Category Soviet x-plenes

Purpose: 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 to learn that the missile defences of Sverdlovsk had shot down a Lockheed U-2 of the US Central Intelligence Agency. Parts of the air­craft were put on display in Moscow’s Gorkiy Park. What the world was not told was that for months afterwards a vast area was combed by large squads looking for every fragment of the downed aircraft (which had broken up at high altitude). All the pieces were brought to GK Nil WS, where they were carefully studied. On 28th June 1960 SovMin Directive 702-288 instructed OKB No 16 in Kazan, led by P F Zubets, to copy the J57-P-13 engine. This was a blow to Zubets, whose RD-500 was in the same thrust class, and even more to the several engine designers (Do­brynin, Lyul’ka, Kuznetsov and Tumanskii) who had engines on test which were more
powerful and of much later design than the massive Pratt & Whitney. On 23rd August 1960 Directive 918-383 ordered OKB No 49, assisted by neighbouring No 86, to study the U-2 and produce five copies, designated S-13. These were primarily to support ‘a multi­discipline study of the structural, technical and maintenance aspects of the U-2, and master its technology for use in indigenous aircraft’. It was also expected that the S-13 would be used to collect upper-atmosphere samples, destroy hostile balloons and (using the 73-13, or AFA-60, camera) undertake re­connaissance missions. Despite inexorable increases in weight over the US original, work attempted to meet the first-flight date of first quarter 1962. Much of the supporting equip­ment had already been developed for the Yak-25RV and TsybinRSR (which see). On 1st April 1961 a detailed metal fuselage mock-up was 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 con­firmed that the U-2 had the exceptional L/D ratio of25. Out of the blue, on 12th May 1962 Directive 440-191 ordered the whole S-13 project to be terminated.

Purpose: To test previously invented ‘parabola wing’ in a powered aircraft Design Bureau: Not an OKB but a private individual, Boris Ivanovich Cheranovskii (1896-1960). Throughout his life he scratched around for funds to build and test his succession of 30 types of gliders and powered aircraft, all of ‘tailless’ configuration.

In 1924 Cheranovskii tested his BICh-1 ‘Para­bola’ glider and the refined BICh-2, which demonstrated ‘normal longitudinal stability and controllability and is considered to have
been the world’s first successful flying wing’. In 1926 he followed with the BICh-3, which was almost the BICh-2 fitted with an engine. Cheranovskii’s gliders had been flown at the All-Union meetings at Koktebel, Crimea, but most of the flying of his first aeroplane was done by B N Kudrin (later famous) in Moscow.

The BICh-3 was a basically simple aircraft, constructed of wood with thin ply skin over the leading edge, inboard upper surface and landing-gear trousers, and fabric elsewhere. The BICh-2 had flown without a rudder (it was better with one) since turning was
achieved by the ailerons. With the BICh-3 the addition of an engine required a vestigial fuselage with a fin and rudder. The main con­trols remained the trailing-edge elevators and ailerons, operated by rods and bellcranks and hung on inset balanced hinges. The engine was a Blackburne Tomtit, an inverted V-twin of 698 cc rated at 18hp. Skids were provided under the tail and outer wings.

Kudrin described the BICh-3 as ‘not very stable, but controllable’. It was sufficiently successful to lead to the many successors.

Purpose: To modify established jet aircraft in order to test ejection-seats.

Design Bureau: Initially the seats were designed by special teams formed in the jet – aircraft OKBs. However, in 1952 a special organization was created to specialize in life-support and safety-equipment systems, and in 1994 this was transformed into NPP Zvezda (Star) joint-stock company. From the 1960s this organization captured the market until it was providing ejection-seats for virtually all Soviet combat aircraft.

