it brokenew ground in that corrugated sheet was notused except on the fin and rudder. Instead,the central nacelle had smooth skin, and thewings were skinned in sheets cut to a uniform

width of 150mm (Gin), wrapped round theleading edge. The edge of each strip wasrolled to have a channel section, so that thecomplete wing appeared to have a skin withwidely spaced corrugations. In usual Tupolevfashion, the aileron chord extended behindthe trailing edge of the wing. The nacelle waswelded from KhMA steel tube, with much ofthe light-alloy skin being in the form of de-tachable panels. At each end was an import-ed 480hp Gnome-Rhone GR9K (licence-builtBristol Jupiter) in a cowling with helmets overthe cylinders. Above each wing was attacheda precision-made tube of high-strength steelformed by screwing together three sectionseach machined to an internal diameter of170mm (6%in). Wall thickness varied from 1to 3mm. Over the wing the tube was faired inby thin aluminium sheet, and at the tail endwas a gas diffuser. Above this was a shallowplatform to which was attached the tailplane,carrying the strut-braced fin in the centre. Tallsprung tailskids were attached under eachtube, and originally the rubber-sprung mainlanding gears had spats, though these werelater omitted. Inside each tail boom was in-stalled the 76.2mm APK-4, with the front ofthe barrel projecting. Soon the engines werereplaced by the 570hp version made under

licence in the Soviet Union as the M-22, andthe helmets were incorporated into ring cowls.Another modification was to replace the ver-tical tail by a redesigned structure with thesame kind of skin as the rest of the aircraft.

When work began it was thought that thisaircraft might be a world-beater. It was soonevident that the performance was well shortof expectations, partly because of the fact thatthe rear propeller worked in the slipstream ofthat in front. Perhaps the greatest shortcom-ing of this aircraft was the fact that the am-munition supply for each gun was limited totwo rounds.

Two views of ANT-23 after modification.

194

DimensionsSpanLengthWing area

WeightsEmptyLoaded

Performance

15.67m9.52m33.0 m2

1,818kg2,405 kg

Max speed at 5 km (16,400 ft) 318 km/hTime to climb to 5 kmService ceilingRangeLanding speed

7.7 min9,320 m405kml00knVh

51 ft 5 in31 ft 2 in355 ft2

4,008 Ib5,302 Ib

198 mph(16,400ft)30,580ft252 miles62 mph

T U P O L E V A N T - 2 9 , D I P

Tupolev ANT-29, DIPPurpose: A heavy fighter with large-calibrerecoilless guns.Design Bureau: KOSOS-CAHI (departmentof experimental aeroplane construction,central aero-hydrodynamics institute), ChiefConstructor A N Tupolev.

This large fighter was a natural successor tothe ANT-21 MI-3 (MI = multi-seat fighter) or-dered in January 1932 and flown in May 1933.Whereas that aircraft had had conventionalarmament, the ANT-29 or DIP (DvukhmestnyiIstrebitel' Pushechnyi, two-seat cannon[armed] fighter) was designed around two ofthe largest available calibre of APK recoillessguns (see preceding story). Funds for a singleprototype were made available by the WS inSeptember 1932. Tupolev entrusted the de-sign to his first deputy P O Sukhoi. Normallythe aircraft would have flown in about a year,but priority was given to the ANT-40 fastbomber (which flew in 1934 as the SB), andthe ANT-29 was not completed until February1935. Flight testing was started by S A Korzin-shchikov, who reported that the flight con-trols, especially the ailerons and rudder, wereunacceptably ineffective. This prototype wasreturned to CAHI's ZOK (factory for prototypeconstruction) for rectification, the main taskbeing to re-skin the control surfaces. Testingresumed in late 1935, but by this time theANT-46 (DI-8) was flying. The ANT-29 be-longed to the previous generation, and it wasabandoned in March 1936.

Like its predecessor, the ANT-21, the ANT-29 was an aerodynamically clean monoplanepowered by two liquid-cooled engines. Thewings were aerodynamically similar but to-tally different structurally, and the engineslikewise were quite new. They were two ofthe first 760hp Hispano-Suiza 12Ybrs 12-cylin-der engines to be imported into the SovietUnion. Later this engine was developed byVYaKlimov into the VK-103 and VK-105, ofwhich over 129,000 were constructed. In thisaircraft they drove imported French Chau-viere three-blade variable-pitch propellers of3.5m (138in) diameter. Carburettor air en-tered through a small inlet under the wingleading edge, and the radiator was in a shut-ter-controlled duct directly under the engine.The wing had a modern structure with twoplate spars, made as a 3m (9ft 1 0in) horizon-tal centre section and 5.9m (19ft 4in) outerpanels with taper and dihedral. Like the restof the airframe the outer wing skins weresmooth. In this Sukhoi broke new ground,previous 'ANT' aircraft having had corrugatedmetal skins showing that they originated inJunkers technology of the early 1920s. Theshort fuselage was of tall oval section and

ANT-29, DIP

195

T U P O L E V A N T - 2 9 , D I P

seated the pilot in the nose under a rearward-sliding canopy and a backseater over the trail-ing edge under a forward-sliding canopy (asin early versions of the SB). The backseaterwould have worked radio had it been fitted,but his main task was to check the automaticreloading of the guns and clear stoppages.The wings were fitted with large two-partailerons and split flaps, while the tail carriedthe wire-braced tailplane high up the fin, theelevators and rudder having large Flettner(servo) tabs. Like the ANT-21 and SB, themain landing gears had single shock-strutswith a fork carrying the axle for a brakedwheel with a 900 x 280mm tyre which, afterretraction to the rear, partially projected tominimise damage in a wheels-up landing. Atthe rear was a large tailskid. Main-gear re-traction, like flap operation, was hydraulic.The primary armament comprised two APK-8 recoilless guns, also known as DRP (Dy-namo-Reaktivnaya Pushka), mounted oneabove the other. The feed was via two chuteson opposite sides of the fuselage. Each gun

had an unrifled barrel about 4m (13ft lin)long, with a calibre of 102mm (4in). The firingchamber was connected at the rear to a re-coil tube terminating in the recoil-cancellingdivergent rear nozzle, extended a safe dis-tance behind the rudder, through which pro-pellant gas blasted when each round wasfired. Sighting was done with an optical sightin a prominent fairing ahead of the wind-screen, and could be assisted by firing tracerfrom two 7.62mm ShKAS machine guns in thewing roots (these are shown in Shavrov'sdrawings, but unlike the main armament theydo not appear ever to have been installed). Itwas intended also to fit a pivot-mountedShKAS in the rear cockpit. There was no pro-vision for a bomb load. Arguments over ar-mament continued, but no attempt wasmade to test the ANT-29 with the alternativeforward-firing armament of a 20mm ShVAK ineach wing root.

By the time it was on test this was no longeran important aircraft, and (for reasons notrecorded) it failed NIl-WS testing.

Two views of ANT-29.

196

DimensionsSpanLength overall

(excluding guns)Wing area

WeightsEmptyFuel/oilLoaded (normal)(maximum)

PerformanceMax speed at sea level,at 4 km (13, 123 ft)

19.19m11.65ml l . l m56.88 nf

3,876kg720+80 kg4,960kg5,300kg

296km/h352 km/h

62 ft min38ft23/4in36 ft 5 in612 ft2

8,545 Ib1,587+176 Ib1 0,935 Ibll,6841b

184 mph219 mph

Time to climb 3 km (9,842 ft) 5.6 min5 km (16,400 ft)

No other reliable data.9.6 min

T U P O L E V A N T - 4 6 , D I - 8

Tupolev ANT-46, DI-8Purpose: An improved heavy fighter withlarge-calibre recoilless guns.Design Bureau: KOSOS-CAHI, chiefconstructor A N Tupolev, who assigned thisaircraft to A A Arkhangel'skii.

This aircraft was a derivative of the SB(ANT-40) fast bomber. The single prototypewas ordered in November 1934, on conditionthat the SB (the first prototype of which hadflown a month previously) had priority andwould not }n any way be delayed. The DI-8was created quickly and was flown byYu A Alekseyev on 1 st August (also reportedas 9th August) 1935. Factory testing was con-tinued to June 1936, but the 'liquidation' of

DimensionsSpan 20.33 mLength (excluding nose gun) 12.1 7 mWing area

WeightsEmptyMaximum loaded

PerformanceMaximum speedat 4,250m (13,944 ft)

55.7m2

3,487kg5,553 kg

388 km/h

66 ft 8% in39 ft 1 13/1 in600 ft2

7,687 Ib1 2,242 Ib

241 mphTime to climb 3 km (9,842 ft) 6.8 minService ceilingRange

8,570 m1,780km

28,120ft1,1 00 miles

Kurchevskii's gun bureau and the arrest fortreason and spying of Tupolev halted the pro-gramme.

Until recently little was known about theANT-46, and only one photograph had beendiscovered. This did not show the nose clear-ly, and published accounts stated that theANT-46 was based on the SB but had a metal-skinned nose containing machine guns. It isnow known that it had a glazed nose identi-cal to that of the bomber. Instead of being atwo-seat aircraft it also had a navigator/bomb-aimer in the nose, and an internalbomb bay (for example, for eight FAB-100bombs) with bomb doors. The interestingfeature was that incorporated in each wing

outboard of the fuel tanks, between the splitflaps and the ailerons, were single DRP (APK-11) recoilless guns, each fed by an automati-cally indexed supply of 45mm (IXin)ammunition, the rear blast tubes projectingbehind the trailing edge. Like the first SB thefin and rudder had a squared-off top, and theengines were not as previously thoughtGR14s but, as on the first SB, nine-cylinderWright Cyclones of 710hp, driving Hamiltontwo-blade propellers. Like the ANT-29, thisaircraft carried CAHI titles and the ANT num-ber 46 on the tail.

This aircraft fulfilled expectations, but wasconsidered an outdated concept.

ANT-46

197

ANT-46, DI-8

T U P O L E V T u - 2 E X P E R I M E N T A L V E R S I O N S

Tupolev Tu-2 Experimental VersionsPurpose: To use Tu-2 aircraft for variousexperimental purposes.Design Bureau: Originally, CCB-29(or TsKB-29) and GAZ (Factory) No 156.

Created during A N Tupolev's period in de-tention under a ludicrously false 'show trial'charge, the Tu-2 (previously 'Aircraft 103', butreally the 58th 'ANT' design), was an out-standing multirole tactical bomber. Its ridicu-lous gestation, with its creator working on adrawing board in a locked cell, meant that itdid not enter service until May 1942, but de-spite this some 3,300 were delivered fromFactories 156, 166 and 125. As soon as spareexamples became available they weresnapped up for use as test-beds. The very firstseries aircraft, No 100716, was used to testthe ASh-83 engine, rated at l,900hp, drivingfour-blade AV-5V propellers (replacing thestandard 1,850hp ASh-82FN driving the three-blade AV-5V-167 or four-blade square-tipAV-9VF-21K). Maximum speed of this test-bed was 635km/h (395mph) at 7,100m(23,294ft).

Numerous test versions appeared in 1944,including the first two of three Shturmovik(armoured ground attack) versions with spe-cial armament, all proposed by Tupolev's ar-mament brigade leader A D Nadashkevich.The first, actually given the designationTu-2Sh, had its capacious weapon bay occu-pied by a specially designed aluminium boxhousing 88 modified PPSh-41 infantry ma-

chine carbines (sub-machine guns). Thesefired standard 7.62mm pistol ammunition,and all fired together pointing obliquely downat a 30° angle. The obvious shortcoming wasthat, even though the drum magazines held71 rounds, they were quickly emptied.

