Tag Archives: Soviet

Tupolev ANT-9

Soviet, , ,

USSR flag USSR (1927-1945)
Passenger aircraft –  Approximately 130

In the late 1920s, one of the rising stars among Soviet aviation designers and advocates, Andrei Nikolayevich Tupolev, set his sights on solving a major problem: the country’s lack of a domestically built, modern airliner. Such an aircraft was needed not only for foreign routes but also for transporting important Soviet officials and passengers across the vast expanse of the Soviet Union.

Tupolev spearheaded a team of engineers that, in short order, designed an aircraft designated the ANT-9. It quickly proved to be a well-built machine, free of major issues, robust, and quite modern for its time. Entering service in the early 1930s, it saw extensive use by the Soviets until 1945, when the last remaining aircraft were finally retired.

The ANT-9 was the first modern Soviet passenger transport aircraft. Source: www.globalsecurity.org

History

Following the conclusion of the Russian Civil War, the Soviet Union began a slow process of rebuilding in the early 1920s. The industry it had was devastated and required extensive reconstruction. The fledgling aviation sector shared the same fate, as while it had made notable progress before the First World War, the loss of skilled factory workers,  designers, and experienced engineers left it hollowed out. It is therefore not surprising that, in the early 1920s, the Soviet Union lacked a modern air fleet, both in the military and civilian sectors.

The situation was particularly dire in the civilian sector, where the country had no modern passenger planes. The only aircraft available for this role were transport variants of the Ilya Muromets bombers, originally developed just before the outbreak of the First World War. By the 1920s, these machines were worn out and clearly obsolete, both in terms of performance and cargo capacity, making a modern replacement desperately needed.

In the early 1920s, the only way to transport groups of passengers by air was to refurbish older Ilya Muromets bombers. Unsurprisingly, this solution was far from ideal, but given the lack of alternatives, the Soviets had little choice. Source: Wikipedia

One attempt to fill this role was the KOMTA project. However, due to poor performance, it never advanced beyond the prototype stage. Lacking any viable heavy transport aircraft, the Soviet Union was forced to rely on smaller single-engine planes for most passenger transportation throughout the 1920s.

Early experiments to resolve this, such as the KOMTA project. Failed. Source: hr.rbth.com

Andrei Tupolev, already well established in the Soviet aviation industry, was summoned to the Kremlin in October 1927. During the 1920s, the Soviet aviation industry received a boost by signing a cooperation agreement with German firms, notably Junkers, which allowed the production of Junkers aircraft designs. While these first steps were met with some disappointment, they provided equipment and experience to engineers, notably Andrei Tupolev.

Tupolev assured the Soviet aviation authorities that developing a new modern passenger plane was entirely feasible. To accelerate development and reduce costs, he even proposed reusing elements from his projects that were already in development or production. Encouraged by his earlier successes in developing all-metal aircraft, and motivated by the urgent need for a new airliner, the Soviet authorities gave him the green light

By the end of 1927, the Soviet civil air fleet, initially known as Dobroflot (renamed Aeroflot in the early 1930s) issued a more detailed request for such a transport aircraft. The new plane was to be powered by up to three engines, each producing between 250 and 300 hp. It had to feature a fully enclosed cabin for its passengers and crew, a transport capacity of at least eight passengers, and a designated baggage compartment.

To speed up development, Tupolev decided to reuse certain components from one of his earlier projects. Specifically, parts of the wings and tail section, making slight adjustments so they would fit the new design. Progress was steady, and by May 1929, a prototype was ready to be presented. It was unveiled during a military parade in Moscow, where the aircraft received the nickname Krylia Sovetov (Eng. Wings of the Soviets).

The prototype was originally intended to be equipped with more powerful engines, but since none were available at the time, three 230 hp Gnome-Rhône Titan engines were installed as a temporary solution. Interestingly, the aircraft had not yet undergone flight testing when it was displayed in the parade. After the demonstration in Moscow, it was transported to Moscow Central Airfield to begin trials. On the 7th May, 1929, test pilot Mikhail Gromov took the ANT-9 into the air for its maiden flight. The test was a success. Gromov reported that the ANT-9 was pleasant to handle and easy to fly.

The ANT-9 prototype was presented in Moscow in May 1929. Source: P. Duffy and A. Kandalov Tupolev The Man and His Aircraft

Shortly afterward, more flight tests were conducted. These initial flights proved highly successful, with no major difficulties reported. To demonstrate his confidence in the aircraft, Tupolev even flew aboard the ANT-9 with his family.

By June 1929, the prototype underwent further trials, flying to major Soviet cities such as Moscow, Odessa, Sevastopol, and Kyiv. Between 6th and 12th June, the ANT-9 managed to fly a distance of 4,000 km (2,468 miles).Additional testing was conducted by the Soviet Air Force Research Institute (NII-VVS). Although the aircraft was generally well-received, some pilots noted issues with lateral stability. Fortunately, this was an easy flaw to correct, and testing proceeded without major further complications.

Following these trials, the next step was to present the new ANT-9 to the general public in Europe. A major demonstration flight over several European capitals was planned. However, before embarking on such a journey, it was necessary to ensure there were no unforeseen issues. As a final test, a long-distance proving flight was organized from Moscow to Kyiv, then to Odessa, back to Kyiv, and finally returning to Moscow.

The pilot chosen for this mission was Gromov, who had already participated in numerous test flights of the aircraft. He took off from Moscow in July 1929, though the exact date is not specified. From the very beginning, the flight was troubled by poor weather. Heavy rain forced Gromov to fly at an altitude of around 90 m (167 ft). After refueling in Kyiv and continuing the journey, he once again encountered severe weather conditions that forced him to fly at a very low altitude.

During this leg of the trip, Gromov noticed the aircraft was rapidly losing speed, even though the engine showed no signs of malfunction. Puzzled, he was forced to make an emergency landing. Upon inspection, it became clear that the issue lay in the three-bladed propellers. The blades were wooden, and covered in fabric. The heavy rainfall had shredded most of the covering, creating massive drag. This explained the sudden loss of speed.

After examining the damage, Tupolev, who was also on board with several other passengers, attempted a field repair by stripping away the remaining fabric from the propellers. Following discussions between the crew and passengers, it was agreed that some passengers would stay behind, and the aircraft would depart with a reduced fuel load. With these adjustments, Gromov successfully completed the planned return flight from Kiev to Moscow without further difficulties.

European Tour

On July 10th, the ANT-9, began a series of demonstration flights across various European capitals. The first destination was Berlin, which the aircraft reached after a 10-hour flight without major problems.

The ANT-9, began a series of demonstration flights across various European capitals. Source: Wikipedia

In the following days, the ANT-9 and its crew visited Paris, Rome, and Marseille. However, while flying toward London, an unexpected accident occurred. The aircraft suddenly went into a sharp dive, surprising pilot Gromov, as such a problem had never been encountered on this aircraft before. After a brief struggle, the crew managed to regain control and land safely.

An inspection revealed that one of the wing inspection hatches had opened mid-flight, causing severe turbulence and forcing the aircraft into a rapid descent. After a quick repair, the ANT-9 was airborne again, but a similar problem occurred once more as it climbed to cruising altitude. Fortunately, Gromov was prepared this time and safely landed the aircraft again.

A more detailed inspection was then ordered. Gromov discovered that a relay tube in the engine compartment had burst. The next day, with the help of equipment found in a nearby village, the crew was able to make a more permanent repair: the tube was welded and the hatch secured in place.

With repairs complete, the ANT-9 continued its journey, flying over the French coast toward England at an altitude of only 20 meters (65 ft). After a short stay in England, the aircraft began the long return flight to the Soviet Union.

The tour concluded on August 8th, 1929, when the ANT-9 arrived home after covering nearly 9,037 km (5,616 miles) at an average speed of 170 km/h (106 mph). Despite the technical difficulties, the entire journey was regarded as a major success by the Soviets.

Name

This aircraft was initially designated as the ANT-9, named after Andrei Nikolayevich Tupolev and following the sequential numbering of his designs. It is interesting to note that, given the high demand and importance of this aircraft, it was rushed through development and placed into production even before the ANT-6 to ANT-8 models were either fully developed or manufactured. Therefore, the designation “number 9” did not necessarily mean it was Tupolev’s ninth project.

PS-9

While the ANT-9 proved to have a good service record, the Soviets were eager from the start to improve it further. In particular, they wanted to see if the number of engines could be reduced from three to two without compromising performance. Another goal was to decrease reliance on foreign engine designs by developing suitable domestic alternatives.

In 1931, attempts were made to replace the ANT-9’s engines with two M-22 radial engines. These were mounted on the wings, while the nose-mounted engine was removed and its opening covered with a cone-shaped fairing. After some redesign work, however, it was decided instead to focus on the more powerful 680 hp M-17 engines.

Testing showed that the aircraft’s performance remained largely unchanged. The new variant was essentially a modified ANT-9, with only minor differences such as changes to the forward cockpit windows and a reduced fuel load. Following these tests, a production order was issued. In 1933, some examples received improved 730 hp M-17F engines.