Soviet ejection-seats, called Katapul’tnoye Kreslo, were initially diverse, and drew heav­ily on designs by US, Swedish and, especially, the British Martin-Baker companies. After 1945 a few flight tests took place with German seats, developed in 1944 for such aircraft as the He 219 and Do 335. The detailed history has not been written, but some of the earliest
flight tests were carried out from about mid – 1947. Probably the first Soviet ejection-seat was designed in the MiG OKB from January

1947. On 11th March 1947 this OKB received an order to test this seat in the FT-2, the sec­ond prototype of the M1G-9UTI trainer. After ten test ejections in a ground rig the experi­mental seat, weighing 128.5kg (283 Ib), was initially installed in the considerably modified rear cockpit of FT-1 (the first two-seater which was still with the MiG OKB). Flight test­ing took place throughout the first half of

1948, but only up to 700km/h (435mph). The very similar FT-2 was then fitted with two ejection-seats, the front one at a rail angle of 22.5° and the rear at 18.5°. The modified air­craft was delivered to NIl-WS, the air force flight test institute, on 29th September 1948. After two tests with dummies live testing con­tinued between 7th October and 13th No­vember 1948. An automatic sequence firing
the canopies and seats was then perfected (though ofcourse the FT-2 was never left with both cockpits empty). From the results of these tests the OKB gradually developed the first production seat, called the SK. This was then developed through 14 production series.

Probably the next Soviet aircraft to be used for ejection-seat testing was the Ilyushin IL-28 tactical twin-jet bomber. First flown on 8th July 1948, using the imported Rolls-Royce Nene and later the Nene-derived RD-45 and VK-1 A, this excellent aircraftwas used for sur­prising tests using seats fired from the ex­treme tail. Unlike the very similar British Canberra, which was undefended, for this aircraft the Ilyushin OKB developed a power­ful tail turret with two NR-2 3 guns, manned by the radio operator who had an escape chute. In several aircraft the turret was replaced by a special test installation for an ejection-seat. Both upward – and downward-firing seats

were tested, and cine films showed that in some cases firing the seat imparted to the air­craft a pronounced kick in the pitching plane, either nose-up or nose-down. Some of the IL-28 seat tests were at airspeeds exceeding 800km/h (497mph).

Even higher speeds were reached during seat testing with ST-10 aircraft, which were specially modifiedtwo-seat UTI MiG-15s. This was the principal type used from 1951 on­wards in development of the SK and SK-1 seats which were used in thousands of early MiG jets, and later for the much better KM-1 family used in later MiG fighters, cine films and photographs have shown seats being fired from ST-lOs with callsigns 15, 23, 101U, 102U and 401U. These aircraft were painted with bold horizontal black lines in known po­sitions to assist determination of the seat tra­jectory. What is surprising is that about half the photographs of tests appear to have in­volved firing the test seat from the front cock­pit. Using dummies and human occupants many hundreds of combinations of canopy, seat, ejection gun, stabilizing drogue and parachute system were investigated. Early SK seats were notoriously unreliable, and when they did fire on command the pilot often suf­fered spinal damage. Gradually, and espe­cially after the ST-10 testing began, the SK seats improved. A faceblind was provided to
protect the occupant’s face, additional firing triggers were incorporated in both armrests, improved ejection guns were developed im­parting a precisely repeatable phased accel­eration using different cartridges for summer and winter, and the original restrictive limits of airspeed and altitude were progressively increased. A photograph shows 101U, one of the aircraft with a completely open front cockpit. The final ST-10,401U, was fitted with a new type of front-cockpit canopy which was hinged at the rear to the top of the seat so that on ejection the canopy served as a wind­break to protect the occupant. This became a feature of early MiG-21 fighters.

Photographs have been found of at least two Yak-25L (Laboratoriya) seat-test aircraft. The production night fighter seated the pilot and radar operator in tandem under a large one-piece canopy which opened by sliding on rails 2.2m (7ft Sin) to the rear. Both the seat test-beds had a pressure bulkhead separating the front cockpit from the rear cockpit, from which the seat under test was fired. Aircraft callsign 18 retained the original type of canopy but with the portion over the rear cockpit opaque (on being jettisoned this usu­ally passed perilously close to the tail). Air­craft callsign 01 had a completely modified arrangement, the pilot having a short upward – hinged canopy and the test cockpit having a
prominent light-alloy superstructurewhich in most tests was open at the top. This aircraft was later used to test the Yakovlev OKB’s KYa-1 rocket-boosted seat, the first to have ‘zero/zero’ capability (able to be fired with the aircraft at rest on the ground).

The only Sukhoi aircraft known to have been an ejection-seat test-bed was an Su-9U with callsign Red 10. Liberally covered on the starboard side with black lines for use as tra­jectory references, this Mach-2 aircraft always fired the test seat from the rear cockpit. This was open-topped and sealed from the pres­surized front cockpit. The only photographs released on this aircraft must have been taken since the 1970s, as they show modern Zvezda zero/zero rocket assisted seats, at least one being of the K-36 family. One pho­tograph shows a test at ground level.