The second 1944 Sh version had a massive75mm gun under the fuselage, reloaded bythe navigator. Two more ground-attack ver-sions appeared in 1946. The first had the dev-astating forward-facing armament of two20mm ShVAK, two NS-37 and two NS-45. The37mm gun was 267mm (101/2in) long andweighed 150kg (33lib). The 45mm versionhad a shorter barrel but still fired its 1.065kg(2.35 Ib) projectiles at 850m (2,790ft) per sec-ond, and weighed 152kg (335 Ib).

The last of these variants was the two-seatRShR, or Tu-2RShR. This was a dedicatedanti-armour aircraft, carrying a high-velocity57mm RShR automatic cannon with the bar-rel projecting ahead of the metal-skinnednose and fitted with a prominent recoil brake.

The most startling modification was theTu-2 Paravan (paravane). Two of these werebuilt, to test a crude way of surviving impactwith barrage-balloon cables. A special cablewoven from high-tensile steel was run fromone wingtip to the other via the end of amonocoque cone projecting over 6m (20ft)ahead of the nose. The nose and wingtipswere reinforced. First flown in September1944, this lash-up still reached 537km/h(334mph) despite the strange installation and

a 150kg (331 Ib) balancing weight in the tail.These trials were not considered to havebeen successful.

Yet another 1944 modification was theTu-2K (Katapult), fitted with test ejection-seats. The first Tu-2K fitted the test seat in thenavigator's cockpit just behind the pilot. Asecond ejection-seat tester had the experi-mental seat mounted in an open cockpit atwhat had been the radio operator's station inthe rear fuselage.

In early 1945 the Type 104 radar-intercep-tion system began flight testing (the first to beairborne in the Soviet Union). The system hadbeen designed from 1943, by a team led byA L Mints, and the Type 104 test aircraft hadbegun flight testing on 18th July 1944 but withthe vital radar simulated by ballast. The pilothad a modified sight, which was later linkedto the radar, and fired two VYa-23 cannon in-stalled under the forward fuselage. The rearfuselage was faired over and contained noth-ing but a balancing mass.

The designation Tupolev Tu-2G was ap-plied to several Gruzovoi (cargo) conver-sions. It appears that all of these wereexperimental, carrying special loads either inthe remarkably large bomb bay or slung ex-ternally, and in many cases the load wasdropped by parachute. No fewer than 49 GAZ-67b armoured reconnaissance cars weredropped, the Tu-2G in this case being limitedto a height of 6km (19,685ft) and a speed of378km/h (235mph).

Above left: Tu-2LL testing RD-45(copy of Rolls-Royce Nene).

Above: Looking into the weapon bay of Tu-2Sh.

Left: Tu-2 Paravan.

198

T U P O L E V T u - 2 A N D T u - 4 E X P E R I M E N T A L V E R S I O N S

As explained in the stories of the Pe-2 andPe-8 experimental versions, the GermanFi 103 ('V. 1') flying bomb was the basis for alarge Soviet programme of air-launchedcruise missiles in the immediate post-warera. One of the later variants was the 16Kh Pri-boi (surf, breaking waves). The fact this wasfitted with twin engines meant that it could becarried under the Tu-2. The first modifiedTu-2 launch aircraft began testing at LII on28th January 1948, and live missile launchingstook place on the Akhtuba range between22nd July and 25th December 1948, testingthe D-312 and D-14-4 engines and variouselectric or pneumatic flight-control systems.The Tu-2 launch aircraft continued in the

process of refining guidance and improvingreliability until at least 4th November 1950, bywhich time the Tu-4 was being modified ascarrier aircraft with one missile under eachouter nacelle. The WS rejected the 16Kh ongrounds of poor accuracy, and eventually theargument reached Stalin who shortly beforehis death terminated this missile.

Experimental Tu-2 aircraft were also usedto develop air-refuelling.

Not least, in the immediate post-war erathe Tu-2 was the most important aircraft con-verted to air-test turbojet engines. Occasion-ally the designation Tu-2LL (flying laboratory)was used, but one of the most importantwas (possibly unofficially) designated Tu-2N,

because it was allocated to test the importedRolls-Royce Nene. This required the testengine to be mounted in a nacelle of largediameter (basic engine diameter 1.26m, 4ft11/2in). Later more than one Tu-2 was used totest Soviet RD-45 and VK-1 derivatives of theNene, including variants with an afterburner.However, these were all preceded by aircraft,some of which had been Tupolev Type 61prototypes, which were converted to test cap-tured German axial engines: the BMW 003A(Soviet designation RD-20) and the JunkersJumo 004B (Soviet designation RD-10). An-other 61 prototype was used to test the firstSoviet turbojet to fly, the Lyul'kaTR-1, in 1946.

Tupolev Tu-4 Experimental VersionsPurpose: To use Tu-4 aircraft for variousexperimental purposes.Design Bureau: OKB-156 of A N Tupolev.

In The Great Patriotic War the Soviet Unionhad no modern strategic bomber. Stalin castcovetous eyes on the Boeing B-29, and toldTupolev and Myasishchev to design aircraft inthe same class. However, in 1944 three intactB-29s fell into Soviet hands and it was decid-ed just to copy them. Tupolev was given twoyears to do this immense task. The first air-craft to appear was the Tu-70 transport, whichactually used the wing, engines and pro-pellers of one of the B-29s. The productionbomber was designated Tu-4, and had SovietASh-73TK engines of 2,400hp (more powerfulthan the B-29 engine) and a totally newdefensive system with guns of 12.7mm (1stSeries), 20mm (from the 8th Series) or 23mmcalibre (from the 15th Series). Total produc-tion was close to 1,000. Several Tu-4 aircraftwere used in air-refuelling experiments.

The Tu-4T was a single unpressurized trans-port conversion which initially was used fortrials with 28 paratroops. In 1954 a small number

of 52-seat versions, again called Tu-4T, werebuilt for the VTA (military transport aviation).

Several Tu-4K conversions were used ascarrier aircraft for trials with the MikoyanKS-1 cruise missile, for use chiefly againstships. This 3 tonne (6,614 Ib) turbojet-enginedweapon was a miniature swept-wing aero-plane with radar guidance (see page 101).The Tu-4K played a major role in the devel-opment of the entire Kompleks (electronicsystem) which after being cleared for pro-duction was installed in the Tu-16KS, whichwas the operational carrier of these missiles.Several Tu-4s were used for trials with othermissiles, the earliest being with capturedFilOS (so-called V-l) pulsejet cruise missilescaptured in 1944-45. From March 1945 theSoviet X-10 (Kh-10) copy was on test, andnumerous examples were launched fromground ramps and from Tu-2, Yer-2 and Pe-8aircraft. In 1947 the Tu-4 became available,and several were used to test the 14Kh-l andtwin-engined 16Kh, but all this work peteredout by July 1955 and none of these missilesentered service.

At least 12 Tu-4s were used as engine test-

beds. Some of the early examples tested tur-boprops, of which the most startling were thethree aircraft whose No 3 (starboard inner)engines were replaced by TV-12 turboprops.Take-off power of this single-shaft engine wasinitially ll,995hp, or almost six times that ofthe engine it replaced. The colossal thrust,which in the Tu-4 could not all be used, wastransmitted by a pair of AV-60 co-axial pro-pellers each with four broad blades of 5.6m(18ft 41/2in) diameter. Later this unique pow-erplant was developed into the NK-12M ofnearly 15,000hp for the Tu-95 and Tu-142.Other turboprops tested included the ex-Junkers TV-2, Klimov VK-2 (TV-4), KuznetsovNK-2 and NK-4, and the Ivchenko AI-20, oneAI-20 installation (for the Ilyushin 18) havingthe thrust line and jetpipe above the wing andthe other (for the Antonov 10 and 12) havingthe thrust line and jetpipe below the wing. Jetengines tested under the fuselage of Tu-4LLaircraft included the Nene, AL-5, AL-7, 7F and7P, AM-3 (RD-3), AM-5 and 5F, VD-5, VD-7,VK-2, VK-7 and VK-11.

Tu-4 test-bed for NK-12 turboprop.

199

T U P O L E V T u - 1 6 E X P E R I M E N T A L V E R S I O N S

Tupolev Tu-16 Experimental VersionsPurpose: To use Tu-16 aircraft for variousexperimental purposes, and to take thebasic design further.Design Bureau: OKB-156 of A N Tupolev,Moscow.

This graceful twin-jet bomber sustained whatwas in financial terms the most importantprogramme in the entire history of theTupolev design bureau up to that time. Sincethen, because of inflation, the Tu-154 andTu-22/Tu-22M have rivalled it, though theywere produced in smaller numbers. The pro-totype Tu-16, the Type 88, was a marriage ofupgraded B-29 technology in structures, sys-tems and to some degree in avionics, with to-tally new swept-wing aerodynamics andwhat were in the early 1950s super-power tur-bojet engines. The Tu-16 entered productionin 1953 powered by Zubets (Mikulin KB)RD-3M engines of 8,200kg (18,078 Ib) thrust.The second series block had the RD-3M-200of 8,700kg (19,180 Ib) followed by the 9,500kg(20,944 Ib) RD-3M-500, which was then retro-fitted to most earlier aircraft.

From 1953 the basic aircraft was repeated-ly examined against alternatives based as faras possible on the same airframe but usingdifferent propulsion systems. Most of thestudies had four engines. Tupolev had origi-nally schemed the 88 around two Lyul'kaAL-5 turbojets, but the design grew in weightto match the big AM-3 engine, and this wasthe key to its win over the smaller Ilyushinwith the Lyul'ka engines. In parallel with the

production aircraft one project team led byDmitri S Markov studied versions of the 88with not two but four AL-5 engines, and thenfour of the more powerful (typically 14,330 Ib,6,500kg) AL-7 engines. These Type 90s wouldhave been excellent bombers, with in-creased power and much better engine-outperformance, but the decision was taken notto disrupt production. On the other hand, vir-tually the same inboard wing and engine in-stallation was then used in the Tu-110transport, two of which were built using theTu-104 as a basis. Some of the four-enginedbomber studies had engines in external na-celles hung on underwing pylons.

From 1954 Type 88 prototypes and a widerange of production Tu-16s were used over aperiod exceeding 40 years as experimentalaircraft. Some carried out pioneer trials in aer-ial refuelling at jet speeds.

One large group of about 20 aircraft waskept busy in the development of avionics, in-cluding navigation, bombing and cartograph-ic guidance, parent control of drones andtargets, and the direction of self-defence gun-nery systems.

Probably the most important single duty ofTu-16LL (flying laboratory) aircraft was to air-test new types of turbojet and turbofan engine.In each case the engine on test would bemounted in a nacelle either carried inside theweapon bay or, more often, recessed into it.Usually the test engine would be suspendedon vertical hydraulic jacks or a large pivotedbeam so that in flight it could be extended

down fully into the airstream, with its effluxwell clear of the rear fuselage. In many casesthe engine pod or the Tu-16 fuselage aheadof it would be fitted with a fairing or doorwhich could be left behind or opened as thepod was extended for test. Among the enginesair-tested under Tu-16LL aircraft were: theIvchenko (later Progress) AI-25, Lyul'ka AL-7F-1, AL-7F-2, AL-7F-4 and AL-31F, Solov'yov (Avi-advigatel) D-30, D-30K, D-30KP and D-30F6 (inMiG-31 installation), Lotarev (IvchenkoProgress) D-36, Kuznetsov NK-6 (with andwithout afterburner) and NK-8-2, Tumanskii(Soyuz) R-l 1AF-300 (Yak-28 nacelle) and R-15-300 (in the Ye-150 and the totally different MiG-25 installation), Metskhvarishvili R-2I-300 andR-21F with Ye-8 inlet, Khachaturov R-27 ver-sions (including the vectored R-27V-300 in acomplete Yak-36M prototype fuselage, Mikulin(Soyuz) RD-3M (many versions), Kolesov(RKBM) RD-36-41 and RD-36-51, and Dobrynin(RKBM) VD-7, VD-7M and VD-19 (in a pro-posed Tu-128 installation), etc.