All twin-engine ANT-9s were used primarily for civil transportation services. For this, its name changed to PS-9 (Passazhirski Samolet, meaning Passenger Aircraft). To distinguish between the M-17 and M-17F engines, they were designated as PS-9 2M-17 and PS-9 2M-17F.

In the hope of further improving the ANT-9, its three original engines were replaced by two more powerful 680 hp M-17 engines. These were mounted on the wings, and the installation required only minor modifications. Source: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/ant-9.htm

Into Production 

The main production facility for the ANT-9 was Factory No. 22 in Moscow. Initial plans included the production of 148 aircraft of this type, to be completed by 1934. Production began in 1929 (or in 1930, the sources disagree here), and by the end of 1930, the first batch of 33 aircraft had been delivered. In 1931, another 27 units were built at Factory No.22. At least five additional aircraft were completed at Factory No.31 in Taganrog. In total, 66 ANT-9 aircraft were produced, including the prototype. Slightly more than 60 of the PS-9 variants were built, bringing the total production of both variants to around 130

In Service

The ANT-9 entered service with the Soviet airline Dobrolet in 1931. At the time, it was regarded as one of the most modern transport aircraft in the Soviet Union, and possibly even in Europe. Over the following decade, the ANT-9 saw widespread use, transporting passengers mainly from Moscow across the European region of the Soviet Union, including some international routes. It served in this role until the outbreak of the Second World War in Europe. By then, most ANT-9s were relocated to the Soviet interior, where they remained in service until 1945. Between 1931 and 1945, Soviet airlines operated a total of 62 aircraft of this type. One of the longest-serving examples, serial number L183, logged an impressive 5,205 flight hours.

An unclear number, but at least two, ANT-9s powered by Wright Whirlwind engines were also delivered to Deruluft, an airline jointly operated by Germany and the Soviet Union. The name Deruluft was an abbreviation of Deutsch-Russisch Luftverkehrs A.G. (German-Russian Air Transport Company), which operated between 1922 and 1937. Despite the apocalyptic destruction brought by the war between these two nations, their relations in the 1920s and early 1930s were relatively good. During that time, Germany and the Soviet Union collaborated on several civil and military projects.

Interestingly, at least two ANT-9 aircraft were operated in 1933 as part of a unit known as Agiteskadrilya Maksima Gorkogo (Eng. Maxim Gorky Agitation/Propaganda Squadron). As the name suggests, the purpose of this unit was to organize propaganda operations, spreading information about the Soviet Union’s latest developments across its vast territories.

Unlike today, when information is shared instantly, in the early 1930s the flow of news was often slow and fragmented. Using aircraft to move from place to place over great distances significantly accelerated the process. Once they reached their intended destination, the crews organized propaganda activities such as dropping leaflets, showing films, or even offering flights to workers as a reward for exceptional service.

During their service in this role, the ANT-9s earned the nickname Krokodil (Eng. Crocodile), given by a satirical magazine. In a humorous attempt to match the name, crews decorated the two aircraft with a specially crafted crocodile-shaped nose, complete with a painted grin and teeth. In this distinctive form, both aircraft became widely recognized throughout the Soviet Union during their propaganda missions.

Two ANT-9 aircraft (PS-9 variant) were used by a special propaganda distribution unit. Because of the nickname they received, their crews often referred to their aircraft as crocodiles. Source: Reddit 

In Combat 

The ANT-9 was also employed during the war by the Red Army, although only in limited numbers. All of these were equipped with the  300 hp Wright Whirlwind J-6 engines.

At least one aircraft was assigned to the Turkmen Aviation Group stationed at Kyzyl-Arvat (modern-day Gyzylarbat) in Turkmenistan in 1931. This lone ANT-9 had been transferred from the Ukrainian Military District, where it was employed in support of Soviet anti-insurgency operations against rebellious Turkmen tribes.

Although the single ANT-9 was used primarily for the transportation of military personnel and supplies, it was occasionally employed as an improvised bomber. The crew could carry up to eighty 8 kg AO-8 fragmentation bombs inside the fuselage. When enemy insurgent positions were located, the ANT-9’s crew would simply throw these grenades by hand.

The Soviets ultimately managed to defeat the insurgent fighters of the Turkmen tribes, although some groups continued to resist Soviet rule for many years afterward. The campaign officially ended in November 1931. Following this, the ANT-9 remained in service mainly in transport and reconnaissance roles. At the beginning of 1932, the aircraft became part of the newly formed 95th Separate Transport Squadron.

When the Germans attacked in June 1941, much of the Soviet Air Force was destroyed, leaving the Soviets desperate for any available aircraft they could put into service.

Although not designed as a combat aircraft and lacking any defensive armament, the ANT-9 still found important military roles. It was primarily deployed as a liaison aircraft, transporting vital personnel. In addition, some were allocated for airborne assault training operations. In both roles, the ANT-9 remained in service with the Red Army until the end of the war.

A small number of ANT-9 aircraft powered by 300 hp Wright Whirlwind J-6 engines were supplied to and operated by the Red Army during the Second World War. Source: V. Kotelnikov Soviet Military Aviation in Central Asia 1917-1941

Failed Proposals

ANT-14

Based on the ANT-9, Tupolev attempted to develop an even larger passenger aircraft with a capacity of over 30 seats, intended for long-distance flights. However, the Soviet leadership had no plans for long-range passenger air travel at the time, which led to the cancellation of the project after only a single aircraft was built.

The ANT-14 was developed as an enlarged version of the ANT-9. However, since the Soviet Union had no real need for such an aircraft, the project never progressed beyond the prototype stage.. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_ANT-14

Bomber variant

Using civil aircraft as temporary bombers was not a new concept. This approach sped up development and made use of existing production facilities until purpose-built bombers could be designed and produced. A notable example was the German He 111, which began life as a civil passenger transport, which was secretly designed with a dual purpose military role. The Soviets tried something similar with the ANT-9. Although sources say little about that effort, at least one ANT-9 was tested with bomb racks under the wings and with defensive armament; the project was ultimately dropped around 1932.

Flying ambulance

Another project proposed converting an ANT-9 to serve as a flying ambulance capable of carrying patients and medical personnel. That effort did not progress beyond the prototype stage.

Specification

The ANT-9 was  an all-metal passenger aircraft with three engines, providing seating for nine passengers, plus two additional seats for the pilot and mechanic.

The fuselage design featured a square base with rounded top and bottom sections. It was constructed using four reinforced tubular longerons. The idea was to provide as much interior space as possible while maintaining a degree of aerodynamic efficiency. A small escape hatch was also installed on the upper left rear section of the fuselage.

The wing design was essentially a modified version of that used on the ANT-7. The wings consisted of a rectangular center section combined with straight-tapered outer panels. These sections were connected by spars constructed from tubular-shaped booms. The total fuel load, amounting to 972 liters (214 gallons), was stored in the wings, positioned next to the engines.

During its service life, the ANT-9 was fitted with several different types of engines. Initially, it was powered by M-26 engines rated at 300 hp. These were completely exposed, with exhaust collector rings running through parts of the wings and fuselage, and were connected to simple two-blade propellers. The M-26 engines, however, quickly proved to be the ANT-9’s main weakness. While the aircraft’s overall design was considered modern, the engines were mechanically unreliable and failed to deliver the promised 300 hp. Due to poor production quality, their actual output was closer to 240 hp. The Soviets had hoped that the M-26 would prove to be a cheap and dependable option, but its persistent mechanical issues made a more reliable alternative necessary.

With no domestic solution available, the Soviets were forced to turn to foreign designs. Ultimately, the decision was made to equip the ANT-9 with 300 hp Wright Whirlwind J-6 engines. These were paired with three-blade, variable-pitch propellers, and the aircraft’s wingspan was slightly increased to accommodate the change. By 1934, nearly all operational ANT-9s had been re-equipped with these engines. The Wright Whirlwinds proved far more reliable and performed their role without major difficulties.

Most ANT-9 aircraft were equipped with dual controls in the cockpit. However, during passenger flights, the crew usually consisted of just a pilot and a flight mechanic. As the title suggests, the mechanic’s role was to maintain the aircraft in good condition and to assist the pilot when necessary, particularly by monitoring the fuel load during flight.

The passenger cabin accommodated nine seats: four on the left side and five on the right. Each seat had a fairly large celluloid window, positioned under the aircraft’s wings on both sides. Passengers were provided with small sliding curtains. Above the seats were net-type racks for small personal belongings, while at the rear of the cabin, there was a storage area for suitcases, along with a small toilet compartment.

The fixed landing gear consisted of two large wire-spoked wheels with a diameter of 1.1 meters, fitted with 25 cm rubber tires. The landing gear legs were braced with metal struts connecting them to the fuselage and wing section. To soften the impact during landings, each wheel was equipped with shock absorbers. In rough or snowy conditions, particularly common in the vast territories of the Soviet Union, the wheels could be replaced with large skis. Finally, at the rear of the aircraft, a small tailskid was installed.