While the Su-(U was used for tests at high subsonic Mach numbers, at least on M1G-25U has been used to confirm behaviour in ejec­tions at supersonic speeds. Details of the seats and Mach numbers have yet to be dis­closed, but Zvezda believe this aircraft has been used to check successful ejections at mach numbers significantly higher than any­where else in the world.

Purpose: To make an invisible aeroplane. Design Bureau: Zhukovskii WA, Soviet air force academy; designer Professor Sergei Kozlov.

Professor Kozlov was eager to see to what de­gree it would be possible to construct a ‘transparent’ aeroplane, difficult to see (for example, by enemies on the ground). In 1933 a preliminary experiment was made with a U – 2 biplane whose rear fuselage and tail were stripped of fabric and re-covered with a trans­parent foil called Cellon (unrelated to the British company of that name). In 1935 the WA was assigned Yakovlev’s second AIR-4, which already had experimental status. The airframe was completely stripped of all cov­ering and internal equipment, and reassem­bled as described below. Though it was called the Nevidimyi Samolyot, invisible aero­
plane, it received the unexplained official designation of PS. It first flew on 25th July 1935.

The AIR-4, one of A S Yakovlev’s first de­signs, was a neat parasol monoplane, first flown in 1930. Powered by a 60hp Walter NZ – 60 five-cylinder radial, it had two seats in tan­dem. The structure was almost entirely wood, with skin of ply and fabric. The pairs of wing bracing struts were mild-steel sheet wrapped round to an aerofoil section 64 x 32mm (21/2 x l!4in). Of course, Kozlov could do nothing to hide these struts, nor the rub­ber-sprung divided main landing gears, or the engine, fuel tank and other parts. Virtually the whole airframe was covered in a French transparent plastic called Rodoid. This was cut from sheet, each panel being drilled and secured by aluminium rivets inserted through eyelets. 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 im­portance’. Apart from the invisibility effect, the transparent skin was also held to improve the field of view of the occupants, and Kozlov did preliminary studies for a transparent re­connaissance aircraft. On a low-level flypast the PS was said to be not easily seen except by chance, though of course observers could narrow the field of search from judging the source of the aircraft’s sound. After a few weeks, however, the foil skin was of little use, partly because of progressive darkening by solar radiation and partly because of the ef­fect of dust and oil droplets from the engine.

Left: PS accompanied by a U-2.

Design Bureau: OKB-155 of A I Mikoyan

Throughout the massive production of the MiG-15 and MiG-17, with a combined total ex­ceeding 22,000, the MiG OKB was eager to dis­card the British-derived centrifug al engine and build truly supersonic fighters with indigenous axial engines. It achieved this in sensible stages. The M, or I-350, introduced the large TR-3A axial engine and a wing with a leading – edge sweep of 60°. The SM-2, or I-360, pow­ered by twin AM-5 axial engines, at first was fitted with a high T-type tail. Then the tailplane was brought down to the fuselage, the design was refined, and as the SM-9 with afterburning engines (first flown 5th January 1954) achieved production as the MiG-19. The SM-9/3 intro­duced the one-piece ‘slab’ tailplane, with no separate elevator, and this was a feature of the MiG-19S. Powered by two RD-9B engines each with an afterburning rating of 3,250kg (7,1651b), this had the devastating armament of three NR-30 guns, each far more powerful than the British Aden of the same calibre. The following specification is for a typical MiG-19S.

SM-10

Though it had a generally longer range than its predecessors the MiG-19 was required in a decree of May 1954 to be developed with flight-refuelling capability. At that time the only tanker was a version of the piston-en­gined 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 divert­ers and non-return valves to fill all the aircraft tanks. By 1956 testing had moved to an extra­ordinary test-bed, callsign 10, fitted with no fewer than four probes. One was at the bot­tom of the nose, another at top left on the nose, a third on the leading edge of the port
wing and the fourth projected with a kink from above the starboard wing.