One Tu-16 had its entire nose replaced bythat intended for the Myasishchev M-55, inorder to test the comprehensive suite of sen-sors. Another tested a scaled version of thebogie main landing gear for the MyasishchevM-4 and 3M strategic bombers, replacing thenormal nose landing gear. A new twin-wheeltruck was added at the tail. According to doc-uments a Tu-16 with outer wings removedtested the complete powerplant of the Yak-38(presumably in free hovering flight) thoughphotographs have not been discovered.

Above left: Tu-16LL with AI-25 turbofan on testin mock-up Aero L-39 fuselage.

Left and above right: Tu-16LL used to test twodifferent (unidentified) large turbofans, oneshown retracted and the other extended.

200

T U P O L E V Tu-155

Tupolev Tu-155Purpose: To investigate the use of cryogenicfuels.Design Bureau: ANTK A N Tupolev,Moscow. Technical Director ValerySolozobov, cryogenic fuels Chief DesignerVladimir Andreyev.

For many years the USSR and its successorstates have been replacing petroleum by nat-ural gas, which in 1999 provides over 53 percent of the total of all Russia's energy sup-plies. Since 1982 what is today ANTK Tupolevhas been investigating the use of natural gasand also hydrogen as fuels for aircraft,because of their availability and clean burn-ing qualities. However, for use in vehiclesboth have to be liquefied by being cooled toexceedingly low temperatures. Liquid hydro-gen (LH2) boils at -255°C, an unimaginablylow temperature at which (for example) allconventional lubricating oils are rock-solid.Moreover, this fuel is very expensive, and haz-ardous from the viewpoints of detonation andfire. On the other hand, liquefied natural gas(LNG) is widely available, at least threefoldcheaper in Russia than aviation kerosenes,and also significantly improves flight perfor-mance. It is straightforward to store and han-

Below: Tu-155.

Photographs on the following page:

Left: Tu-155 interior.

Right. Model of Tu-156.

die, and less fire/explosion hazardous eventhan today's kerosenes. After years of labora-tory work an existing civil transport was se-lected for use as an LNG flight test-bed. It hasbeen flying since 1988. All work is now di-rected at the Tu-156, the first LNG aircraft de-signed to go into service.

To flight-test an LNG system ANTK Tupolevbailed back a Tu-154, No 85035, and replacedthe No 3 (starboard) engine with an NK-88,fed with LNG by a completely separate fuelsystem. The NK-88 is a derivative of theKuznetsov NK-8-2 turbofan (still fitted in theNos 1 and 2 positions), with thrust unchangedat 20,945 Ib (9,500kg). The successor toKuznetsov's bureau is Samara/Trud. Thecomplex feed system is shown in a drawing.The main tank, of 10ft 2in (3.1m) diameterand 17ft 81/2in (5.4m) long, is of AMG6 alu-minium alloy, with a 50mm (2in) lagging offoamed polyurethane. The NK-88 engine hasa dedicated two-stage centrifugal pump dri-ven by a bleed-air turbine. LNG comes in at-152°C and is passed through a heat ex-

changer to convert it to gas. The engine com-bustion chamber is able to accept either thissupply of NG or, on command, to switch tothe kerosene supply normally used for theother engines. Work is still underway on alow-emissions chamber which will be usedon the improved NK-89 engine to be fitted tothe Tu-156. The definitive Tu-156 is expectedto have the fuel in giant saddle tanks along thetop of the fuselage. Instead, to reduce timeand cost, at least the first Tu-156 has a maintank (capacity 28,6601b, 13 tonnes) behindthe passenger cabin and, to preserve centreof gravity position, an auxiliary tank (8,377 Ib,3,800kg) in the forward underfloor baggagehold. This reduces payload from 18 tonnesto 14 (30,864 Ib). Range will be 1,616 miles(2,600km) on LNG only, or 2,051 miles(3,300km) on combined LNG and kerosene.

Eventually the Earth's store of petroleumwill run dry. It is pointless to say 'More keepsbeing discovered'. The world's aircraft willthen have no alternative but to switch to an-other fuel, and LNG is the obvious choice.

1: Technicians2: Control engineers3: Hydrogen and helium bottles4: Guest cabin5: Buffer zone

6: Hermetically sealed fuel cabin7: Auxiliary drain/vent8: Main drain/vent9: Main control complex.

10: Nitrogen bottles

Internal arrangement of the Tu-155

201

T U P O L E V Tu-155 / E X P E R I M E N T A L T E S T - B E D S

Experimental Test-bedsPurpose: To use established aircraft toflight-test experimental items.Design Bureau: Various.

In Russia flying test-beds are as a class calledby the suffix initials LL, from LetayushchayaLaboratoriya, flying laboratory. One of themost important LL tasks is to flight-test newtypes of engine. Several experimental en-gines have appeared in this book already, forexample rockets to boost the speed and alti-tude of fighters, and the awesome TV-12 tur-boprop tested on a Tu-4. Until the 1980s themost important LL for flight-testing engineswas the Tu-16. As explained in the entry on

that aircraft, engines had to be installed fortesting in or under its bomb bay. In recentyears the Ilyushin IL-76 has come to the foreas a totally capable engine test-bed, handi-capped only by its considerable size and op-erating cost. Originally designed as the IL-76Mmilitary transport, this superb aircraft is anideal LL on which to hang virtually any type ofaircraft propulsion system, usually using theNo 2 (port inner) underwing pylon attach-ment. A considerable fleet of IL-76 aircraft isavailable in former Soviet territories. Severalare operated by the Gromov Flight ResearchInstitute (or LII), and are available for hire.Their interiors are already packed with sen-

sors and loggers, computers, oscilloscopesand many kinds of instrumentation, overseenby a test and research crew which usuallynumbers five. The flight crew typically num-bers three. Among the engines tested are theNK-86, D-18T and PS-90A turbofans, and theD-236 and NK-93 propfans. One of the pho-tographs shows a former IL-76M used for test-ing large turbofans of the D-18 family. Theother shows a former civil IL-76T used to testthe TV7-117S turboprop and its six-bladeStupino SV-34 propeller. The propeller bladesare heavily strain-gauged, the instrumenta-tion cable being led forward from the tip ofthe spinner.

202

E X P E R I M E N T A L T E S T - B E D S

Another Ilyushin aircraft used in significantnumbers as an experimental test-bed is theIL-18. Possibly as many as 30 have been used,mainly at the Zhukovskii and Pushkin testcentres, for upwards of 50 test programmes.Nearly all are basically of the IL-18D type,powered by four 4,250hp AI-20M turboprops.The most famous of these aircraft is the IL-18No75442, named Tsyklon (cyclone). Instantlyrecognisable from its nose boom like a joust-ing lance, this meteorological research air-craft is equipped with something in excess of30 sensors used to gether data about atmos-pheric temperature, pressure and pressuregradient, humidity, liquid and solid particu-late matter (including measurement ofdroplet and particle sizes) and various otherfactors which very according to the mission.The sensors extend from nose to tail and fromtip to tip. Other IL-18 and IL-18D aircraft havehelped to develop every kind of radar fromfighter nosecones to giant SLARs (slide-look-ing airborne radar) and special mappingand SAR (synthetic-array radar) installations.

Top: IL-76LL with TV7-1 ITS

Centre: Nose of IL-18 Tsyklon

Bottom: Tu-134 radar testbed

Opposite page, bottom: IL-76LL with D-18T

A small number based at Pushkin tested themain radars and pointed radomes of super-sonic aircraft, though this was done mainly bythe Tu-134.

Total production of the Tu-134 passengertwin-jet was 853. Of course, the majority weredelivered to Aeroflot and foreign customers,but a few went to the WS. From the mid-1970s aircraft built as passenger transportsbegan to be converted for use as militarycrew trainers, including the Tu-134BU for mil-itary and civil pilots to Cat IIIA (autoland) stan-dard, Tu-134Sh for navigators and visualbomb aimers (actually dropping bombs toFAB-250 (551 Ib) size), Tu-134BSh for Tu-22M

203

E X P E R I M E N T A L T E S T - B E D S

Above: Tu-134 radar testbed

Left.Tu-134IMARK

Centre left: IL-28 for ski research

Bottom: Yak-25M testing Yak-28 engine icing

navigators and bomb-aimers, and Tu-134UBLfor Tu-160 pilots. These are not experimental,nor is the Tu-134SKh with comprehensivenavaids and avionics for worldwide land-useand economic survey. On the other hand atleast 15 aircraft were converted for equip-ment testing and research. One has flownover 6,000 hours investigating the behaviourof equipment and Cosmonauts underweight-less (zero-g) conditions. Several have beenfitted with nose radars under developmentfor other aircraft, including the installationsfor the Tu-144, Tu-160 and MiG-29. With thedesignation IMARK, aircraft 65906 has testedthe Zemai polarized mapping radar able tooperate on wavelengths of 4, 23, 68 or 230cm(from \lAm to 7ft 7in). Arrays of antennas lookdown and to the right side from the starboardside of the fuselage and a large ventral con-tainer. A generally similar but more versatiletest aircraft is 65908. This is based atZhukovskii together with a Tu-134 fitted witha giant parachute in the tail for emergencyuse during potentially dangerous researchinto deep-stall phenomena, which causedthe loss of several aircraft with T-tails andaft-mounted engines.

Photographs show two other aircraft fromthe many hundreds used in the former SovietUnion for special tests. One shows an IL-28used for research into the design, materialsand behaviour of skis on different kinds ofsurface. A large ski mounted under the bombbay near the centre of gravity could berammed down against the ground by hy-draulic jacks. On the ski were test shoes ofdifferent sizes, shapes and materials. Theother photograph shows the Yak-25 test-bedfitted on the starboard side with the engine in-stallation proposed for the Yak-28, with asharp lip and moving central cone. Ahead ofit was a water spray rig for icing trials.

204

V A K H M I S T R O V Z V E N O

Vakhmistrov ZvenoPurpose: To enable a large aircraft to carryone or more small ones long distances, forexample to attack targets that wouldotherwise be out of reach.Design Bureau: Not an OKB but engineerVladimir Sergeyevich Vakhmistrov workingat the LII (flight research institute).

In 1930 Vakhmistrov suggested that a cheapglider might be used as an aerial gunnery tar-get, and he quickly perfected a way of carry-ing such a glider above the upper wing of anR-l reconnaissance aircraft and releasing it inflight. This gave Vakhmistrov the idea of usinga large aircraft to carry a small one on long-range flights over hostile territory. The smallaircraft could either be fighters to protect alarge bomber, or bomb-carrying attack air-craft or camera-carrying fast reconnaissanceaircraft which could make a pass over a targetwhile the parent aircraft stood off at a safe dis-tance. In each case the difficult part was hook-ing on again for the long flight home. Afterpresenting the WS and LII management withcalculations Vakhmistrov received permis-sion to try out his idea. This led to a succes-sion of Zveno (link) combinations:

Z-lThis featured a twin-engined Tupolev TB-1bomber carrying a Tupolev I-4 fighter aboveeach wing. The fighters were of the I-4Z ver-sion, three of which were converted for theseexperiments with short stub lower wings andattachment locks on the landing gear andunder the rear fuselage. The bomber was pro-vided with attachments for the Zveno aircraftabove each wing: two small pyramids for thelanding gear and a large tripod for the rear-fuselage attachment.