The original configuration of the ANT-9 was powered by three 300 hp M-26 engines. However, due to their poor performance and reliability, they were later replaced with improved 300 hp Wright Whirlwind J-6 engines. Source: www.globalsecurity.org
Inside the ANT-9 fuselage, there was room for nine passengers, with four seats on the left side and five on the right. Source: www.globalsecurity.org
ANT-9 side view. Source: .wikipedia.
To cope with snowy weather, the ANT-9 could have its landing gear replaced with skis, allowing it to operate more effectively in cold climates. Source: Wikipedia

Conclusion

The ANT-9 was one of the many successful projects of the well-known Soviet designer Andrei Tupolev. It provided the Soviet Union with exactly what it needed at the time: a modern, three-engined passenger aircraft. Its robust and reliable design allowed it to serve for more than a decade without any major incidents, proving itself to be an exceptionally dependable machine.

ANT-9 Specifications
Wingspans 23.71 m / 77  ft 9 in
Length 17 m / 55 ft 9 in
Height 5 m / 16 ft 4 in
Wing Area 84 m²  / 904 ft²
Engine Three 300 hp Wright Whirlwind J-6 engines
Empty Weight 3.353 kg / 7,392 lb
Maximum Takeoff Weight 5.043 kg / 11,118 lb
Maximum Speed 209 km/h / 130 mph
Range 1,000 km / 621 miles
Maximum Service Ceiling 3,810 m / 12,500 ft
Crew pilot and mechanic
Armament
  • None

 

PS-9 Specifications
Wingspans 23.71 m / 77  ft 9 in
Length 17 m / 55 ft 9 in
Height 5 m / 16 ft 4 in
Wing Area 84 m²  / 904 ft²
Engine Two M-17
Empty Weight 4,420 kg / 9,744 lb
Maximum Takeoff Weight 6,200 kg / 13,668 lb
Maximum Speed 215 km/h / 134 mph
Cruising Speed 180 km / 112 mph
Range 700 km / 435 miles
Maximum Service Ceiling 5.100 m / 16,730 ft
Crew  pilot and mechanic
Armament
  • None

Illustration

 

Credits

Sources:

  • D.Nešić. (2008)  Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-SSSR. Beograd
  • Y. Gordon and V. Rigmant (2005) OKB Tupolev, Midland
  • P. Duffy and A. Kandalov (1996) Tupolev The Man and His Aircraft, SAE International
  • B. Gunston (1996) Tupolev Aircraft Since 1922, Naval Institute Press
  • V. Kotelnikov (2024) Soviet Military Aviation in Central Asia 1917-1941, Helion & Company Limited
  • https://www.aviastar.org/air/russia/ant-9.php

 

Belyayev DB-LK

Soviet, Uncategorized, , , , , , , , , ,

USSR flag USSR (1938-1940)
Experimental long-range bomber  – One prototype

With the rapid expansion of Soviet aviation in the 1930s, radical new design concepts were constantly being developed, producing a number of eccentric designs that hoped to break the mold. Among the many different concepts, one particularly unusual design emerged in the form of a twin-fuselage, bat-winged aircraft created by Viktor Nikolayevich Belyayev.

This aircraft, known as the Belyayev DB-LK, featured two fuselages, connected by a central wing section with a glazed rear cone. Despite its unconventional layout, testing showed that the DB-LK was a stable and reliable aircraft. However, the Soviet aviation industry at the time prioritized more conventional designs for long-range bombers with the onset of war, which ultimately doomed the project before it could progress further.

Belyayev DB-LK was an unusual twin-fuselage long-range bomber prototype. Source: Reddit

History

Following the end of the First World War and the later Russian Civil War, a new nation emerged from the remnants of a once-mighty empire: the Soviet Union. During the 1920s, it began the slow process of rebuilding its shattered industry. In order to recover, the Soviet political and military leadership decided to prioritize large-scale industrial development, and enormous financial resources, manpower, and raw materials were committed to achieving this goal. As a result, new technologies were quickly introduced, leading to a period of rapid industrial expansion.

The aviation sector also benefited from this renewed focus. A series of new projects, both civilian and military, were initiated to rebuild and modernize the nation’s air capabilities. Before the First World War, in the now-lost Russian Empire, there had been considerable developments in airliner design. However, progress was halted by the outbreak of the First World War, and the devastation caused by the subsequent Civil War. By the early 1920s, the aviation industry’s infrastructure was in ruins, and many of its original engineers and experts had either fled the country or been killed.

By the 1930s, new experts were eager to test various ideas and concepts. Among them was Viktor Nikolayevich Belyayev. Born in 1896 (Moscow, Russian Empire), Belyayev showed a strong interest in aviation from an early age and was an enthusiastic engineer. During the late 1920s, he worked with Andrei Nikolayevich Tupolev’s Experimental Design Bureau, and later with Aeroflot, the Soviet civil aviation operator.

Viktor Nikolayevich Belyayev was a Soviet aircraft designer and aviation enthusiast who was particularly keen on finding ways to minimize aerodynamic drag while improving overall flight performance. Source: en.wikipedia.org

Belyayev had a particular fascination with a bat-wing, sometimes also described as a butterfly wing shape, design, featuring a slightly forward-swept wing with tips that curved gently backward. At the time, aviation worldwide was marked by the introduction of numerous experimental and innovative concepts. With such rapid technological progress, there was plenty of room for improvement and innovation, and eccentric ideas found fertile ground for development. Belyayev believed that this bat-wing configuration could significantly improve longitudinal stability while also reducing overall drag.

Like many other aircraft engineers who often lacked adequate funding, he decided to test his ideas using simple and inexpensive gliders. In 1920, he built a fully operational glider. In 1933, he managed to construct a glider designated BP-2. It used the bat-wing layout and also featured an unusual twin-tail assembly connected by an extended elevator. The glider was tested in a flight from Crimea to Moscow, towed by a Polikarpov R-5. The tests were successful, which encouraged Belyayev to continue experimenting with new fuselage designs. He was particularly interested in an unconventional twin-fuselage arrangement.

The Belyayev BP-2 was used to test some of his concepts. It successfully flew from Crimea to Moscow while being towed in 1933. Source: airwar.ru

The Development of a New Project

Following his research and experimentation with glider design, Belyayev eventually felt that he had gathered enough knowledge and design experience to put his ideas into practice. In 1934, he began working on a new twin-fuselage, 10-seat transport aircraft. Each fuselage was fitted with a 750-hp engine.

In addition to developing new wing designs, Belyayev also theorized methods to significantly reduce aircraft drag. Conventional twin-engine aircraft had their engines mounted on the wings, which inevitably created drag that could not be eliminated. Belyayev’s new concept was to extend the engine nacelles and use them as the fuselage itself. This meant that no additional structural elements had to be attached to the wing, thereby removing unnecessary drag and creating a more aerodynamically efficient aircraft.

In the late 1930s, the Soviet Air Force issued a requirement for a new long‑range bomber. Belyayev decided to take this opportunity. He essentially reused his original civil aircraft design and adapted it for military use. In 1938, he approached the Soviet Air Force with his proposal for a new long-range bomber. This time, he received approval to construct a working prototype, which was completed rather quickly by November 1939. The resulting aircraft made use of his earlier concept: it featured two fuselages that, technically speaking, functioned more like elongated engine nacelles.

The aircraft received a simple designation: DB-LK. While not entirely clear, this was most likely an abbreviation of Dalniy Bombardirovshchik – Letayushcheye Krylo, meaning Long-Range Bomber — Flying Wing. It is also often referred to by its designer’s name as the Belyayev DB-LK. During the testing phase, it also carried the nickname Kuritsa (Eng. Chicken), given by the test pilot who was afraid to fly it.

Experimental Flights

Once the DB-LK prototype was completed, it was cleared for its first flight tests. While Belyayev may have had doubts about the realization of the entire project, he likely never expected that, despite the vast size of the Soviet Union, not a single test pilot was willing to fly his plane. At this time, most pilots were still flying older biplane designs, and many were often reluctant to test newer aircraft. For example, some even hesitated to fly low-wing monoplanes, which were still unfamiliar to many aviators. This hesitation stemmed both from a general fear of experimental aircraft and, to an even greater degree, from an ingrained belief that proven older designs were superior to new, untested ones. In any case, Belyayev unexpectedly found himself unable to secure a willing test pilot.

This situation dragged on until 1940. That year, the Soviet Directorate of the Air Scientific Test Institute issued an official order assigning pilot M. A. Nyukhtikov  to test the aircraft. There was little point in keeping a fully functional machine sitting idle on the ground. To support the pilot during the trials, lead engineer T. T. Samarin and test observer N. I. Shaurov were also assigned to the project.

After several initial flights, Nyukhtikov reported that the aircraft’s controls were heavy and difficult to operate. In addition, he noted that the landing gear should be strengthened. A commission of the Scientific Test Institute, led by A. I. Filin agreed that the control system needed refinement but rejected the pilot’s concerns regarding the landing gear. This decision proved premature, as only a few days later, during a flight test involving Filin himself, one of the landing gear legs collapsed.