SM-20

This was a MiG-19S modified as a pilotless aircraft to test the guidance system of the Kh – 20 cruise missile. This huge weapon was de­signed to be carried under a special version of the Tu-95 heavy bomber, and one Tu-95K was modified to carry and release the SM-20. Apart from being equipped with the missile’s guidance system and a special autopilot and various other subsystems, including a receiv­er link for remote-pilot guidance, the fighter was fitted with a position beacon, radar re­flector and destruct package. Suspension lugs were built in above the centre of gravity, and the parent aircraft had pads which pressed on each side of the SM-20 canopy. Tests began in October 1956. SM-20P de­scribed the aircraft after modification with special engines able to vaporise the fuel to ensure reliable starting at high altitudes.

SM-30

This designation applied to MiG-19 and MiG – 19S aircraft modified for ZELL (zero-length launching). Nuclear weapons clearly made it foolish to base combat aircraft on known air­fields, so the ZELL technique was intended to enable aircraft to be fired off short inclined launchers by a large rocket. The launcher was naturally made mobile, and most loca­tions were expected to be in the extreme Arc­tic such as Novaya Zemlya. The aircraft needed a strengthened fuselage, reinforced fuel tanks and mounts, a special pilot head­rest, and (in most cases) extra-large para – brakes or arrester hooks for short landings.

The usual rocket was the PRD-22, with a thrust of40,000kg (88,185 Ib) for 2.5 seconds. Manned firings took place from 13th April 1957, the chief pilots being G Shiyanov and Yu A Anokhin (not the more famous S N Anokhin). Results were satisfactory, but the scheme was judged impractical.

Purpose: To create a fighter able to fly as a biplane or monoplane.

Design Bureau: OKB-30, Chief Designer V V Shevchenko.

There is some dispute over who was respon­sible for the experimental IS fighters. Gener­ally ascribed to VV Nikitin, in more recent accounts he is hardly mentioned and all cred­it is given to Shevchenko who is quoted as saying ‘IS stands for losif Stalin’. In fact, though the conception was indeed Shev­chenko’s, he was an NIl-WS test pilot who was occasionally employed by Nikitin. Design of the IS series was carried out in partnership with Nikitin, and IS actually meant Istrebitel Skladnoi, folding fighter. Surprisingly, it was alsogiventheofficialGUAP designation I-220, even though this was also allocated to a high – altitude MiG fighter. The idea was that the air­craft should take off as a biplane, with a short run, and then fold up the lower wing under­neath the upper wing in order to reach high speed as a monoplane. Shevchenko promot­ed the idea in November 1938, getting an en­thusiastic response, and therefore in 1939 demonstrated a detailed working model built at the Moscow Aviatekhnikum (MAT). His project captivated Stalin and Beria, who wanted the aircraft flying in time for the Oc­tober Revolution parade in November 1939. Shevchenko was given 76 million roubles and
facilities at Factory No 156, while the OKB-30 design team eventually numbered 60. The IS-1 was first flown by V Kulesho v on 29 th May 1940, and the lower wings were first folded by G M Shiyanovon 21st June 1940. Shevchenko states that Shiyanov carried out LII testing and completed his report on 9th January 1941. Ac­cording to Shevchenko, glowing accounts were also written by such famous test pilots as Suprun and Grinchik. In fact, Shavrov records that ‘State tests were considered un­necessary, as the maximum speed was only 453km/h’. As it was so much slower than the LaGG, 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 ex­isting production fighter, the I-153. It had the same 900hp M-63 engine, driving a Hamilton VISh propeller of2.8m (9ft 2in) diameter, and apart from the extra ‘wing fold’ lever the cockpits were identical. The airframe was all­metal, the fuselage framework being welded SOKhGSA steel tube, with removable metal panels to the front of the cockpit and fabric aft, while each wing had similar construction for the two spars, but DIG light-alloy ribs and flush-riveted DIG skins. The tail was DIG with

fabric covering. After take-off the pilot select­ed ‘chassis up’, folding the main landing gears inwards by the 60-ata (882 lb/in2) pneu­matic system. He could then select ‘wing fold’, whereupon a pneumatic ram and hinged levers on each side folded the lower wing. The inboard half was then recessed into the fuselage and the hinged outer half (which remained horizontal throughout) was recessed into the upper wing to complete its aerofoil profile. The planned armament was four ShKAS in the inner gull-wing part of the upper wing. There was no cockpit armour.