The first flight took place from Monino on3rd December 1931. The TB-1 was flownby AI Zalevskii and A R Sharapov, withVakhmistrov as observer. The fighters, withski landing gears, were flown by V P Chkalovand A S Anisimov. The take-off was madewith the fighter engines at full power. TheTB-1 copilot forgot the release sequence andreleased Chkalov's axle before releasing theaft attachment, but Chkalov reacted instantlyand released the rear lock as the fighterreared nose-up. The second fighter was re-leased correctly. For a few seconds the TB-1flew with no tendency to roll with an I-4Z onone wing.

Z-laFirst flown in September 1933, this comprisedthe TB-1 carrying two Polikarpov I-5 fighters.The latter were fitted with a reinforcing plateunder the rear fuselage carrying the rear hold-down, but had no special designation. The pi-lots were P M Stefanovskii (TB-1) andI F Grodz' and V K Kokkinaki (I-5).

Z-2This was the first of the more ambitious hook-ups using a TB-3 as parent aircraft. Thebomber was an early TB-3/4 M-l 7, and it wasgiven attachments for an I-5 above each wingand a third above the fuselage with its wheelson a special flat platform. On the first test inAugust 1934 the TB-3 was flown by Zalevskiiand the fighters by T P Suzi, S P Suprun andT T Al'tnov.

Z-3This combination would have hung a Grig-orovich I-Z monoplane fighter under eachwing of the TB-3. It was not flown.

Z-4No information.

The complete sequence of Zveno developments (not all were tried).

205

V A K H M I S T R O V Z V E N O

Zveno-2

Top: Preparing Zveno-1.

Centre: Zveno-2.

Bottom: Zveno-5.

Photographs on theopposite page

Right: Zveno-6.

Centre right: Aviamatkaflypast.

Centre left: Detail of I-16suspension for SPB.

Bottom: SPB; this waspartly a Tupolevprogramme.

Z-5This was the first attempt to hook back on.The parent aircraft was again the TB-3/4 M-l 7,and the fighter was an I-Z fitted with a largesuspension superstructure of steel tubes, plusa curved upper guide rail terminating in asprung hook releasable by the pilot (almostidentical to the arrangement used on the air-ship-borne US Navy F9C Sparrowhawks). Thiswas designed to hook on a large steel-tubetrapeze under the bomber, which was foldedup for take-off and landing. V A Stepanchy-onok flew the I-Z on several tests with thebomber flown as straight and level as possibleby Stefanovskii. The first hook-on took placeon 23rd March 1935; this was a world first.

Z-6The final combination of the original serieswas the mating of two I-16 monoplane fightershung under the wings of the TB-3. The fighterswere provided with local reinforcementabove the wings to enable them to be hungfrom sliding horizontal spigots on large tripodlinks of streamlined light-alloy tube pin-joint-ed to the bomber's wing structure. Bracingstruts linked the bomber to a latch above thefighter's rear fuselage, and one of the fighters(M-25A-engined No 0440) was photographedwith a lightweight pylon above the forwardfuselage to pick up under the bomber's wing.The first test took place in August 1935; Ste-fanovskii flew the TB-3 and the fighter pilotswere K K Budakov and AI Nikashin.

AviamatkaNamed 'mother aircraft', this amazing test,not part of the original plan, took place in No-vember 1935. The TB-3/4M-17 took off fromMonino with an I-5 above each wing and anI-16 below each wing. At altitude it foldeddown the under-fuselage trapeze and Stepan-chenok hooked on the I-Z, making a combi-nation of six aircraft of four types all lockedtogether. After several passes all the fightersreleased simultaneously. By this timeVakhmistrov had schemes for up to eightfighters of later types all to be carried by largeaircraft such as the full-scale VS-2 taillessbomber projected by Kalinin. Instead Stalin's'terror' caused the whole effort to wither, butthere were still to be further developments.

SPB (Russian initials for fast dive bomber)This was a special version of the PolikarpovI-16 equipped with a rack to carry an FAB-250(bomb of 250kg, 551 Ib) under each wing.Such an aircraft could not have safely takenoff from the ground. In 1937 a later TB-3/4AM-34RN was made available, and two SPB air-craft were hung under its wings. The first testtook place on 12th July 1937, the TB-3 beingflown by Stefanovskii and the dive bombersby A S Nikolayev and IA Taborovskii.

206

V A K H M I S T R O V Z V E N O

Zveno-6

Z-7In November 1939 one final combination wasflown: the TB-3/4AM-34RN took off with an I-16 under each wing and a third hooked underthe fuselage in flight (with severe difficulty).The I-16 pilots were Stefanovskii, Nyukhtikovand Suprun.

In early 1940 the WS decided to form aZveno combat unit. Based at Yevpatoriya, thiswas equipped with six modified TB-3/4AM-34RN and 12 SPB dive bombers. During theGreat Patriotic War a famous mission wasflown on 25th August 1941 which destroyedthe Danube bridge at Chernovody in Roma-nia, on the main rail link to Constanta. Surviv-ing SPBs flew missions in the Crimea.

Aviamatka

207

Y A K O V L E V E X P E R I M E N T A L P I S T O N - E N G I N E D F I G H T E R S

Yakovlev Experimental Piston Eiigiiied Fighters

Purpose: to modify established aircraft forexperimental purposes.Design Bureau: OKB of A S Yakovlev,evacuated to Factory No 153 at Novosibirskuntil in late 1944 it returned to Factory 115on Leningradskii Prospekt, Moscow.

From the pioneer Yak-1 (I-26) fighter Yakovlevderived the UTI-26 two-seat trainer, which inturn was 'reverse-engineered' into the Yak-7fighter. Numerous special variants testedlong-range tankage, different engines and ar-mament, and many experimental fits.

Two series Yak-7B fighters were set asidefor testing pressurized cockpits. One, No 08-05, was fitted with a Shcherbakov cockpitcompletely encased in rubber and with alightweight canopy giving a much better viewthan that of the pressurized Polikarpov bi-

planes. The other, with bold white-borderednational insignia, had a hermetically sealedmetal (0.8mm AMTs aluminium alloy) cock-pit with a heavily framed sliding canopy. Ineach case the pressurization to 0.2kg/cm2

(2.85 lb/in2) was by an engine-driven blower.Both were designated Yak-7GK.

The Yak UTI-26PVRD again repeated re-search done with a Polikarpov biplane, in thiscase the I-153/2DM-4. The DM-4 family werethe ultimate types of ramjet developed byIA Merkulov. The final DM-4S had a diameterof 500mm (1ft 7%in), a length of 2.3m (7ft61/2in) and weight of 45kg (99Ib). The two to-gether burned ordinary petrol (gasoline) fromthe main aircraft tanks at the rate of 24kg(53 Ib) per minute. The test aircraft had beenthe UTI-26-2, the second prototype two-seater. The rear cockpit was re-equipped for

Yak-7GK (Yak-7B with pressurized cockpit)

a test observer, and the main engine waschanged to a l,260hp M-105PF. The pilotcould switch fuel to the ramjets and press anignition button to boost speed from 494km/h(307mph) to 513km/h (319mph) at sea leveland to 633km/h (393mph) at 7,300m(23,950ft). The trouble was, though thesespeeds were a slight improvement over thebasic aircraft, for most of the mission the ram-jets were dead weight and offered consider-able extra drag, reducing speed to 460km/h(286mph) at sea level and 564km/h (339mph)at 6km (19,685ft). The ramjets were first fittedto this aircraft in 1942, but they moved thecentre of gravity too far forward and causedfuel leaks because of combustion vibration.The aircraft was put on one side until on 15thMay 1944 SNAnokhin began a proper LIl-NKAP test programme. It was judged that theramjets were not worth having.

Unfortunately, the only known photographof the Yak-7L is a head-on view. This merelyshows that the leading edge of the wing ofthis aircraft was quite sharp (ie, of small ra-dius) and that the aerofoil profile was almostsymmetric except towards the root where,like the wing of the North American P-51 Mus-tang, it sloped downwards. The letter L in thedesignation stood for Laminarnyi (laminar).As in the Mustang wing, the maximum thick-ness was at almost 40 per cent chord. Proba-bly influenced by the American fighter, thisone-off aircraft is unlikely to have flown be-fore 1943, but the date on the official photo-graph is unreadable.

208

Y A K O V L E V E X P E R I M E N T A L P I S T O N - E N G I N E D F I G H T E R S

Photograph on the opposite page:Yak-7GK.

This page, above and below: Two views ofUTI-26PVRD.

209

UTI-26 PVRD

Y A K O V L E V E X P E R I M E N T A L P I S T O N - E N G I N E D F I G H T E R S

Bottom: RD-lKhZ engine in Yak-3RD,with the fairing removed.

Yak-3RD

The fastest Yak piston-engined fighter wasthe Yak-3RD. The Yak-3 was smaller thanany other major fighter of the Second WorldWar, and the standard aircraft, powered bythe l,260hp VK-105PF2, had a maximumspeed of 646km/h (401 mph) at around 4km(13,120ft). The RD was a normal series air-craft (Saratov-built No 18-20) fitted with anRD-1 rocket engine in the tail. Developed byV P Glushko, this engine was a pilot-control-lable single-chamber unit fed by pumps dri-ven by the main engine with 50kg (1 lOlb) ofkerosene and 200kg (441 Ib) of concentratednitric acid, supplied from tanks in the wings.Most photographs show this red-painted air-craft with the thrust chamber replaced by apointed tailcone. The rudder was increasedin chord to compensate for loss of the lowerportion, and the elevators were cut off at theroot and skinned with Dl alloy. OKB test pilotV L Rastorguyev began flight testing on 22ndDecember 1944. The RD-1 fitted was No 009;this proved to be unreliable, and also failed togive its brochure thrust until the aircraft hadclimbed to about 6,500m (21,325ft). It was re-placed by an RD-lKhZ (No018), with hyper-golic chemical ignition. A level speed of782km/h (486mph) was then recorded at7,800m (25,590ft), but malfunctions contin-ued. On 14th May 1945 there was an explo-sion during a ground start. Flying resumed on14th August 1945, and on the following daythe kerosene pipe fractured. A day later (16thAugust), after the rocket had been shut downafter a maximum-speed run, the aircraft wasobserved gradually to pitch over and dive intothe ground, Rastorguyev being killed. Thecause was never established.

The designation Yak-9P was used twice.The first was a variant with a ShVAK cannon(Pushechnyi) replacing the usual 12.7mmUBS above the engine. The second use of thedesignation came in 1946, when it was ap-plied to two of the first Yak-9 fighters built atFactory No 166 at Omsk, Nos 0I-03 and 0I-04.These were completed with newly designedall-metal wings, because there was no longera shortage of light alloys. They were exhaus-tively tested by Yuri A Antipov and VI Ivanovthroughout July 1946, and later ten pre-pro-duction aircraft were produced at FactoryNo 153 at Novosibirsk. A surprising amount ofeffort was put into perfecting an upgraded all-metal Yak-9, because - despite the immi-nence of jet fighters - no fewer than 772 werebuilt at Factory 153, ending in March 1948.The photo shows the tail of P0415313, withspecial rudder and elevator instrumentationand a side-thrust rocket attached by a frameto the rear fuselage.

210

Above: Yak-7L.

Left: Tail of Yak-9P with side-thrust rocket.

Below centre: Yak-3R.