Despite test pilots repeatedly pointing out that the landing gear was too fragile, it ultimately took an accident for their superiors to finally realize that this was something that needed fixing and improvement. Source: militarymatters.online

Sudden End of the Project

After a series of test flights, the DB-LK, despite its unconventional, inverted-gull twin-fuselage design, proved to be an airworthy and well functioning aircraft. During testing, the DB-LK could easily reach speeds of up to 488 km/h (303 mph) at an altitude of 5 km (16,400 ft). When fully loaded, it was also capable of climbing to around 8.5 km (28,000 ft). In total, more than 100 test flights were conducted without any major incidents, demonstrating that the overall design was sound.

Complaints from the test pilots focused on the limited visibility experienced by both the pilot and the navigator. Despite this, the DB-LK was viewed as an aircraft with significant potential for future service within the Soviet Air Force.

Then, suddenly, the project was shut down. This occurred for several reasons, though not necessarily because of flaws in the design. By late 1940, war was raging in Western Europe between Germany and Britain, and a wider conflict seemed increasingly possible. The Soviet leadership did not want to take risks with an aircraft considered highly unorthodox. The DB-LK’s twin-fuselage layout likely contributed to these concerns. Instead, the authorities decided to focus production efforts on the more conventional and already-established IL-4 bomber. With that decision, all work on the DB-LK stopped. Its final fate is unclear, but it was likely scrapped.

Technical characteristics

The DB-LK featured an unconventional overall layout, lacking a traditional central fuselage. Instead, the crew stations, armament, and most of the onboard equipment were housed inside two elongated engine nacelles that terminated in glazed tail cones (gondolas), somewhat reminiscent to the aft section of the later German Fw 189. In practical terms, these extended nacelles functioned as the aircraft’s fuselage. Each semi-monocoque structure was built from a framework of metal frames and longerons, covered with duralumin skin. The two glazed cones could be mechanically rotated 360°, boosted by small electric motors mounted on top of the fuselages. This was designed to provide the best possible angle for the rear gunners, while retaining aerodynamic shape.

The DB-LK’s wings featured a distinctive layout. In addition to the characteristic “batwings,” the aircraft incorporated a central wing section positioned between the two fuselages. The wings were slightly forward-swept and ended in backward-curved tips. Structurally, they consisted of a light metal stressed-skin construction over a conventional airframe. The outer wing panels used a Göttingen 387 airfoil profile, while the center section employed a CAHI (TsAGI) MV-6bis profile. The wing leading edges were curved at an angle of –5° 42′.

The aircraft’s rather unusual wings were slightly forward-swept and finished with backward-curved tips. Structurally, they featured a light metal stressed-skin construction built over a conventional airframe. Also note the glazed rear fuselage cone section, where the rear gunner would have been positioned. Source: forum.warthunder.com

The rear tail assembly was mounted on the central wing section between the two fuselages. It consisted of a single vertical fin with a large rudder. Above the rudder, a small horizontal stabilizer was installed, fitted with two large elevators, one on each side.

The rear tail section was also unusual, being positioned in the middle of the central wing section and featuring a large rudder with a small tailplane. Source: wikipedia.org

The landing gear retracted rearward, with one wheel (900 × 300 mm) housed in each fuselage section. During later testing, this arrangement was redesigned, and the gear was modified to retract forward instead. The entire landing gear system was hydraulically operated. A small fixed tailwheel (450 × 150 mm) was installed at the bottom of the tail unit.

The DB-LK was powered by two Tumansky M-87B 14-cylinder radial engines, each delivering 950 hp. These drove three-bladed variable-pitch propellers. It was planned to replace them with the more powerful 1,100 hp M-88 engines, or even the 1,700 hp M-71, but these upgrades were never implemented as the project was ultimately cancelled. Fuel was stored in both the wing and fuselage tanks, with a total capacity of 3,444 liters (910 US gallons)..

Behind each of the two engines, a cockpit with a rear-sliding canopy was installed. The DB-LK was designed to be operated by a crew of four: the pilot, navigator, and two rear gunners. The pilot occupied the left cockpit, and the navigator the right. The gunners were positioned in the two rear glazed cones, with one of them also serving as a radio operator. Crew members entered their positions through the roof hatch doors.

Close-up view of the pilot cockpit. Source: forum.warthunder.com

Given its role as a long‑range bomber, Belyayev intended for the aircraft to have a fairly respectable defensive armament for its day, consisting of six machine guns. Both rear glazed tail cones were fitted with mounts for twin 7.62 mm (.30 in) ShKAS machine guns. These weapons had a firing arc of –10° to +10° in all directions. However, the gunner could rotate the glazed cones themselves, allowing him to reposition the guns and further increase the weapon’s effective defensive arc.

The interior of one of the two fuselages. On the right, the rear machine-gun mount is visible, while on the left side, you can see the radio equipment and the mechanism used to rotate the entire glazed tail cone. Source: forum.warthunder.com

In addition to these four rear-mounted machine guns, two more were installed in the leading edge of the center section and operated by the pilot. Altogether, approximately 4,500 rounds of ammunition were carried for all six weapons.

For attacking ground targets, bombs were to be employed. The bomb bays were located behind the landing‑gear doors in each of the nacelles. Each of the two bomb bays could carry up to 1 tonne (2,200 lb) of bombs, or alternatively four 250 kg (550 lb) or two 500 kg (1,100 lb) bombs per bay, four in total.  In addition, a container with 59 smaller bombs could have been used instead. Lastly, an additional external bomb rack capable of carrying up to one tonne could be attached to the central wing section.

Cocnlusion

The Belyayev DB-LK is one example where the overall visual design essentially killed the project. The aircraft itself had no unresolvable flaws. In fact, it demonstrated generally good flight performance. It carried a large bomb payload, and its defensive armament, while not covering every angle, was still respectable. Most importantly, it did not suffer any major problems during the initial test flight phase.

Its main downside was its unusual overall appearance, which may have caused significant concern among industry decision-makers when it came time to consider a production order. It can be assumed that this was one of the key reasons it was cancelled, along with its prototyping being interrupted by the start of the Second World War. Soviet authorities preferred more conventional, proven designs and did not want to commit to a highly unorthodox aircraft that had no equivalent or prior service experience anywhere in the world.

Belyayev DB-LK specifications
Wingspan 21.6 m / 70 ft 10 in
Length 9.8 m / 32 ft  1 in
Wing Area 56.9 m² / 612 ft²
Engine 2x Tumanskii M-87B 950 hp 14 cylinder radial engines
Empty Weight 6,000 kg / 13,230 lbs
Maximum Takeoff Weight 10,670 kg / 23,530 lbs
Fuel Capacity 3.444 l
Maximum Speed 490 km/h / 300 mph
Cruising Speed 395  km/h / 245 mph
Range 1.270 km / 790 mi
Maximum Service Ceiling 8,500 m / 27,890 ft
Climb speed Climb to 5,000 m in  13.6 minutes
Crew Pilot, navigator, and two gunners
Armament
  • Six 7.62 mm ShKAS machine guns
  • Two 1,000 kg bombs or four 500 kg bombs

Illustration

Credits

Source:

  • Y. Gordon and B. Gunston (2000), Soviet X-Planes, Midland Publishing
  • D. Nešić (2008), Naoružanje Drugog Svetskog Rata SSSR, Beograd
  • Y. Gordon and D. Khazanov (1999), Soviet Combat Aircraft Of The Second World War, Midland Publishing
  • B. Gunston (1996),  The Osprey Encyclopedia Of Russian Aircraft 1875-1995, Osprey Aerospace
  • W. Kopenhagen (1989) Sowjetische Bombenfluhzeuge , Transprees

 

 

ANT-2

Soviet, , , ,

USSR flag USSR (1923)
All-metal passenger aircraft – five built

Following his successful first attempt to develop an aircraft, Andrei Nikolayevich Tupolev felt confident in his ability to attempt the design an all-metal aircraft. Although some European nations had already tested or built such aircraft during the First World War, this concept was still novel in the burgeoning Soviet Union of the early 1920s. With the advent of duralumin production in the Soviet Union, and the experimentation with various construction methods, Tupolev began work on the aircraft known as the ANT-2 in 1922. After a period of testing and evaluation, five aircraft of this type were constructed.

Tupolev ANT-2 was the Soviet first operational all-metal aircraft. Source: P. Duffy and A. Kandalov Tupolev The Man and His Aircraft

History

The success of the ANT-1 (standing for the initials of Andrei Nikolayevich Tupovlev) test aircraft prompted Tupolev to advocate for the development of fully metal-constructed aircraft. The harsh weather conditions in many parts of the Soviet Union caused wooden materials to decay quickly. Metal alloys, on the other hand, offered numerous advantages over wood: they were stronger, more durable, and allowed for overall more resilient aircraft designs. Tupolev saw the use of wood in modern aviation as an obsolete construction material.

His view was shared by others in the burgeoning Soviet aviation industry. In 1922, a commission at the Central Aero/Hydrodynamics Institute (TsAGI) was formed under the leadership of Andrei Nikolaevich. Its purpose was to spearhead the development of factories and facilities capable of producing duralumin. One such production center was already operating in Kolchuginsk, near Moscow, where the production of duralumin, nicknamed “Kolchugaluminium”, began in September 1922. This development enabled Tupolev to start working on an all-metal aircraft.