Though it may have seemed a good idea, the realization was a disappointment. Apart from the overall inferiority of the IS-1 ‘s perfor­mance, it was nonsense to reduce wing area in an aircraft needing the maximum possible combat agility, and moreover to try on the one hand to increase wing area for take-off
and landing whilst simultaneously leaving half the upper (main) wing with a huge hol­low on the underside which destroyed the aerofoil profile. A detail is that with the wings
folded there was nowhere for spent cartridge cases to escape.

Previous page and below: Views of IS-1.

Dimensions Span (upper) (lower, extended) Length Wing area (as biplane) (upper only) 8.6m 6.72m 6.79m 20.83 nf 13.0m2 28 ft n in 22 ft!4 in 22 ft 3% in 224 ft2 140ft2 Weights Empty 1,400kg 3,086 Ib Loaded 2,300 kg 5,070 Ib Performance Maximum speed 453km/h 281 mph Time to climb 5 km 5.0 min 16,404ft Service ceiling (as biplane) 8,800 m 28,870 ft Range 600km 373 miles Take-off run (biplane) 250m 820ft Landing speed (biplane) 115km/h 71.5 mph

Sukhoi T-37 Posted by admin in Soviet x-plenes on November 9, 2015 Purpose: To meet an IA-PVO demand for a high-performance automated interception system. Design Bureau: OKB-51 ofP O Sukhoi, Moscow. In late 1957 the threat of USAF strategic bombers able to cruise at Mach 2 (B-58) and Mach 3 (B-70) demanded a major up­grade in the PVO defence system. At the start of 1958 a requirement was issued for manned interceptors with a speed of 3,000km/h (l,864mph) at heights up to 27km (88,583ft). Mikoyan and Sukhoi responded. Creation of the T-3A-9 interception system was autho­rised by the Council of Ministers on 4th June 1958. The air vehicle portion of this system was 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 the first half of 1959. In February 1960 the single flight article was approaching completion when without warning the GKAT (State Com­mittee for Aviation Equipment) terminated the programme and ordered that the T-37 should be scrapped. The role was temporari­ly met by the Tu-128 and in full by the MiG-25P. Though derived from the T-3 the T-37 was an entirely new aircraft which, because of aerodynamic guidance by CAHI (TsAGI) and the use of the same type of engine, had more in common with the MiG Ye-150. The T-3A-9 system comprised this aircraft plus the Looch (ray) ground control system, the ground and airborne radars, a Barometr-2 data link, Kremniy-2M (silicon) NPP (sight) system and two Mikoyan K-9 (R-38) missiles. The aircraft had a wing which was basically a strength­ened version of the T-3 wing, with no dog­tooth and with anhedral increased to 3° (ie, -3° dihedral). Each flap could be extended out on two rails to 25° and did not have an inner corner cut off at an angle. A more im­portant change was that to avoid scraping the tail on take-off or landing the main landing gears were lengthened, which meant that the wheels were housed at an oblique angle in the bottom of the fuselage. The fuselage was totally new, with a ruling diameter of 1.7m (12ft 7in). This was dictated by the Tumanskii R-l5-300 afterburning turbojet, with dry and reheat ratings of 6,840kg (15,080 Ib) and 10,150kg (22,380 Ib) respectively. The TsP-1 radar was housed in a precisely contoured radome whose external profile formed an Os – watitsch centrebody with three cone angles to focus Shockwaves on the sharp inlet lip. The whole centrebody was translated to front and rear on rails carried by upper and lower inlet struts. Surplus air could be spilt through two powered doors in each duct outer wall at Frame 8. The pressurized cockpit had a KS-2 seat and a vee windscreen ahead of a low- drag upward-hinged canopy with a metal­skinned fixed rear fairing. The detachable rear fuselage was made mainly of welded ti­tanium, and terminated in an ejector sur­rounding the engine’s own variable nozzle. Initially a sliding ring, this ejector was changed to an eight-flap design during proto­type manufacture. Ram air cooling inlets were provided at Frames 25 and 29, and in the detachable rear section were four door-type airbrakes. Under this section were two radial underfins, each incorporating a steel bumper. Pivoted 140mm (51/2in) below mid­level the tailplanes had 5° anhedral and did not need anti-flutter rods as they were irre­versibly driven over a range of ±2°. Each main landing gear had levered-suspension carrying a plate-braked KT-89 wheel with an 800 x 200mm 