Y A K O V L E V E X P E R I M E N T A L J E T F I G H T E R S

Yakovlev Experimental Jet FightersPurpose: To create fighters and interceptorswith new and untried features.Design Bureau: OKB-115 of A S Yakovlev,Moscow.

Yakovlev was one of the two General Con-structors who created the first jet aircraft inthe Soviet Union (the other was Mikoyan).Yakovlev cheated by, in effect, putting a tur-bojet into a Yak-3 ! A succession of single-en-gined jet fighters followed, one of which wasthe Yak-25 of 1947 (confusingly, Yakovlevlater used the same designation for a differentaircraft, see later). This achieved the excel-lent speed of 972km/h (604mph) on the1,588kg (3,500 Ib) thrust of a single Rolls-Royce Derwent engine (thus, it was fasterthan a Gloster Meteor on half as many Der-went engines). The first of two Yak-25 proto-types was modified to evaluate an ideaproposed by the DA (Dal'nyaya Aviatsiya,long-range aviation). Called Burlaki (barge-hauler) this scheme was to arrange for astrategic bomber to tow a jet fighter on theend of a cable until it was deep in enemy air-space and likely to encounter hostile fighters.The friendly fighter pilot would then start hisengine and cast off, ready for combat. Thefirst of the two Yak-25 prototypes was ac-cordingly fitted with a long tube projectingahead of the nose, with a special connectoron the end. The two aircraft would take off in-dependently. The bomber would unreel acable with a special connector on the end,into which the fighter would thrust its probe,as in probe/drogue flight refuelling. It wouldthus have a free ride to the target area. Theidea was eventually rejected: towing thefighter reduced the range of the bomber, thefighter might not have enough range to gethome (unless by chance it could find a friend-ly bomber and hook on), the long tube affect-ed the fighter's agility and, worst of all, thefighter pilot would have to engage the enemyafter several hours sitting in a freezing cockpitwith no pressurization.

One of the least-known Soviet aircraft wasthe Yak-1000. The late Jean Alexander wasthe only Western writer to suggest that thisextraordinary creation might have been in-tended purely for research, and even she re-peated the universal belief that its engine wasa Lyul'ka AL-5. In fact, instead of that impres-sive axial engine of 5,000kg (11,023 Ib) thrust,the strangely numbered Yak-1000 had a Rolls-Royce Derwent of less than one-third asmuch thrust. Designed in 1948-49, this aircraftwas notable for having a wing and horizontal

Centre: Yak-1000.

Bottom: Yak-25E Burlaki.

Yak-1000

211

Y A K O V L E V E X P E R I M E N T A L J E T F I G H T E R S

tail of startlingly short span (wing span was amere 4.52m, 14ft l0in), almost of delta formand with a thickness/chord ratio nowheregreater than 4.5 per cent and only 3.4 per centat the wing root. Behind the rear spar the en-tire wing comprised a powerful slotted flap,the outer portion of which incorporated a rec-tangular aileron. The tailplane was fixed half-way up the fin, which again was a low-aspect-ratio delta fitted with a small rudder atthe top. The long tube-like fuselage had theair inlet in the nose, the air duct being imme-diately bifurcated to pass either side of thecockpit, which was pressurized and had anejection-seat. The inevitably limited supply of597 litres (131 Imperial gallons) of fuel washoused in one tank ahead of the engine andanother round the jetpipe. The only way toarrange the landing gear was to have a nose-wheel and single (not twin, as commonlythought) mainwheel on the centreline andsmall stabilizing wheels under the wings.Flight controls were manual, the flaps, land-ing gear and other services were workedpneumatically, and the structure was lightalloy except for the central wing spar whichwas high-tensile SOKhGSNA steel. Only oneflight article was built, the objective being aspeed in level flight of 1,750km/h (1,087mph,Mach 1.65). Taxi testing began in 1951, andas soon as high speeds were reached theYak-1000 exhibited such dangerous instabili-ty that no attempt was made to fly it.

In the jet era there is no doubt thatYakovlev's most important aircraft were theincredibly varied families of tactical twin-jetswith basic designations from Yak-25 (the sec-ond time this designation was used) toYak-28. Some of the sub-variants were exper-imental in nature. One was the Yak-27V, V al-most certainly standing for Vysotnyi, highaltitude, because it was specifically intendedfor high-altitude interceptions. This was a sin-gle flight article, which had originally beenconstructed as the Yak-121, the prototype forthe Yak-27 family, with callsign Red 55. Toturn it into the Yak-27V it was converted intoa single-seater, and a Dushkin S-155 rocketengine was installed in the rear fuselage, re-placing the braking parachute. The S-155 hada complicated propellant supply and controlsystem, because it combined petrol (gaso-line) fuel with a mixture of RFNA (red fumingnitric acid) and HTP (high-test hydrogen per-oxide) oxidant, plus a nitrogen purging sys-tem to avoid explosions. Brochure thrust ofthe S-155 was 1,300kg (2,866 Ib) at sea level,rising to 1,550kg (3,417 Ib) at 12km (39,370ft).Airframe modifications included adding anextended and drooped outer leading edge tothe wing (though the chordwise extension

Top: Yak-27V.

Three views of Yak-28-64 (two R-8T and two R-3S).

212

Y A K O V L E V E X P E R I M E N T A L J E T F I G H T E R S

was not as large as in the later Yak-28 family),converting the horizontal tail into one-piecestabiliators, fitting the rearranged tankage,and replacing the nose radar by a metal nose.The two NR-30 cannon were retained. TheRD-9AK engines were replaced by the spe-cially developed RD-9AKE, with a combustionchamber and fuel system specially tailoredfor high altitudes; thrust was unchanged at2,800kg (6,173 lb).Yakovlev hired VGMukhinto join the OKB's large test-pilot team be-cause he had tested the mixed-power Mikoy-an Ye-50 with a similar S-155 rocket engine.He opened the test-flying programme on 26thApril 1956. Service ceiling of the Yak-27V wasfound to be 23.5km (77,100ft), and levelspeed above 14km (45,900ft) about 1,913km/h(l,189mph, Machl.8).

Yakovlev had been fortunate in havingmembers of this prolific twin-jet family in se-ries production at four large factories, No 99 atUlan-Ude, No 125 at Irkutsk, No 153 at Novosi-birsk and No 292 at Saratov. Unfortunately, by1964 no new orders were being placed andthe end was in sight. In that year, right at theend of the development of the family,Yakovlev tried to prolong its life by undertak-ing a major redesign. He sent his son Sergei tostudy the variable inlets and engine installa-tion of the rival Su-15, and he also carefullystudied the MiG Ye-155, the prototypes for theMiG-25. All these were faster than any Yaks,and they had engines in the fuselage. Ac-cordingly, whilst keeping as many parts un-changed as possible, the Yak-28-64 wascreated, and this single flight article, callsignRed 64, began flight testing in 1966. The en-gines remained the R-l 1AF2-300, as used inmost Yak-28s (and also, as the R-l 1F2-300, inmany MiG-21s), with dry and afterburningratings of 3,950kg (8,708 Ib) and 6,120kg(13,492 Ib) respectively. Instead of being hungunder the wings they were close together inthe rear fuselage, fed by vertical two-dimen-sional inlets with variable profile and area.Drop tanks could be hung under the inletducts on the flanks of the broad fuselage. Thiswide fuselage added almost a metre to thespan (from 11.64m, 38ft 2%in, to 12.5m, 41ft),and removing the engines from the wings en-abled the ailerons to be extended inboard tomeet the flaps. Armament comprised fourguided missiles, two from the K-8 family (typ-ically an R-8M and an R-8T) and two R-3Scopies of the American Sidewinder. ToYakovlev's enormous disappointment, thehuge sum spent by the OKB in developing thisaircraft was wasted. Its performance was ifanything inferior to that of the Yak-28P, andhandling was unsatisfactory to the point ofbeing unacceptable.

Top: Yak-36 c/n 38, with rocket pods.

Two views of Yak-36 experimental VTOL aircraft.

213

Y A K O V L E V E X P E R I M E N T A L J E T F I G H T E R S

In 1960 Yakovlev watched the Short SC.lcavorting at Farnborough and became capti-vated by the concept of SWP (Russian forVTOL, vertical take-off and landing). Thoughhe received funding for various impressiveYak-33 studies in which batteries of lift jetswould have been installed in a supersonic at-tack aircraft, he quickly decided to build asimple test-bed in the class of the HawkerP.1127, with vectored nozzles. No turbofanexisted which could readily be fitted with fournozzles, as in the British aircraft, but, afterfunding was provided by the MAP and thepropulsion institute CIAM, K Khachaturov inthe Tumanskii engine bureau developed theR-27 fighter turbojet into the R-27V-300 with anozzle able to be vectored through a totalangle of 100°. Rated initially at 6,350kg(14,0001b), this engine had a diameter of1,060mm (3ft 5%in) and so it was a practicalproposition to fit two close side-by-side in asmall fuselage. Of course, the engines had tobe handed, because the rotating final nozzlehad to be on the outboard side. This was thebasis for the Yak-36 research aircraft, intend-ed to explore what could be done to perfectthe handling of a jet-lift aeroplane able tohover. To minimise weight, the rest of the air-craft was kept as small as possible. The en-gines were installed in the bottom of thefuselage with nozzles at the centre of gravity,fed directly by nose inlets. The single-seatcockpit, with side-hinged canopy and later fit-ted with a seat which was arranged to ejectautomatically in any life-threatening situa-tion, was directly above the engines. Thesmall wing, tapered on the leading edge andwith -5° anhedral, was fitted with slotted flapsand powered ailerons. Behind the enginesthe fuselage quickly tapered to a tailcone,and carried a vertical tail swept sharply backto place the swept horizontal tail, mounted

near the top, as far back as possible. Thetailplane was fixed, and the elevators andrudder were fully powered. For control at lowairspeeds air bled from the engines was blast-ed through downward-pointing reaction-con-trol nozzles on the wingtips and under thetailcone and on the tip of a long tubular boomprojecting ahead of the nose. The nose andtail jets had twin inclined nozzles which werecontrollable individually to give authority inyaw as well as in pitch. The landing gear wasa simple four-point arrangement, withwingtip stabilizing wheels, of the kind seenon many earlier Yak aircraft. The OKB factorybuilt a static-test airframe and three flight ar-ticles, Numbered 36, 37 and 38. Tunnel test-ing at CAHI (TsAGI) began in autumn 1962, LIIpilot Yu A Garnayev made the first outdoortethered flight on 9th January 1963 andValentin Mukhin began free hovering on 27thSeptember 1964. On 7th February 1966 No 38took off vertically, accelerated to wingborneflight and then made a fast landing with noz-zles at 0°. On 24th March 1966 a completetransition was accomplished, with a VTO fol-lowed by a high-speed pass followed by a VL.The LII stated that maximum speed wasabout l,000km/h, while the OKB claimedU00km/h (683mph). Both Nos 37 and 38were flown to Domodedovo for Aviation Dayon 9th July 1967. Later brief trials were flownfrom the helicopter cruiser Moskva.