Tupolev established his design bureau with 15 supporting members. However, the initial phase was challenging, as the new technology required skilled workers who needed training in this new field. Additionally, many components used in all-metal aircraft construction had to undergo extensive testing. Tupolev, being a cautious man, did not want to risk any pilot’s life before he was certain that the new all-metal aircraft would perform as intended. Consequently, he spent considerable time refining various designs, mostly using speedboats and gliders. In 1921, Tupolev spent some time testing his ideas and designs using speedboats from his base of operations in Crimea. The experience he gained there greatly helped him in his further work.

Work On the ANT-2

As soon as Tupolev was sure that all crucial components were sufficiently tested, the work on the new all-metal aircraft, designated ANT-2, began in 1923. The design was largely driven by the requirements of the Soviet UVVS-RKKA (Directorate of the Air Fleet of the Workers and Peasants). This was the first official request for a new military aircraft, one capable of transporting two passengers, armed with two machine guns, and would most importantly, be inexpensive to build. Tupolev and his team established a small workshop in Kolchuginsk.

Initially, there were problems as the Kolchuginsk factory was only known for producing duralumin, not for shaping it into the various forms needed for aircraft construction. Time was needed to train the workers to effectively shape duralumin into the necessary parts.

During this period, while working on various proposed designs, Tupolev had the opportunity to inspect a Junkers K16 transport aircraft. The German company Junkers, wanting to avoid the sanctions on arms and aviation development imposed by the Allies, sought cooperation with the Soviets. They even managed to set up a small production plant in the Soviet Union.  The Soviets, in turn, were eager to acquire new technologies. The Junkers K16 featured a high wing and an open cockpit, design characteristics that Tupolev incorporated into his ANT-2 project.

The Junkers K16 served as inspiration for the ANT-2 Source: Wiki
The ANT-2, when compared to the K16, exhibits many similarities in overall shape. While Tupolev drew inspiration from the K16, he did not merely replicate it. Instead, he used it as a foundation to experiment with many of his own design elements, particularly in its wings. Source: en.topwar.ru

The prototype was completed in 1924 and underwent its first flight test in late May of that year, piloted by Nikolai Petrov. To simulate the weight of two passengers, two sandbags were used, as Tupolev did not want to risk any lives at the prototype stage. Further flight tests were conducted on May 28 by a Soviet military delegation. Starting from June 11, the ANT-2 was tested with two, and occasionally three, passengers inside its fuselage. Overall, the performance was deemed sufficient, though a significant modification was required for the rear tail assembly. The rudder and stabilizer size had to be increased, subsequently improving the aircraft’s performance. To conduct further tests, four more aircraft were built. By 1930, at least one of these aircraft was equipped with a more powerful 200 hp Wright Whirlwind engine.

Fate

A total of five ANT-2 aircraft were produced. While these were used for various tests, their specific operational roles are not well documented. The anticipated military variant, which was to feature a new cockpit positioned behind the wings and be armed with one or two machine guns, was never built. The first aircraft has been preserved and can be seen at the Aviation Museum in Monino, near Moscow. The fate of the remaining aircraft is unclear, but they were likely scrapped at some point.

The only surviving ANT-2 can be seen at the Aviation Museum Monino near Moscow. Source: Wiki
In recognition of its significant role in Soviet aviation history, the ANT-2 was featured on a Soviet postage stamp. Source: stock.adobe.com

Specification

The ANT-2 was designed as a high-wing, all-metal monoplane. Tupolev chose a triangular shape for the fuselage, with the sides sloping inward from top to bottom. This triangular design provided excellent structural integrity, reducing the need for additional fuselage struts. The fuselage was divided into three sections: the front section housed the engine, the open cockpit, followed by a small passenger compartment. The compartment could accommodate two passengers seated opposite each other. Although the aircraft was intended for three occupants, this was generally avoided due to weight limitations. Passengers entered the aircraft through a door on the left side of the fuselage.

The wing was located just behind the cockpit. It was constructed with two spars connected by 13 ribs on each side and covered with duralumin. Tupolev designed the wing with a curved, concave underside. The entire wing assembly was then attached to the top of the fuselage using four bolts. To accommodate the cockpit, part of the central section of the wing was cut off. Additionally, two handles were added to the ends of the wings on both sides, allowing the ground crew to maneuver the aircraft on the ground. The rear tail assembly consisted of a metal frame covered with duralumin.

The landing gear featured two fixed road wheels mounted on vertical struts, equipped with shock absorbers to ensure smoother landings. At least one aircraft was instead fitted with skis. A pivoting tail skid was used at the rear.

It was powered by a Bristol Lucifer three-cylinder engine producing 100 horsepower. With it a maximum speed of 170 km/h could be achieved. This engine, however, had some difficulties due to its significant torque, which could occasionally damage the engine mounts. Topolev, aware of this issue, designed a strong mount to counteract this problem. To allow access for repairs, the engine cover was secured with a few bolts. The engine drove a wooden two-blade propeller with a diameter of 2.2 meters. Fuel was stored in two 36 kg tanks located in the wings.

The cockpit was open, and to enter, the pilot used a small footrest on the left side of the fuselage. The cockpit was equipped with the basic and necessary controls and indicators, such as fuel level, RPM counter, and oil pressure gauge.

The ANT-2 was powered by a Bristol Lucifer three-cylinder engine producing 100 hp with a wooden two-blade propeller with a diameter of 2.2 meters. Source: Wiki
At least one aircraft was fitted with skis. Source: en.topwar.ru
The wings were constructed using two spars connected by 13 ribs on each side and covered with duralumin. Source:  en.topwar.ru
A good view of the real tail assembly. Source: www.valka.cz
The small passenger compartment was located inside the fuselage. Source: Wiki
Top view of the pilot’s open cockpit. Source:  en.topwar.ru

Conclusion

While the ANT-2 did not enter mass production, this was less important as it showed that the concept of using metal for the construction of a fully functional aircraft was feasible. It was the first stepping stone of the new, and slowly rising, Soviet aviation industry. It was the first such aircraft to be successfully tested by the Soviets, and paved the way for further Tupolev’s research and work, which enabled him to develop, in time,  more advanced designs. In addition, it was the first aircraft that was officially ordered by the Soviets for limited production.

ANT-2 Specifications
Wingspans 10.45 m / 34 ft 3 in
Length 7.6 m / 24 ft 11 in
Height 2.12 m / 6 ft 11 in
Wing Area 17.9 m²  / 193 ft²
Engine One
Empty Weight 523 kg / 1,153 lb
Maximum Takeoff Weight 837 kg / 1,846 lb
Maximum Speed 170 km/h / 106 mph
Range 750 km/ 466 miles
Maximum Service Ceiling 3,300 m / 10,926 ft
Crew 1 pilot
Armament
  • None

Illustration

 

Credits

  • Article written by Marko P.
  • Edited by  Henry H.
  • Illustrations by Oussama Mohamed “Godzilla”

Sources:

  • Duško N. (2008)  Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-SSSR. Beograd.
  • Y. Gordon and V. Rigmant (2005) OKB Tupolev, Midland
  • P. Duffy and A. Kandalov (1996) Tupolev The Man and His Aircraft, SAE International
  • B. Gunston () Tupolev Aircraft Since 1922, Naval Institute press

 

ANT-1

Soviet, WW2, , ,

 USSR (1921)
Experimental Single-seat light aircraft – 1 Prototype Built

While the Russian Civil War was raging on, there were early attempts to rebuild its shattered aviation industry.  Aviation engineers and enthusiasts attempted, despite the chaos around them, to build small experimental aircraft to test their ideas and concepts. One such young individual was Andrei Nikolayevich Tupolev. His ANT-1 was a specialized design to test the concept of using metal alloys in aircraft construction.

The ANT-1 experimental aircraft. Source: www.globalsecurity.org/military

History

Tupolev began his career as an aircraft engineer in 1909, when he was admitted to the Moscow Higher Technical School. There he met Professor Nikolai Yagorovich who greatly influenced Tupolev’s interest in aviation. In the following years, he spent time developing and testing various glider designs. When the First World War broke out Tupolev managed to get a job at the Russian Dux Automotive factory in Moscow, which produced a variety of goods, including aircraft. There he gained valuable experience of aircraft manufacturing.

Andrei Nikolayevich Tupolev was one of the greatest Russian/Soviet aviation engineers and designers. Source: Wiki

In 1917, the October Revolution plunged the disintegrating Russian Empire into total chaos. The few aircraft manufacturing centers were either abandoned or destroyed. All work on the design and construction of new aircraft was essentially stopped. The Dux was one exception and continued to work at a limited capacity. It was renamed to Gosudarstvennyi aviatsionnyi zavod (Eng. State aircraft factory) or simply GAZ No.1. Given that he was one of few aviation engineers left, with most skilled either being killed or fled the country, Tupolev remained working for the GAZ No.1. He spent a few years working on various projects such as designs improving weapon mounts for older aircraft that were still in service.