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 4,800 litres (1,056 Imperial gallons) of fuel could be housed in three fuselage tanks (No 3 being of bladder type) and Nos 4 and 5 between wing spars 2 and 3. Provision was made for a 930 litre (204.6Imperial gallon) drop tank. Missile pylons could be attached ahead of the ailerons. Avionics included the radar, RSIU – 5A vhf/uhf with fin-cap antennas, RSBN-2 Svod (arch) navaid and SOD-57M transpon­der (both with fin slot antennas), Put (course) longer-range navaid, MRP-56P marker receiv­er, SRZO-2 Khrom-Nikel (chrome-nickel) IFF, Lazur (azure) beam/beacon receiver of the Looch/Vozdukh (rising) ground control sys­tem, KSI compass system and a ventral blade antenna for the flight-te st telemetry. Like the rival Mikoyan Ye-150 series (which were produced more quickly) this weapon system was overtaken by later designs. Dimensions Span 8.56 m 28 ft 1 in Length overall 1 9.4 1 3 m 63ft8!iin Wing area (gross) 34 m2 366 ft2 (net) 24.69 m2 265.8ft2 Weights Empty 7,260kg 16,005Ib Loaded (normal) 1 0, 750 kg 23,699 Ib (maximum) 12 tonnes 26,455 Ib Performance (estimated) Max speed at 15 km (49,21 3 ft) 3,000 km/h Service ceiling 25-27 km Range 1,500km (with external tank) 2,000 km Two artist’s impressions of a T-37. Experimental Test-beds Posted by admin in Soviet x-plenes on November 9, 2015 sors and loggers, computers, oscilloscopes and many kinds ofinstrumentation, overseen by a test and research crew which usually numbers five. The flight crew typically num­bers three. Among the engines tested are the NK-86, D-18T and PS-90A turbofans, and the D-236 and NK-93 propfans. One of the pho­tographs shows a former IL-76M used for test­ing large turbofans of the D-18 family. The other shows a former civil IL-76T used to test the TV7-117S turboprop and its six-blade Stupino SV-34 propeller. The propeller blades are heavily strain-gauged, the instrumenta­tion cable being led forward from the tip of the spinner. Another Ilyushin aircraft used in significant numbers as an experimental test-bed is the IL-18. Possibly as many as 30 have been used, mainly at the Zhukovskii and Pushkin test centres, 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 ofthese aircraft is the IL-18 No75442, named Tsyklon (cyclone). Instantly recognisable from its nose boom like a joust­ing lance, this meteorological research air­craft is equipped with something in excess of 30 sensors used to gether data about atmos­pheric temperature, pressure and pressure gradient, humidity, liquid and solid particu­late matter (including measurement of droplet and particle sizes) and various other factors which very according to the mission. The sensors extend from nose to tail and from tip to tip. Other IL-18 and IL-18D aircraft have helped to develop every kind of radar from fighter nosecones to giant SLARs (slide-look­ing airborne radar) and special mapping and 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 the main radars and pointed radomes of super­sonic aircraft, though this was done mainly by the Tu-134. Total production of the Tu-134 passenger twin-jet was 853. Of course, the majority were delivered to Aeroflot and foreign customers, but a few went to the WS. From the mid – 1970s aircraft built as passenger transports began to be converted for use as military crewtrainers, including the Tu-134BUformil – itary and civil pilots to Cat IIIA (autoland) stan­dard, Tu-134Sh for navigators and visual bomb aimers (actually dropping bombs to FAB-250 (551 Ib) size), Tu-134BSh for Tu-22M Above: Tu-134 radar testbed Left. Tu-134IMARK Centre left: IL-28 for ski research Bottom: Yak-25M testing Yak-28 engine icing   navigators andbomb-aimers, and Tu-134UBL for Tu-16 0 pilots. These are not experimental, nor is the Tu-134SKh with comprehensive navaids and avionics for worldwide land-use and economic survey. On the other hand at least 15 aircraft were converted for equip­ment testing and research. One has flown over 6,000 hours investigating the behaviour of equipment and Cosmonauts underweight­less (zero-g) conditions. Several have been fitted with nose radars under development for other aircraft, including the installations for the Tu-144, Tu-160 and MiG-29. With the designation IMARK, aircraft 65906 has tested the Zemai polarized mapping radar able to operate on wavelengths of4, 23, 68 or 230cm (from Am to 7ft 7in). Arrays ofantennas look down and to