From the Yak-36 were derived the Yak-36M,Yak-38, Yak-38U and Yak-38M, all of whichsaw service with the A-VMF (Soviet naval avi-ation). This inspired the OKB to produce theobvious next-generation aircraft, with fully su-personic performance. A design contract wasreceived in 1975. Yak called the projectIzdeliye (Product) 48, and it received the Ser-vice designation Yak-41. Seldom had therebeen so many possible aircraft configura-

tions, but at least this time funds were madeavailable for the necessary main engine. Withmuch help from CIAM, this was created as theR-79V-300 by the Soyuz bureau, led after Tu-manskii's death in 1973 by Oleg N Favorskii,and from 1987 by Vasili K Kobchenko. TheR-79 was a two-shaft turbofan with a bypassratio of 1.0, with a neat augmentor and a fullyvariable final nozzle joined by three wedgerings which, when rotated, could vector thenozzle through 63° for STO (short take-off) orthrough 95° for VTO (vertical take-off). Rat-ings were 11,000kg (24,250 Ib) dry, 15,500kg(34,171 Ib) with maximum augmentation and14,000kg (30,864 Ib) with maximum augmen-tation combined with maximum airbleed foraircraft control. The reason the nozzle vec-tored through 95° was because, immediatelybehind the cockpit, the Yak-41 had two Ry-binsk (Novikov) RD-41 lift jets in tandemwhose mean inclination was 85°. Their noz-zles had limited vectoring but, at this meanposition, in hovering flight they blasted downand back so the main engine had to balancethe longitudinal component by blasting downand forwards. Sea-level thrust of each RD-41was 4,100kg (9,040Ib); thus, total jet lift wasabout 22,200kg (48,942 Ib), but in fact the Yak-41 was not designed to fly at anything like thisweight. Compared with its predecessors itwas far more sharp-edged and angular. Thewing had a thickness/chord ratio of 4.0 percent, and leading-edge taper of 40°. The outerwings, which in fact had slight sweepback onthe trailing edge, folded for stowage on air-craft carriers. The leading edge had a largecurved root extension, outboard of whichwas a powerful droop flap. On the trailingedge were plain flaps and powered ailerons.The wing had -4° anhedral, and was mount-ed on top of a wide box-like mid-fuselage,from which projected a slim nose and cock-

214

Y A K O V L E V E X P E R I M E N T A L J E T F I G H T E R S

pit ahead of the large variable wedge inletswhich led to ducts which, behind the liftengines, curved together to feed the main en-gine. The latter's nozzle was as far forward aspossible. Beside it on each side was a narrowbut deep beam carrying a powered tailplaneand a slightly outward-sloping fin with a smallrudder. Unlike most military Yak jets theYak-41 had a conventional tricycle landinggear. In hovering flight recirculation was min-imised by the open lift-bay doors, a hingedtransverse dam across the fuselage ahead ofthe main gears, a large almost square doorhydraulically forced down ahead of the mainengine nozzle, and a long horizontal strakealong the sharp bottom edge of the fuselageon each side. Fuselage tanks held 5,500 litres(1,210 Imperial gallons) of fuel, and a 2,000litre (440 Imperial gallon) conformal tankcould be scabbed under the fuselage. Flightand engine controls were eventually inter-linked and digital, the hovering controls com-prising twin tandem jets at the wingtips anda laterally swivelling nozzle under the nose(which replaced yaw valves at the tip of eachtailcone). An interlinked system providedautomatic firing of the K-36LV seat in any dan-gerous flight situation. In 1985 it was recog-nized that such a complex and costly aircraftought to have multi-role capability, and thenew designation Yak-41 M was issued for anaircraft with extremely comprehensive avion-ics and weapons. Equipment included a30mm gun and up to 2.6 tonnes (5,732 Ib) ofordnance on four underwing pylons. TheOKB received funding for a static/fatigue testaircraft called 48-0, a powerplant test-bed(48-1) and two flight articles, 48-2 (callsign75) and 48-3 (callsign 77). Andrei A Sinitsynflew '75' as a conventional aircraft at Zhu-kovskii on 9th March 1987. He first hovered'77' on 29th December 1989, and in this air-craft he made the first complete transition on13th June 1990. Maximum speed was1,850km/h (1,150mph, Mach 1.74) and rate ofclimb 15km (49,213ft) per minute. In April1991 Sinitsyn set 12 FAI class records for rapidclimb with various loads, and as the true des-ignation was classified the FAI were told theaircraft was the 'Yak-141'. In September 199248-2 was flown to the Farnborough airshow,its side number 75 being replaced by '141'. Ayear earlier the CIS Navy had terminated thewhole Yak-41 M programme, and the appear-ance in the West was a fruitless last attemptto find a partner to continue the world's onlyprogramme at that time for a supersonic jet-lift aircraft. Apart from publicity, all today'sYakovlev Corporation finally received for allthis work was a limited contract to assistLockheed Martin's Joint Strike Fighter.

Opposite: Yak-41 M with Yak-38M.

This page, top: Yak-141, No 75 on carrier.

Yak-141 inboard profile

1: Radar2: Nose gear3: Front lift jet4: Rear lift jet

5: GSh-30 gun6: Retracted main wheel7: Main gear extended8: Engine

9: Nozzle drive10: Nozzle in lift position11: Control jet12: Tail control channel

13: Braking parachute14: Tailplane power unit15: Lift-bay hatch

Yak-141

215

TYPE 346

Type 346

Inboard profile of 346-3

346A (346D similar)

Purpose: To continue German developmentof a supersonic rocket aircraft.Design Bureau: OKB-2 at Podberez'ye, leaddesigner Hans Rosing, in October 1948replaced by S M Alekseyev.

On 22nd October 1946 a second group ofGerman design engineers was formed at Pod-berez'ye to continue development of the DFS-346 supersonic research aircraft originallydesigned at the DPS (German institute for glid-ing) at Griesheim near Darmstadt. Models,some made in Germany, were tested in CAHI(TsAGI) tunnels, and a North American B-25was fitted with a mock-up nose to test thecockpit jettison system. In 1947 (date not dis-covered) the 346P (P from planer, glider) un-powered version was taken to the test airfieldat Tyoplyi Stan and dropped from under thestarboard wing of a captured B-29 (previouslyUSAAF 42-6256). Amazingly, the 346P was flownnot by a Russian but by Wolfgang Ziese, whohad previously been chief test pilot of the Ger-man Siebel Flugzeugwerke. He had no prob-lems, and brought the glider to a normallanding. In 1948 (date not discovered) the 346-1 high-speed glider version, also known as the346A, was released from a Tu-4 (B-29 copy) andsimilarly flown by Ziese to a normal landing. On30th September 1949 the 346-2, also known asthe 346D, was dropped from the B-29 and flownas a glider by Ziese even though it was fittedwith rocket propulsion. No propellant wasloaded, so the aircraft was much lighter than itwould have been with full tanks. Despite thisZiese landed too fast and, more seriously, thelanding skid failed to extend, resulting in seri-ous damage to both the aircraft and pilot. Thisaircraft was repaired, and in October 1950 LIIpilot P I Kasmin flew it at Lukhovitsy, accordingto the record making a normal take-off from therunway despite having only skid landing gear.Ziese recovered, and on 13th August 1951 heflew the final aircraft of this programme, the346-3, and fired the engines. He flew again on2nd September, but on the third flight, on 14thSeptember, he lost control. He managed to sep-arate the jettisonable nose from the tumblingaircraft, but this ended the programme. Laterversions were abandoned. Various 346 partswere donated to the Moscow Aviation Institute.

Like its American counterpart the Bell XS-1,the 346 was an almost perfectly streamlinedbody with mid-mounted wings. Unlike the XS-1, it had a prone pilot position, skid landinggear, swept wings and an extremely squat ver-tical tail with the tailplane on top. Constructionwas almost wholly flush-riveted light alloy. Thewings had NACA-012 profile (12 per cent thick)and a sweep angle of 45° at the /4-chord line.Each wing had two shallow fences from the

216

346A carried by B-29, front and planviews of any version except 346-3.

T Y P E 346

leading edge to the plain flap. At the tips wereinverse-tapered two-section ailerons, the innersections being locked at high airspeeds. Theelevators were similar in principle. On the 346Pthe tailplane, with !4-chord sweep of 35°, wasfixed and surmounted by a small fixed fin.On the 346-2 and -3 the tailplane was drivenby an irreversible power unit over the range-2° 407+2°. The fuselage was of circular sec-tion, with the entire nose arranged to slideforward for pilot entry and to jettison in emer-gency. The pilot lay on his stomach lookingahead through the Plexiglas nosecap, throughwhich protruded the long instrumentationboom. Bottled gas pressure operated the flapsand retracted the skid into a ventral recesswhich, except for the 346P, could be faired overwith twin doors. Under the tail was a small steelbumper. Unlike its predecessors, the 346-3could be fitted with a curved skid with a leveredshock strut hinged under each outer wing.These were jettisoned after take-off. Thepropulsion system was the Walter HWK 109-509C, called ZhRD-109-510 in the USSR. Thishad two superimposed thrust chambers, onewhich fired continuously whenever the systemwas in operation, and a larger chamber usedonly for take-off or for brief periods when max-imum thrust was needed. The cruise chamberwas rated at sea level at 300kg (661 Ib), and themain chamber at 1,700kg (3,7481b). The com-bined thrust at high altitude was about 2,250kg(4,960 Ib). Immediately behind the jettisonablenose section was a tank of concentrated hyd-rogen peroxide (called T-Stoff in Germany)while in the centre fuselage were intercon-nected tanks of methanol/hydrazine hydrate(C-Stoff). German turbopumps running on cal-cium permanganate fed the highly reactive flu-ids to the thrust chambers, where ignition washypergolic (instantaneous).

Probably as much effort went into the 346programme as the Americans expended on theXS-1 or D-558-II, but there was no comparisonin what the programmes achieved. There is noobvious reason why these challenging aircraft,designed for Mach 2, should simply have beenabandoned without even reaching Mach 1.

Dimensions

Span

Length

9m

(346-3, nose to engine nozzles) 13.447 m

(instrument boom to tailplanes) 15.987 m

Wing area (net)

Weights (346-3)

Empty

Propellants

Loaded

Performance

Max speed, intended

14.87nf

3,180kg

1,900kg

5,230kg

2,127 km/h

29 ft 6% in

44 ft IK in

52 ft 33A in

160ft2

7,01 lib

4,1891b

ll,5301b

1,322 mph (Mach 2)

in a 2 min full-power burn at high altitude

No other data.

Opposite page, top: B-25

with 346 cockpit capsule.

Opposite page: 346P.

Above: 346-2 (346D)

nose open showing pilot

couch.

Right: Looking down into

open nose.

Below: Three views of

346-2 on B-29.

217

EF 126

EF 126

EF126

Purpose: Experimental ground-attackaircraft.Design Bureau: OKB-1, formed of Germanengineers led by Dipl-Ing Brunolf Baade,at Podberez'ye.

In November 1944 beleaguered German de-sign teams worked round the clock with'crash' programmes intended to meet an RLM(Reich Air Ministry) specification for a minia-ture fighter designed to produce effective last-ditch defence. At the Junkers company themost important proposal was the EF (En-twicklungs Flugzeug, development aircraft)126, code-named Elli. This was to be a smallfighter powered by one of the Argus pulsejetsalready in mass-production for the Fi 103 flyingbomb. Messerschmitt already had such an air-craft, the Me 328, powered by two of theseunits, testing of which showed that the violentvibration of the engines had a severe effect onthe airframe and pilot. The EF 126 was small-er, almost a copy of the FilOSR Reichenberg,the piloted version of the flying bomb. In late1944 it was decided that, because of poorpulsejet performance at altitude, the missionshould be changed to ground attack. Despitefrantic work little hardware appeared beforeGermany collapsed. A German three-view hasbeen found bearing the date 9th May 1945, theday after the final surrender ! Moreover, thespan quoted (6.35m) is different from thatgiven in other early-May documents, showingthat the design was still fluid. Indicative of thepanic environment, the data panel on thisdrawing gives the length as 8.9m while thedrawing itself gives the same length as thatbelow ! Despite this, and the primitive natureof the project, the EF 126 was snapped up bythe Russians. In October 1945 the Soviet MAP(ministry of aviation industry) organised theJunkers workers into an EF 126 cell at Dessau,headed by Prof Brunolf Baade. The intentionwas that this group would be moved to theUSSR, but the EF 126 cell remained at Dessauwhile the much larger group working on jetbombers formed OKB-1 at Podberez'ye (seenext entries). By January 1946 an engineeringmockup had been built and parts for five air-craft produced. The EF 126 VI (first prototype)was ready in May 1946, and flight testingopened on 12th May with the VI towed as aglider behind a Ju 88. The pilot was Mathis andthe tug pilot Schreiber. The EF 126 was cast offand made a normal landing. However, on 21stMay Mathis was killed, after he had misjudgedhis glide approach, bounced hard on the rearskid, rolled to the right and cartwheeled. MAPgranted permission for the resumption of test-

Top.- EF 126 in wind tunnel.