In 1921, Tupolev was elected as the deputy of the Aviatsii i Gidrodinamiki AGO (Eng. Aviation and Hydrodynamics Department). This department was tasked with developing various aircraft designs but also including torpedo boats. In 1921 he and his team from AGO began working on a new aircraft design that was to test new concepts. Two new innovative features were that it should be a monoplane, and be built using mainly metal alloy. Its primary purpose was not to gain any production orders, but instead to serve as a test bed for new ideas and concepts. The aircraft was named ANT-1, where ANT stands for the initials of  Andrei Nikolayevich Tupovlev.  This designation should not be confused with a snowmobile developed by  Tupolev, which shared its name.

During this period, Soviet aviation officials and the German Junkers company spent years negotiating the possibility of producing a Duralumin alloy that could be used for aviation construction. Junkers proved the validity of this concept on the J.I saw service during the First World War. The German company wanted to avoid sanctions on arms and aviation development imposed by the Allies, while the Soviets wanted the technology for themselves, not wanting to depend on the Germans entirely. The Soviet Union in 1922, managed to produce their own copy of Duralumin known as Kol’schugaluminiyem alloy. The name was related to a small village Kol’chugino where this factory was located. Limited production of this alloy began in 1923.

Due to problems with the production of the new alloy, Tupolev was forced to postpone the development of his new aircraft until 1922. At that time the alloy was not yet available, so Tupovlev decided to go on with a mix-construction design, but mostly using wood. The benefit of using wood was that it was an easily available material, with almost unlimited supply in Russia. It was cheap and there were plenty of skilled woodworkers. However, there were also numerous flaws in using wooden materials. The greatest issue was a generally short service life in harsh climates as in Russia, in addition, standardization of spare parts is almost impossible to do.

Tupolev himself preferred the new metal technology believing that it would offer many benefits to the aircraft industry,  giving new aircraft a lighter and stronger overall construction. Tupolev eventually decided to go for a mixed-construction solution. His decision was based on a few factors, such as the general lack of this new material, and he wanted to be on the safe side as using metal in aircraft construction was still a new and not yet fully proven concept. In addition, he wanted to be sure about the Aluminum alloy material’s quality before proceeding to design a fully metal aircraft.

Once the choice for the construction material was solved the next step was to decide whether it was to be a single or two-seat configuration. The wing design was also greatly considered. After some time spent in calculations and small wind testing, the choice was made to proceed with a single engine and low-wing monoplane.

For the engine, three different types were proposed including 14hp and 18 hp Harley-Davidson and a 20 hp Blackburn Tomtit. Despite Tupovlev’s attempts, he failed to acquire any one of these three. It was not until early 1923 that he managed to get his hands on an old 35hp Anzani engine which was over 10 years old by that point. Despite its poor mechanical state, Tupovlev knowing that nothing else was available decided to try salvage it.

Testing and the Final Fate

The construction of this aircraft took over a year to complete. Given the general chaos at that time, this should not be surprising. It was finally completed in October 1923, and the first test flight was carried out on the 21st of October of the same year. Despite using the older engine, the flight proved successful. It was piloted by Yevgeni Pogosski.

The completed ANT-1 test aircraft. Source: www.globalsecurity.org

Following this, the ANT-1 was used mainly for various testing and evaluation. It would see service in this manner for the next two years. In 1925 the aging engine finally gave up, and this made the aircraft unflyable. Tupovlev tried to find a factory that could potentially refurbish it. He ultimately failed, as the engine was simply beyond repair by that point.

The aircraft was for some time stored at Factory No.156.  The fate of this aircraft is not clear in the sources, however, there are few theories about what happened to it. After Tupovlev’s imprisonment by Josef Stalin, his plans and documentation were confiscated. The aircraft was believed to be also confiscated and scrapped in the late 1930s. Another possibility is that it was moved to another storage facility where it was eventually lost during the Axis Invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941.

Specification

The ANT-1 was designed as a cantilever low-wing monoplane aircraft of mixed construction. The fuselage consisted of four spruce longerons. The lower two were connected to the wing spars and  were held in place with four bolts. The parts of the fuselage starting with the pilot cockpit to the engine were covered in the metal alloy. This alloy was also used to provide additional strength of some internal wooden components of the aircraft fuselage. The pilot Pilot cockpit was provided with a small windscreen. Inboard equipment was spartan consisting only of an rpm counter, oil pressure indicator, and ignition switch.

The cantilever wings were made of single pieces. At the end of the two tips  (on each side of the wings) large wooden spars were installed. Some parts of the wing were built using metal parts such as the wing ribs,  The rest of the wing was mainly covered in fabric. The tail unit was made of wood, its surfaces were covered with a metal-fabric cover.

The fixed landing gear consisted of two large wheels. These were connected to a metal frame which itself was connected to the aircraft fuselage. Small rubber bungees acted as primitive shock absorbers.

Given that nothing else was available, the ANT-1 was powered by an old, refurbished 35-hp strong Bristol Anzani engine.

A good view of the ANT-1 internal wing and fuselage construction. Source: www.globalsecurity.org
The cantilever wings received on each side one large wooden spar. Source: Wiki
The pilot cockpit received only a few basic instruments and a small windshield. Source:www.globalsecurity.org

Conclusion

The ANT-1 despite its simplicity, and being built a single, cobbled-together prototype, could be considered a great success for Tupolev. Through this experimental aircraft, Tupovlev gained valuable experience in designing an aircraft by using metal alloy. This success emboldened Tupovlev to go even further and design and build the Soviet first all-metal construction aircraft known as ANT-2. The ANT-1 was Tupovlev’s first stepping stone in a long and successful career as an aircraft designer in the following decades.

ANT-1 Specifications
Wingspans 7.2 m / 23ft 7 in
Length 5.4 m / 17 ft 8 in
Height 1.7 m / 5 ft 7 in
Wing Area 10 m²  / 108 ft²
Engine One 35 hp Bristol Anzani engine
Empty Weight 230 kg / 5,070 lb
Maximum Takeoff Weight 360 kg / 7,940 lb
Maximum Speed 125 km/h / 78 mp/h
Range 400 km / 250 miles
Maximum Service Ceiling 600 m /  1,970 ft
Maximum Theoretical Service Ceiling 4,000 m / 13,120 ft
Crew 1 pilot
Armament
  • None

 

Gallery

 

 

Credits

  • Article written by Marko P.
  • Edited by  Henry H.
  • Illustration by Godzilla

Sources:

  • Duško N. (2008)  Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-SSSR. Beograd.
  • Y. Gordon and V. Rigmant (2005) OKB Tupolev, Midland
  • P. Duffy and A. Kandalov (1996) Tupolev The Man and His Aircraft, SAE International
  • B. Gunston () Tupolev Aircraft Since 1922, Naval Institute press

 

Weiss Manfred WM 21 Sólyom

Kingdom of Hungary, WW2, ,

Hungarian Flag Kingdom of Hungary (1938)
Reconnaissance Aircraft & Light Bomber – 128 Built

The Weiss Manfrédfrom WM 21 two-seat reconnaissance aircraft. [lasegundaguerra.com]
The Hungarian Aviation industry was rather small in scope in comparison to many in Europe. Regardless, it managed to introduce a number of domestic development projects. One of these was the Weiss Manfréd from WM 21, a two-seat reconnaissance aircraft of which some 128 were produced during the Second World War.

History

In the years after the First World War, Hungary was strictly forbidden from developing combat aircraft. To overcome this limitation, the Hungarians did what the Germans did and began developing a civil aircraft industry to help gain valuable experience in aircraft design. One of these companies that would emerge during the late 1920s was Weiss Manfréd, from Csepel near Budapest. In 1928 this company began working on the design and construction of gliders and engines.

Due to an initial lack of funds, the Hungarian Air Force was forced to rely on foreign aircraft that were bought in relatively small numbers. For example, by 1937 Hungarians had only around 255 operational aircraft. To help gain more experience, Weiss Manfrédfrom began producing Fokker F.VIII and C.V aircraft under license. When sufficient funds and experience were gained, Weiss Manfrédfrom engineers in 1935 began working on a new reconnaissance biplane design.  They decided on a simple design, reusing some components that were already in production, and it would be a further development of the already produced WM 16 model, which was heavily based on the D version of the Fokker C.V.

The WM 21 predecessor was the WM 16 model which in turn was based on the C.V aircraft. [Wiki]
When the prototype of the new short-range reconnaissance aircraft, WM 21 “Sólyom” (Falcon) was completed, it was presented to Hungarian Air Force officials, who were generally satisfied with its performance and gave an order for some 36 WM 21 in 1938. At that time, massive funds were being allocated to the development of the aircraft industry. In addition, Hungarian Air Force officials wanted to decentralize aircraft production. For this reason, the WM 21 was to be built by various other companies, including twelve to be built by MÁVAG  and MWG

It was estimated that the production would commence during April and March 1939. It took longer to do so, with the first aircraft being available at the end of 1939. While the aircraft was slowly put into production, the Hungarian Air Force asked for more aircraft to be built.