the right side from the starboard side of the fuselage and a large ventral con­tainer. A generally similar but more versatile test aircraft is 65908. This is based at Zhukovskii together with a Tu-134 fitted with a giant parachute in the tail for emergency use during potentially dangerous research into deep-stall phenomena, which caused the loss of several aircraft with T-tails and aft-mounted engines. Photographs show two other aircraft from the many hundreds used in the former Soviet Union for special tests. One shows an IL-28 used for research into the design, materials and behaviour of skis on different kinds of surface. A large ski mounted under the bomb bay near the centre of gravity could be rammed down against the ground by hy­draulic jacks. On the ski were test shoes of different sizes, shapes and materials. The other photograph shows the Yak-25 test-bed fitted on the starboard side with the engine in­stallation proposed for the Yak-28, with a sharp lip and moving central cone. Ahead of it was a water spray rig for icing trials. BICh-7A Posted by admin in Soviet x-plenes on November 9, 2015 Purpose: To improve BICh-7, the next stage beyond BICh-3. Design Bureau: B I Cheranovskii. BICh followed his Type 3 with the impressive BICh-5 bomber, powered by two BMW VI en­gines, but never obtained funds to build it. In 1929 he flew the BICh-7, almost a 1.5-scale re­peat of BICh-3 with two seats in tandem. The problem was that he replaced the central tail by rudders (without fixed fins) on the wingtips, and the result was almost uncon­trollable. He modified the aircraft into the BICh-7A, but was so busy with the BICh-11 and other projects that the improved aircraft did not fly until 1932. Apart from returning to a central fin and rudder he replaced the cen­treline wheel and wingtip skids by a conven­tional landing gear. The BICh-7A gradually became an outstanding aircraft. Testing was done mainly by N P Blagin (later infamous for colliding with the monster Maksim Gorkii), and he kept modifying the elevators and ailerons until the aircraft was to his satisfac­tion. This larger ‘parabola-wing’ aircraft was again made of wood, veneer and fabric, with various metal parts including the convention­al divided rubber-sprung main landing gears and tailskid. The tandem cockpits were en­ closed, which in 1932 was unusual. The en­gine was a l00hp Bristol Lucifer, and one of the unsolvable problems was that the Lucifer was notorious for the violence of the firing strokes from its three cylinders, which in some aircraft (so far as we know, not includ­ing the BICh-7A) caused structural failure of its mountings. This aircraft appears to have become an unqualified success, appearing at many air – shows over several years. Dimensions Span Length Wing area 12.5m 4.95m 34.6 nf 41ft 16 ft 3 in 372 ft2 Weights (BICh-7) Empty 612kg l,3491b Fuel/oil 93kg 205 Ib Loaded 865kg l,9071b (BICh-7A) Empty 627kg l,3821b Fuel/oil 93kg 205 Ib Loaded 880kg l,9401b Performance Maximum speed 165km/h 102.5 mph Range 350km 217miles Landing speed 70km/h 43.5 mph Experimental landing gears Posted by admin in Soviet x-plenes on November 9, 2015 Purpose: To use aircraft to test experimental landing gears. Design Bureau: Various. No country has as much real estate as the for­mer Soviet Union, and the land surface is at times soft mud, sand, snow and hard frozen. Several designers concentrated on devising landing gears that would enable aircraft to operate from almost any surface. One of the first was N A Chechubalin, who in the 1930s was working at BRIZe, a division of Glavsev – morput’, the chief administration of northern (Arctic) sea routes. He devised neat tracked main gears to spread the load and enable air­craft to operate from extraordinarily soft sur­faces. His experimental gears were tested on a U-2 and a much heavier Polikarpov R-5. In 1943 SAMostovoi picked up where Chechubalin had left off and designed cater­pillar main landing gears for an Li-2 transport (the Soviet derivative of the DC-3) These gears were retractable, and made little differ­ence to the performance of the aircraft, but they were ‘unreliable in operation’ and were therefore not put into production. Pho­tographs have not yet been found. In 1937 Nikolai Ivanovich Y efremo v collab­orated with Aleksandr Davidovich Nadiradze to design a unique inflatable gear which of­fered a totally different way of reducing foot­print