218

EF 1 2 6 / E F 131

ing in July, after modification of the leadingedge. The new pilot, Huelge, was pleased bythe modified aircraft, which by this time wasmaking rocket take-offs from a ramp. The newpulsejet engine caused problems, take-offrockets ran out, and an MAP commissionheaded by A S Yakovlev rejected the EF 126 asan operational vehicle because of 'weak ar-mament, absence of armour and insufficientfuel...' It gave permission for work to continueto help develop the engine, ramp launch andskid landing. In September 1946 V2, V3 and V4were sent to LII (today called Zhukovskii), sup-ported by 18 specialists headed by Ing. Bessel.Further delays were caused by designchanges, but gliding flights after a tow by Ju 88resumed with V5 on 16th March 1947. TheMAP directive that three aircraft should takepart in the Tushino display came to nothing,but by the end of the year V3 and V5 had made12 short flights, five of them under power. TheJumo 226 engine made 44 test flights slungunder a Ju 88, but predictably the whole pro-gramme was cancelled at the start of 1948.

The EF126 resembled the FilOS flying bombin many respects, except that instead of a war-head the nose contained the cockpit, thewings had 3° dihedral (and like some flyingbombs were made of wood) and housed fueltanks, and skid landing gear was fitted (theoriginal Junkers drawings showed retractabletricycle gear). One drawing shows a singlelarge retractable skid, but the prototypes hadtwo small skids in tandem. The wing was fittedwith pneumatically driven flaps, and a brakingparachute was housed in the rear fuselage.The original intention was to have twin fins. EF126 VI was fitted with the standard flying-bomb engine, the Argus 109-014 rated at 350kg(772 Ib) thrust at sea level. All subsequent air-craft had the 109-044, which Junkers took overas the Jumo 226, rated at 500kg (1,102 Ib). De-spite prolonged testing this suffered from diffi-cult ignition, poor combustion and dangerousfires. Three tanks housed 1,320 litres (290 Im-perial gallons) of fuel, fed by air pressure.Ramp take-off was by two solid motors eachwith an impulse of 12,000kg-seconds. Arma-

ment comprised two MG 151/20, each with180 rounds, plus an underwing load of two AB250 containers, each housing 108 SD2 'butter-fly bombs', or 12 Panzerblitz hollow-chargebomblets.

A good idea for a last-ditch weapon was un-likely to survive in the post-war era of rapidtechnical development.

Dimensions (V5)SpanLength

(fuselage only)Wing area

WeightsEmptyLoaded

PerformanceMaximum speed (clean)

(external load)Range/endurance

(full power) 300 km(60% power) 350 km

6.65m8.5m7.8m8.9 nf

1,100kg2,800 kg

780km/h680 km/h

23min45min

21 ft 9% in27 ft 10% in25 ft 7 in95.8ft2

2,425 Ib6,173 Ib

485 mph423 mph

(186 miles)(2 17 miles)

EF 131Purpose: To improve a German design for ajet bomber.Design Bureau: OKB-1, formed of Germanengineers led by Dipl-Ing Brunolf Baade,at Podberez'ye.

From late 1944 the Red Army overran manysites where German aircraft engineers hadbeen working on jet aircraft and engines. Thelargest group had been in the employ of thevast Junkers Flugzeug und Motorenwerke inthe Dessau area and at Brandis near Leipzig.At Brandis the principal project had been theJu 287 jet bomber. Having flown the Ju 287 VI(a primitive proof-of-concept vehicle incor-porating parts of other aircraft) on 16th Au-gust 1944, work had gone ahead rapidly onthe definitive Ju 287 V2, to be powered by twotriple engine pods, but the Soviet forces over-ran Brandis airfield before this could fly. Thiswork was clearly of intense interest, and withthe aid of a large team of ex-Junkers engi-neers, who were prisoners, the programmewas continued with all possible speed. TheJu 287 V2 stage was skipped, and parts of thisaircraft were used to speed the constructionof the next-generation EF 131 (EntwicklungsFlugzeug, meaning research aircraft). Thiswas built at Dessau, dismantled, and, to-gether with many of the German engineersand test pilots, taken by train to Moscow.As explained in the next entry, they formedOKB-1. Final assembly took place at the test

airfield then called Stakhanovo (today at LIIZhukovskii) where on or about 23rd May 1947it was briefly flight tested by Flugkapitan PaulJulge. According to legend, he was never al-lowed enough fuel to reach 'the West'. By thistime more advanced aircraft and engineswere being developed in the Soviet Union,and the EF 131 spent long periods on theground. MAP Directive 207ss of 15th April1947 had demanded that 'two prototype EF-131 with six RD-10 engines to take part in theAugust Tushino display...' but this was im-possible to achieve. Eventually the first air-craft was again made airworthy and flownto Moscow's other experimental airfield,Tyopliy Stan. On 21st June 1948 the orderwas given to stop EF 131 work. This wasbecause it had been overtaken by the muchbetter Type 140.

The EF 131 was an impressive-looking jetbomber, characterised by its swept-forwardwing. To postpone the rapid increase in dragas Mach number exceeds about 0.75 Germanaerodynamicists had from 1935 studiedwings swept either backwards or forwards.The FSW (forward-swept wing) appeared tooffer important aeroelastic advantages, butbecause such wings diverge under increasingaerodynamic load they are structurally verydifficult. The Ju 287 VI avoided this problemby being a slow-speed aircraft, but the prob-lem was met head-on by the 131 and 140, andalso by the Tsybin LL-3 (which see). The first

structurally satisfactory FSW was that of theGrumman X-29, almost 40 years later, and amore advanced FSW is seen in today'sSukhoi S-37 (which see). Thus, the FSW ofthe EF 131 can be seen to have been an enor-mous challenge. Aerodynamically it was di-rectly derived from that of the wartime Ju 287,with considerable dihedral and a leadingedge swept forward at 19° 50'. It was fittedwith slats at the wing roots, slotted flaps andoutboard ailerons. It was also fitted with mul-tiple spoiler/airbrakes (items 18 in the de-tailed drawing overleaf) and a total of eightshallow fences (in the drawing marked QV).Because of the limited (900kg, l,9841b) thrustof the Junkers Jumo 004B engines these werearranged in groups of three on each under-wing pylon. By late 1947 this engine was inlimited production at Kazan as the RD-10, andbecause they were considered superior tothe German originals the engines actually in-stalled were RD-lOs. The crew numberedthree, and to save weight armour was omit-ted. A neat tricycle landing gear was fitted, themain tanks occupied the top of the fuselage,a braking parachute occupied a box underthe tail, and at the end of the fuselage was aremotely sighted FA15 barbette with super-imposed MG 131 guns as fitted to somewartime aircraft such as the Ju 388.

The FSW and primitive engines made thisan unattractive aircraft.

219

EF 131

EF131

DimensionsSpanLength (excluding guns)Wing area

WeightsEmpty aboutLoaded about

PerformanceMaximum speedNo other firm figures.

19.4m19.7m59.1 nf

12 tonnes20 tonnes

850 km/h

63 ft 7% in64 ft Th in636ft2

26,455 Ib44,090 Ib

528 mph

Centre: Page from EF 131 maintenance manual,Fig. 10 'covers and flaps'.

Bottom: EF 131 (the only known photograph,enlarged from distant background).

220

Type 140

TYPE 140

Purpose: To improve a German design for ajet bomber.Design Bureau: OKB-1, formed of Germanengineers led by Dipl-Ing Brunolf Baade(later replaced by S M Alekseyev),at Podberez'ye.

The EF 140 was begun as a private venture byBaade's team, who had faith in their forward-swept designs. The weak feature was obvi-ously the need to use six primitive engines,and work went ahead rapidly to replace theseby one of the newer engines which by 1947were available. These were not only muchmore powerful, so that the aircraft could be-come twin-engined, but also had better fueleconomy and much longer and more reliablelife. The greater power available meant thatprevious compromises were no longer nec-essary, and the German team really felt theyhad a good jet bomber at last. Constructionwas speeded by using major parts of the sec-ond EF 131, so that the first of two EF 140 pro-totypes began its flight-test programme atTyopliy Stan on 20th September 1948. Theflight report described all aspects of the flightas 'normal'. Previously, in May 1948, it hasbeen surmised (because of selection of theIL-28 as a production bomber and rejection ofthe Tupolev Type 78R reconnaissance air-craft) that the EF 131 should be developed asthe 140R purely for reconnaissance. This wascountermanded in August 1948 by a SovMindecree that the aircraft should be developedas the 140B/R, capable of flying either bomberor reconnaissance missions. By this time themorale of the Germans was poor. They weresurrounded by 'informers', and still had thestatus of prisoners. In October 1948 Alek-seyev, whose own OKB had been closed, wasappointed Chief Designer of OKB-1. He setabout improving things. He drafted in 50 Sovi-et engineers, developed a good relationshipwith Baade, the informers' room was takenby the factory chief controller, the controlpost between Podberez'ye village and Kimry

Dimensions (Type 140)

SpanLengthWing area

Weights

EmptyLoaded

PerformanceMax speed (measured)

Range

19.4m19.8m

59.1 nf

11,900kg23 tonnes

904km/h

2,000km

63ft7y 4 in64 ft m in636ft2

26,235 Ib50,705 Ib

562 mph1,242 miles

was removed, and the Germans were given abetter status. As military personnel at TyopliyStan objected to the Germans being there,the flight-test programme was moved to theairfield at Borki, which was in any case near-er. The test programme of the 140R (the Ger-manic prefix 'EF' tended to be dropped) wasopened on 12th October 1949, the pilot beingI Ye Fyodorov. It flew again on the followingday, but as speed built up wing flutter was ex-perienced. The 140R spent the next ninemonths shuttling between the factory and theairfield. In July 1950 the second prototype, inB/R configuration, was well advanced inground testing, and about to fly, when the en-tire programme was terminated.

The 140 differed from the EF 131 principal-ly in having only two engines, of new types.These engines were the imported Rolls-Royce Nene, the Soviet derivative known asthe VK-1, and the all-Soviet Mikulin AM-01,also known as the AM-TKRD-1. One Russianaccount states that the 140 first flew with theMikulin axial engines, experienced problems,

was re-engined with VK-1 centrifugal enginesand was then fitted with wingtip tanks. Pho-tographs show that flight testing was carriedout with Nene or VK-1 engines without tiptanks and with the Mikulin engines with tiptanks. Moreover, the British centrifugal en-gine was available in 1947, before the Mikulinengine was cleared for use as sole propulsion(though it had flown under a Tu-2). Despitethis, the Soviet record states that on the firstflight the engines were the AM-TKRD-1, eachrated at 3,300kg (7,275 Ib). Development of jetfighters was judged to have made the EF 131armament inadequate, and it was replacedby the outstanding remotely-controlled elec-trically driven turret with twin NS-23 cannondeveloped for Tupolev heavy bombers. The140 was armed with two of these turrets, onebehind the pressure cabin and the otherunder the rear fuselage. To share the work-load a fourth crew-member was added, thecomplement now comprising the pilot at leftfront with the navigator/bombardier on hisright, the dorsal gunner facing aft behind the

Right: 140 with Nene engines.