In Combat

The WM 21 was primarily designed as a reconnaissance aircraft but due to a general lack of other aircraft types, it would be adopted for other roles. Its first combat use was during the so-called Transylvanian Crisis. Namely, in June 1940 Hungarian government demanded that Romania return the Transylvania region to them. Since it looked like war was coming, Hungarian Air Force began relocating its aircraft close to the Romanian border. Thanks to the commencement of negotiations, no war broke out. But by late August the Hungarians ordered a complete mobilization as the negotiation led nowhere.

While primarily intended to be used as a reconnaissance airfare it would be also used in other roles even as a light bomber. [lasegundaguerra.com]
Germany did not want to lose its vital Romanian oil supply and forced both countries to begin new negotiations under German and Italian supervision. While the negotiations were underway, some smaller air skirmishes occurred. On the 27th of August, a Romanian He 112 attacked a Hungarian Ca 135 aircraft, which was heavily damaged and one crew member was killed. The following day a WM-21 piloted by Captain János Gyenesin, dropped bombs on the Romain Szatmárnémeti airfield in retaliation for the lost airman. On its way back it crash-landed, damaging the aircraft. In the end, Hungary emerged as the victor, gaining large territorial concessions over the Romanians.

When the April War broke out on the 6th of April 1941, between the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and the Axis, the Hungarians joined the offensive. They employed their 1st Air Brigade which had some 60 aircraft. By the 17th of April, the war was over, and the Hungarian Air Force had lost 6 aircraft including one WM 21.

A colorized picture of the WM 21 rearview. [all-aero.com]
On the 26th of June 1941, the Hungarian town of Kassa was bombed by three aircraft. The circumstance of this incident is not clear even to this day, but the Hungarian government asserted that it was a Soviet attack. The decision was made to declare war on the Soviet Union as a response.  For the initial operation in the war against the Soviets, the Hungarian Air Force allocated 25 bombers (Ju 86 and Ca 135), 18 CR 42 fighters, and the 8th and 10th reconnaissance squadrons each equipped with 9 WM 21.

By 1942 most WM 21’s were allocated for use by training schools and as liaisons. Some would be used in later years for anti-partisan operations. By the end of the war, some WM 21 pilots managed to reach Austria where they hoped to surrender to the Western Allies.

Technical Characteristics 

The WM 21 was a mixed-construction, biplane aircraft, designed to fulfill multiple roles. The fuselage and the wings were of metal construction which was covered in fabric. The lower and the upper wings were connected with each other by one “N” shaped metal strut on each side. In addition, there were two “V” shaped metal brackets that were connected with the fuselage and the upper wing.  Lastly, there were two larger metal struts on each side that connected the landing gears to the top wing.

The WM 21 was a biplane two-seater aircraft. The lower and upper wings were held in place by various smaller metal bars, connecting them to each other and to the fuselage. [all-aero.com]
The landing gear consisted of two fixed road wheels and a rear-positioned landing skid. Partly-covered front wheels were connected to the aircraft fuselage by three large metal bins.

Initially, the WM 21 was powered by an 870 hp Weiss WM K-14A radial piston engine. With this engine, the WM 21 could reach a maximum speed of 320 km/h. Later produced aircraft were equipped with a stronger 1,000 hp WM K-14B engine. With this engine, the maximum speed was increased to 380 km/h.

The pilot and the observer/machine gunner were placed in two separate open cockpits, the front for the pilot, and the rear for the observer.  For better downward visibility the observer was provided with two fairly large glass panels, placed just under him on both fuselage sides.

Side view of the WM 21. Note the small glass panel located under the observer cockpit. [lasegundaguerra.com]
The WM 21 was armed with two forward-firing 7.92 mm Gebauer machine guns. One additional defensive machine gun was placed in a flexible mount which was installed in the rear cockpit. Additionally, the offensive capabilities of the aircraft could be increased by adding bombs. The bomb bay was placed between the two crew members. To release the bomb the crews would use a release mechanism. The bomb load could consist either of 12 10kg anti-personnel bombs, or 60 1kg incendiary bombs. Later versions increased the bomb load to around 300 kg.

To the rear an additional 7.92 mm Gebauer machine gun was placed in a rotating mount for self-defense. [airwar.ru]

Production and Modifications

The WM 21 was produced in four small series. When the production ended in 1942 some 128 aircraft would be constructed. While designed by Manfred Weiss, this factory produced only 25 aircraft. The MAVAG produced 43 with the 60 being built by MWG. Due to the relatively low production numbers, only one modification of the original aircraft was ever made:

  •  WM 21A – Powered with an 870 hp Weiss WM K-14A engine,
  • WM 21B – Slightly improved version powered by 1.000 hp  WM K-14B engine
Some 128 WM 21 would be built by 1942 when the production ended. [all-aero.com]

Conclusion

The WM 21 was a Hungarian reconnaissance aircraft that would see service on several different fronts. While initially used in its intended role, it quickly became obsolete and was allocated to secondary missions, as a training aircraft or for liaison missions. Due to a lack of adequate aircraft, some WM 21would even see service as combat aircraft against Partisans forces, mostly in the Soviet Union.

WM-21A Specifications
Wingspan 12.9 m / 42 ft 4 in
Length 9.65 m / 31 ft 8 in
Height 3.5 m / 11 ft 5 in
Wing Area 32.75 m² / 352.53 ft²
Engine One 870 hp (649 kW) Weiss WM K-14A radial piston engine
Empty Weight 2,450 kg / 5,400 lb
Maximum Takeoff Weight 7,606 kg / 3,450 lb
Maximum Speed 320 km/h / 200 mph
Cruising Speed 275 km/h / 170 mph
Range 750 km / 466 mi
Maximum Service Ceiling 8,000m / 26,245 ft
Climb speed Climb to 6,000 m (19,700 ft) in 7 minutes and 30 seconds
Crew One pilot
Armament
  • Three 7.92mm machine guns
  • Total bomb load of some 100-300kg

Gallery

Weiss Manfred WM 21 “Sólyom”

Credits

  • Written by: Marko P.
  • Edited by:
  • Illustrations by Carpaticus

Sources:

  • D. Monday (1984, 2006) The Hamlyn Concise Guide To Axis Aircraft Of World War II, Aerospace Publishing Ltd.
  • G. Sarhidai, G. Punka, and V. Kozlik (1996) Hungarian Eagles, Hikoki Publication
  • G. Punka (1994) Hungarian Air Force, Squadron Publication
  • S. Renner. (2016) Broken Wings The Hungarian Air Force, 1918-45, Indiana University Press
  • http://all-aero.com/index.php/56-planes-v-w/15565-weiss-wm-21-solyom 

 

 

 

 

 

Belyayev DB-LK

Soviet, WW2, , ,

USSR flag USSR (1938-1940)
Experimental Long-Range Bomber – 1 Prototype Built

The Belyayev DB-LK [airwar.ru]
In the late thirties and early forties, the Soviet aviation industry had developed and tested a variety of aircraft design concepts, some quite peculiar. While generally unknown around the world, a number of these strange aircraft would represent a serious departure from anything resembling their contemporaries. Such is the case with Victor Nikolayevich Belyayev’s DB-LK experimental long-range bomber.

History

Victor Nikolayevich Belyayev, March 1896 – July 1953, began working for the Department of the Marine Experimental Aircraft Construction, OMOS, in 1925, where he gained his first experience in aircraft design. In the following years, he worked for the Central Aerohydrodynamic Institute, TsAGl, and Tupolev. During this time, he became an advocate for tailless aircraft designs. He also argued that the so-called “batwing”  or “butterfly”, offered better performance, due to their reduced drag and better stability, than regular wing designs.

The “batwing” design possessed a slightly forward-swept wing with back curved tips. Belyayev managed to construct a glider, designated BP-2, which was equipped with this kind of wing design in 1933, on which he tested this concept. During its test flight, it was successfully towed in the air from Crimea to Moscow, where it proved to have good stability and control during flight.

The BP-2 glider in flight. [airwar.ru]
The next year, Belyayev participated in the competition for a new Soviet military transport plane design. His design was unusual, as it consisted of a large wing and two nacelles,  powered by Tumanskii M-87B 950 hp (708 kW) engines. His design was not approved nor did he build a working prototype. However, four years later, he would reuse this project and adapt it for the role of a long-range bomber. In 1938, he designed the DB-LK long-range flying wing bomber, which the TsAGl approved and ordered the construction of a fully operational prototype. The prototype was built the following year by factory No.156 and by November 1939 it was ready for testing.

Technical Characteristics

The DB-LK had an unusual overall design with no classical fuselage. Instead, the crew, armament, and other equipment were located in the two extended engine nacelles that ended in glazed tail cones (gondolas), somewhat similar to the later German Fw 189. The two extended engine nacelles were, technically speaking, the plane’s fuselage. The semi-monocoque fuselages were constructed by using a combination of metal frames and longerons covered with a duralumin sheet. The DB-LK was designed in this unusual configuration in the hope of reducing the overall drag and weight and thus increasing its speed and range.

The DB-LK’s wings had a unique design, where beside the “batwings” there was an additional center wing section between the two fuselages. Also, the wings were slightly swept to the front with back curved tips. The wings consisted of an airframe covered with light metal stressed-skin. The outer wings had a Gottingen 387 profile, while the center section had a CAHI (TsAGI) MV-6bis profile. The wing edges were curved at an angle of -5° 42′.