pressure in order to operate from almost any surface. Their answer was an ‘air pillow’ inflated under a semi-rigid upper sheet at­tached under the aircraft centreline. The scheme was called SEN, from the Russian for ‘Aircraft Yefremov/Nadiradze’. The pillow was tested on a Yakovlev AIR-20 (UT-2), which was fitted with a 20hp motorcycle en­gine driving a compressor to keep the bag in­flated. The only known photo does not show the wingtips clearly, so it is not known if wingtip skids were needed to stop the aircraft rolling over. In 1940 the SEN was test-flown by such famous pilots as Gromov, Shelest and Yumashev, but it never went into general use. In 1991 the new private company Aeroric, at Nizhny Novgorod (in Communist days called Gorkii), began the design of amultirole transport called Dingo. Powered by a 1,100- shp Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-65B turbo­prop, driving a Hartzell five-blade pusher propeller, the Dingo is made mainly of light alloy and accommodates one or two pilots and up to eight passengers or up to 850kg (1,8741b) of cargo. Its most unusual feature is that it has no conventional landing gear. In­stead it has a 250hp Kaluga TBA-200 (in effect a turbofan) which generates an air cushion underneath, contained by inflated air blad­ders along each side and hinged flaps at front and rear. At full load the ground pressure is a mere 0.035kg/cm2 (71.71b/ft2), enabling the Dingo to ride over water, snow or any other surface and to cross ditches, ledges and pro­jections up to 30cm (1ft) high. Cruising speed is275km/h(170mph). Though a surface skimmer rather than an aeroplane, the Stela M.52 seen at the 1995 Zhukovskii airshow was interesting for riding on an air cushion. This is contained by side skegs (underfins), a large rear flap and front hinged curtains. Kozlov El Posted by admin in Soviet x-plenes on November 9, 2015 Purpose: To evaluate a fighter with a variable-incidence wing. Design Bureau: Zhukovskii WA, Soviet air force academy; design team led by Professor S G Kozlov. Kozlov was perpetually seeking after new targets, and one that he had considered for many years was the pivoted wing, able to change its angle of incidence. Thus, for ex­ample, the aircraft could take off or land with a large angle of attack yet with the fuse­lage level. Four Russian designers had made unsuccessful variable-incidence aircraft in 1916-17. Design of the El (Eksperimentalnyi Istrebitel, experimental fighter) began in 1939. Under Kozlov’s direction the wing was designed by V S Chulkovand the landing gear by M M Shishmarev. D O Gurayev was assis­tant chief designer, and S N Kan and IA Sverdlov handled the stressing. The single El was constructed at a factory in the Moscow district, but its completion was seriously de­ layed, mainly by technical difficulties and re­peated alteration of the drawings. At last the El was almost complete in autumn 1941, but on 16th October the factory was evacuated. The El and all drawings were destroyed. The El was said to have been a good-look­ing single-seat fighter, powered by a 1,650hp M-107 (VK-107) liquid-cooled engine. The fuselage was a Duralumin stressed-skin semi- monocoque of oval section, with heavy ar­mament around the engine. The wings had spars with steel T-booms and Duralumin webs, with glued shpon (Birch veneer) skin. The wing was fitted with flaps and differential ailerons, and was mounted on ball-bearing trunnions on the front spar and driven by an irreversible Acme-thread jack acting on the While no illustration has been found of the El, this 1940 drawing recently came to light showing a fighter project with a more powerful engine (M-106P) and greater span. rear spar. To avoid problems it is believed the main landing gears were attached to the fuse­lage and retracted into fuselage compart­ments. No other details survive. There is no reason to believe that the El would not have met its designer’s objectives, but equally it had little chance of being ac­cepted for production. The only successful variable-incidence aircraft was the Vought F8U (F-8) Crusader. Dimensions Span 9.2m 30 ft 2K in No other data. « Previous 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 Next » Tweet Copyright © 2024 Aviation – airports, aircraft, helicopters … - Everything about aviation. Aviation News from around the world. Commercial and General Aviation, airports, airplanes, helicopters and other aircraft.