221

140 with Nene engines

TYPE 140

pilot and the radio operator behind the navi-gator and controlling the ventral turret. Theoptical sighting was derived from that of theTu-4, and in emergency either gunner couldmanage both turrets. Full armour was re-stored. The capacious bomb bay had electri-cally driven doors and could accommodatevarious loads up to 4,500kg (9,921 Ib). Thefuel system was completely redesigned, withtanks along the top of the fuselage. The 140suffered from malfunction of the fuel-meter-ing unit on the AM-TKRD-01 engines, whichcaused engine speed to fluctuate erraticallyin a way that the pilot could not control, andwhich could lead to dangerously asymmetricpower. After Flight 7 the engines werechanged, and OKB-1 flight testing was com-pleted on 24th May 1949.

Type 140RTo achieve the necessary range, this aircraftwas (the Soviet record states) fitted with'newer, more economical' VK-1 engines de-rived by V Ya Klimov from the Rolls-RoyceNene, even though these were rated at only2,700kg (5,952 Ib). The span was increased,and fixed tanks were added on the wingtips,increasing internal fuel capacity to 14,000litres (3,080 Imperial gallons). The formerbomb bay was redesigned to carry a wide as-sortment of reconnaissance cameras, as wellas high-power flares and flash bombs in theforward bay and in the fuselage tail.

Type 140B/RNever completed, this aircraft was intendedto have an improved fire control system, the

crew reduced to three, and to have a range of3,000km (1,864 miles) at 12,000m (39,370ft)carrying 1.5 tonnes (3,3071b) of bombs and9,400 litres (2,068 Imperial gallons) of fuel.

Always handicapped politically by their an-cestry, these aircraft were merely an insur-ance against failure of the first Soviet jetbombers such as Ilyushin's IL-22 and Tupolev'sTu-12. They were finally killed by inability tosolve the structural problems of the forward-swept wing.

Dimensions (Type 140R)Span

Length

Wing area

21.9m19.8m

59.1 nf

71 ft 1014 in

64 ft 11)4 in

636ft2

WeightsNot recorded

PerformanceMax speed (measured)Range at a cruising altitude

of 14, 100m (46,260ft)

866km/h

3,600 km

538mph

2,237 miles

Left: 140B/RwithAM-01 engines.

222

140B/RwithAM-01 engines

TYPE 150

Type 150Purpose: Experimental jet bomber.Design Bureau: OKB-1, Podberez'ye andlater at Kimry, General Director fromOctober 1948 S M Alekseyev.

The first official history of OKB-1 to be pub-lished (in Kryl'ya Rodiny for December 1987,written by I Sultanov) stated that it was ledby Alekseyev, whose own OKB had beenclosed, and that this aircraft was 'designed inclose collaboration with CAHI (TsAGI), theleading experts on aerodynamics and struc-tures being V N Belyayev, AI Makarevskii,G P Svishchev and S A Khristianovich'. At theend it briefly noted that 'a group from Ger-many, led by B Baade, participated...' Itwould have been more accurate to explainthat OKB-1 was specifically formed on 22ndOctober 1946 in order to put to use severalhundred German design engineers, led byProf Brunolf Baade and Hans Wocke, whohad been forcibly taken with their families toa location 120km east of Moscow where theywere put to work in a single large office block.For the first three years they were fully occu-pied on the Types 131 and 140 described pre-viously. However, mainly because of doubtsthat the forward-swept wing would ever be

made to work, even before they left Germanythey had completed preliminary drawings fora bomber of similar size but with a conven-tional backswept wing. By 1948 this had be-come an official OKB-1 project, called 150.The original Chief Designer was P N Obrubov,but Alekseyev took his place when he arrived.Workers were increasingly transferred to the150, which grew in size and weight from theoriginal 25 tonnes to produce a bomber inter-mediate between the IL-28 and Tu-16. Thebrief specification issued by the WS calledfor a take-off weight between 38 and 47tonnes, a maximum speed rising from 790km/h at sea level to 970km/h at 5km, a serviceceiling of 12.5km and a range varying withbomb load from 1,500 to 4,500km (932 to2,796 miles). Only a single flight article wasfunded, and this had to wait a year for its en-gines. At last it was flown by Ya I Vernikov on14th May 1951. On Flight 16 on 9th May 1952the aircraft stalled on the landing approach,and though the aircraft was marginally re-pairable nobody bothered, because of theclearly greater potential of the Tu-88 (proto-type Tu-16). The dice were in any case loadedagainst a German-designed aircraft. In late1953 Baade and most of the Germans re-

turned to their own country, where in Dres-den they formed a company called VEB whichused the Type 150 as the [highly unsuitable]basis for the BB-152 passenger airliner.

A modern all-metal aircraft, the 150 had ashoulder-high wing with a fixed leading edgeswept at 35°. As this wing had hardly any taperthe tips were extraordinarily broad, leavingplenty of room for slim fairings housing the re-tracted tip landing gears. The concept of tan-dem centreline landing gears with smallwheels at the wingtips had been evaluatedwith Alekseyev's own I-215D. At rest the winghad anhedral of-4°, reduced to about -1° 20'in flight. Each wing had two shallow fencesfrom the leading edge to the slotted flap. Out-board were three-part ailerons. The fuselagewas of circular section, tapering slightly aft ofthe wing to oval. Fixed seats were provided inthe pressurized forward section for two pilots,a navigator/bombardier and a radio operatorwho also had periscopic control of a dorsalturret with two NR-23 cannon. Under the floorwas the RPB-4 navigation/bombing radar,with twin landing lamps recessed in the front.Behind this was the steerable twin-wheelnose gear. Next came the large bomb bay,2.65m (8ft Sin) wide and high and 7m (23ft)

223

TYPE 150

long, with a load limit of 6 tonnes (13,228 Ib).Next came the rear twin-wheel truck, whichon take-off could be suddenly shortened to tiltthe aircraft 3° 30' nose-up for a clean liftoff.The large fin was swept at 45°, with a two-partrudder and carrying on top the 45°-swepttailplane and three-part elevators with dihe-dral of 8°. In the tail was a rear gunner with aturret mounting two NR-23 cannon. Undereach wing was a forward-swept pylon carry-ing a Lyul'ka AL-5 turbojet rated at 4,600kg(lO.HOlb). A total of 35,875 litres (7,892 Im-perial gallons) of fuel was housed in eightcells along the upper part of the fuselage, andadditional tanks could be carried in the bombbay. On each side of the rear fuselage was adoor-type airbrake. Like almost everythingelse these surfaces were operated electrical-ly, the high-power duplicated DC system in-cluding an emergency drop-out windmillgenerator. Each flight-control surface was op-erated by a high-speed rotary screwjack.

Though flight testing revealed some buffet-ing and vibration, especially at full power athigh altitude, the numerous innovations in-troduced on this aircraft worked well. Never-theless, it would have been politicallyundesirable for what was essentially a Ger-man aircraft to be accepted for production.Thus, hitting the ground short of the runwaywas convenient.

Three views of 150.

224

DimensionsSpan 24.1m 79 ft 1 inLength (excluding guns) 26. 74 m 87 ft 8% in

Wing area 125m2 1,346ft2

WeightsEmpty 23,064kg 50,84715Loaded 54 tonnes 119,00015

PerformanceMaximum speedat sea level, 850 km/h 528 mph

at 10 km (32,808 ft) 930 km/h 578 mphService ceiling about 13km 42,650ftNo other data, except that design range (see a5ove) was exceeded.

S O V I E T X - P L A N E S I N C O L O U R

Soviet X-Planesin colour

Top.Mikoyan SM-12/1

Centre left: Mikoyan SM-12/3

Centre right: Mikoyan SM-12PMU

Bottom: Mikoyan SM-12PM

225

S O V I E T X - P L A N E S

Top: Mikoyan Ye-4 with RD-9I engine

Centre: Mikoyan Ye-2A

Bottom: Mikoyan Ye-5

Photographs on the opposite page:

Top: Mikoyan I-3U in late 1956.

Bottom: Mikoyan I-7U.

226

S O V I E T X - P L A N E S I N C O L O U R

227

S O V I E T X - P L A N E S

228

S O V I E T X - P L A N E S I N C O L O U R

229

Top: Mikoyan Ye-152/A withK-9 missiles.

Right and bottom: Two views of theMikoyan Ye-152P.

Photographs on the opposite page:

Top and centre: Two views of theMikoyan Ye-8/2.

Bottom: Mikoyan Ye-50/3.

S O V I E T X - P L A N E S

230

S O V I E T X - P L A N E S I N C O L O U R

Top and centre: Two views of theMiG-23-01 ('23-01').

Bottom: Mikoyan '105-11' at Monino.

Photographs on the opposite page:

Top: Mikoyan Ye-152M (Ye-166)record version at Monino.

Centre.MiG-211/1 'Analog'.

Bottom: MiG-21PD ('23-31').

231

S O V I E T X - P L A N E S

232

S O V I E T X - P L A N E S I N C O L O U R

Top: One of the Myasischev M-17 prototypesat Monino

Above, right and below: Three views of theMyasischev M-55.

Opposite page: Three views of the Mikoyan 'I-44'.

233

S O V I E T X - P L A N E S

234

S O V I E T X - P L A N E S I N C O L O U R

235

Top: Sukhoi T6-1 test-bed at Monino.

Centre.Sukhoi T6-1.

Bottom: Sukhoi T10-1.

Photographs on the opposite page:

Top and centre left: Two views of theMyasischev VM-T.

Centre left and bottom: Two views ofthe Sukhoi T-4 ('101').

S O V I E T X - P L A N E S

Top: Sukhoi S-22I test-bed.

Centre left: Sukhoi T10-3.

Centre right: Sukhoi T10-24.

Bottom: Sukhoi T10-20 record version at Khodynka.

Photographs on the opposite page:

Top and centre: Two views of the Sukhoi P-42 record aircraft.

Bottom left and right: Two views of the Sukhoi Su-27UB-PS test-bed.

236

S O V I E T X - P L A N E S I N C O L O U R

237

S O V I E T X - P L A N E S

238

S O V I E T X - P L A N E S I N C O L O U R

Three views of the Sukhoi S-37,the lower two taken at theMAKS-99 air show. ,

Photographs on the opposite page:

Top: Sukhoi Su-37 (T10M-11).

Bottom: Sukhoi Su-37 'Berkut'.

239

S O V I E T X - P L A N E S

Top: Tupolev Tu-155 test-bedat Zhukovskii.

Cen/re: YakovlevYak-141 at Khodynka.

Bottom: YakovlevYak-141 secondprototype.

Midland Publishing book titles are carefullyedited and designed by an experienced andenthusiastic team of specialists. A cataloguedetailing our aviation publishing programmeis available upon request from the address onpage two.

We hope that you have enjoyed this book . .

Our associate company, Midland CountiesPublications, offers an exceptionally widerange of aviation, railway, spaceflight, naval,military, astronomy and transport books andvideos, for purchase by mail-order and deliv-ery around the world.

To order further copies of this book, or to re-quest a copy of the appropriate mail-ordercatalogue, write, telephone or fax to:

Midland Counties PublicationsUnit 3 Maizefield, Hinckley, Leics, LE10 1YFTel: 01455 233 747 Fax: 01455 233 737

240