A side view of the DB-LK. The strange wing design can be seen. [elpoderdelasgalaxias.wordpress.com]
The rear tail was located on the middle section wing between the two fuselages. The tail consists of one fin and a large 20 ft2 (1.9 m2) rudder. Above the rudder, a smaller tailplane with two, one on each side, large elevators was placed.

A rear view where the large tail and the left glazed rear cone can be seen. [airwar.ru]
One Tumansky M-87B 950 hp (708 kW) 14-cylinder radial engine was installed at the front of both nacelles. For these engines, three-bladed propellers with variable pitch were used. It was planned to upgrade these two with much stronger 1,100 hp (820 kW) M-88 engines, or even the 1.700 hp M-71, but this was never implemented. The fuel was stored in the wing and fuselage tanks, with a total fuel load of 3.444 l.

The landing gear retracted rearwards, with one wheel (900 x 300 mm) in each fuselage. During later testing, the landing gear design was changed with a forward retractable one. This whole landing gear system was operated hydraulically. There was a small fixed rear wheel (450 x 150 mm) located at the bottom of the tail unit.

The DB-LK was to be operated by a crew of four: the pilot, navigator, and the two rear gunners. The pilot position was in the left cockpit and the navigator in the right. The gunners were positioned in both rear glazed cones. One of the two gunners was also the radio operator. The crews entered their positions through roof hatch doors. The two glazed cones could be mechanically rotated 360° by using a small electric engine located at the fuselage top, but the sources do not specify why this was done.

Inside the pilot cockpit [авиару.рф]
The interior of one of the two fuselages. In the picture on the right, the rear machine gun mount can be seen. On the left, the radio and the mechanism that rotated the whole glazed cone can be seen. [авиару.рф]
Both rear glazed tail cones had a recess where a twin  7.62 mm (.30 caliber) ShKAS machine gun mount was installed. These machine guns had a -10 to +10 field of fire in all directions.  Besides these four machine guns, there were two additional ones forward mounted in the leading edge of the center section. These two machine guns were operated by the pilot. In total, around 4,500 rounds of ammunition were provided for these machine guns. The bomb bays were located behind the landing gear doors in each of the two nacelles.

Depending on the sources, the load capacity of the bomb carried is different. The authors Yefim G. and Dimitri K. note that the bomb load was 1000 kg (2,200 lb) with another 1000 kg that could be carried on external racks. According to Bill G., the capacity of each bomb bay (in each fuselage) was one 1000 kg (2.200 lb), two 500 kg (1.100 lb), or smaller bombs with a total of 1000 kg (2.200 lb) weight.

 

Both front and rear views of the DB-LK’s unusual design. [авиару.рф]

Flight Tests

While being completed in November 1939, the first extensive flight test would only begin the following year. This was due to the unwillingness of the test pilot to fly this plane. He did not believe that it was safe to fly due to its unorthodox design. During this time, the plane received the nickname “Kурица” (chicken).

In order to move the entire project testing through this roadblock, the Soviet Direction of the Air Force Scientific test institute, GK Nil WS, appointed M. Nyuikhtikov as the main test pilot, supported by aircraft engineer and test pilot T. T. Samarin and N. I. Shaurov. Under the new leadership, the tests were carried out in the spring of 1940. During the new leadership, the DB-LK was extensively tested in over 100 flights.

During these flights, the pilots managed to reach speeds of 245 mph (395 km/h) at sea level and 300 mph (490 km/h) at an altitude of 16,400 ft (5,000 m). The DB-LK needed a 2,030 ft (620 m) long airfield for landing and taking off. However, the  DB-LK was never truly trialed with a fully loaded payload. The numbers presented above would have likely been different with a full payload of equipment.

The test pilot Nyuikhtikov, after flying on the DB-LK, pointed out some issues with the plane’s design. The main problems were the inadequate overall flight-control system, poor visibility for the pilot and the navigator, especially on the ground. He also noted the poor construction of the landing gear. These reports were examined by the Nil WS Commission led by A. I. Filin. They agreed that the control system should be improved, but Filin had a positive opinion on the landing gear construction. Ironically, during a test flight, where Filin was the pilot, there was a landing gear malfunction during the landing when one of the front wheels broke free, after a possible collision with a treetop. The aircraft was only lightly damaged and the testing continued, but this led to a change in the landing gear design.

There were also other problems mentioned during the tests, like uncomfortable cockpits, low-level of fire protection, structural problems, a limited firing arc of the rear-mounted defense machineguns, and the tendency for the crew compartments to be filled with exhaust fumes from the engines. To solve these issues, there were plans for the DB-LK improvements, with stronger engines, wings, and various other modifications, to be completed by late 1940 but they were probably never implemented.

Rearview of the accident. [авиару.рф]

Conclusion

Despite plans for more testing and improvements, unfortunately for the DB-LK design team, they never got a chance to do so. In late 1940, the Nil WS Commission gave orders for the cancellation of the DB-LK program. The main reason for this was the decision for the production of the Il-4 as the main Soviet long-range bomber.

 

Belyayev DB-LK specifications
Wingspan 70 ft 10 in / 21.6 m
Length 32 ft  1 in /  9.8 m
Wing Area 612 ft² / 65.9 m²
Engine 2x Tumanskii M-87B 950 hp (708 kW) 14 cylinder radial engines
Empty Weight 13,230 lbs / 6,000 kg
Maximum Takeoff Weight 23,530 lbs / 10,670 kg
Fuel Capacity 3.444 l
Maximum Speed 300 mph / 490 km/h
Cruising Speed 245 mph / 395  km/h
Range 790 mi /  1.270 km
Maximum Service Ceiling 27,890 ft / 8,500 m
Climb speed Climb to 3,000 m in  8 minutes
Crew Pilot, navigator, gunner and radio operator/gunner
Armament
  • Six 7.62 mm ShKAS machine gun
  • Two 1,000 kg bombs or Four 500 kg bombs

Gallery

Illustration by Godzilla

Credits

  • Article written by Marko P.
  • Edited by Stan L. & Henry H.
  • Illustration by Godzilla

Sources

  • Y. Gordon, D, Khazanov (1999), Soviet Combat Aircraft Of The Second World War, Midland Publishing
  • Yefim G. and Bill G (2000), Soviet X-Planes, Midland Publishing
  • Peter G. D. (2015), Soviet Aircraft Industry, Fonthill Media
  • D. Nešić (2008), Naoružanje Drugog Svetskog Rata SSSR, Beograd.
  • Aviamuseum

 

 

 

Yakovlev Yak-4

Soviet, WW2, ,

USSR flag USSR (1939)
Light Bomber – 90 to 100 Built

The Yak-4. [Wiki]
Following the failure of the Yak-2, Yakovlev attempted to salvage the project. One of the attempts that saw limited production was the Yak-4. While it would be powered by a somewhat stronger engine, it too would prove to be a failure and only some 100 aircraft would be built by 1941.

The Yak-2 Failure

While the Yak-2 prototype initially had excellent flying characteristics, once it was actually fully equipped with its military equipment, its performance dropped dangerously. A large number of issues, like overheating, poor flight stability, and problems with its hydraulics, were also noted during the development phase. Despite this, some 100 aircraft would be built and some were even issued for operational use.

Yak-2 side view. [Gordon & Khazanov, Soviet Combat Aircraft]
One of the many weak points of the Yak-2 was its problematic Klimov M-103 engine. The Soviet designers decided to replace this with the more powerfulr M-105 engine. Two basic designs emerged, one for a dive bomber and one for a short-range bomber. During its first test flight, the dive bomber variant proved to be so disappointing that the project was canceled. The bomber version, however, showed to be somewhat promising and the green light for its development was given.

Development History

The development of the BB-22bis (also known as Izdeliye 70bis) prototype was given to Factory No.1, and the Yak-4 designation was officially adopted only in December 1940. Engineers at Factory No. 1 started to build the prototype in early 1940 and it was completed by March the same year. This was not a new aircraft, but a modified Yak-2,serial number 1002) . That same month, Factory No.1 was instructed to produce additional prototypes for testing the aircraft’s performance by the Army, which had to be completed by the start of July 1940. The Army requested a maximum speed of 590 km/h (366 mph) at 5,000 m (16.400 ft)be , an operational range of 1,200 km (745 miles), and a service ceiling of 11,000 m (36,090 ft).

The modified Yak-2 (serial number 1002) aircraft that served as the base for the BB-22bis prototype. [Y. Gordon, D, Khazanov and S. Komissarov OKB Yakovlev ]
Following the completion of the first prototype, a series of test flights were carried out. During one of the test flights, carried out on the 12th May, a maximum speed of 574 km/h (356 mph) was achieved. On 23rd May, however, there was an accident and the pilot was forced to crash land at a nearby airfield, damaging two other bombers and the prototype’s wing in the process. Given the extensive damage to the aircraft’s wing, the prototype had to be written off. Due to this and delays in production, the first two trial aircraft could not be completed before the end of 1940. Interestingly enough, these were actually produced by the Moscow Aircraft Factory No.81, which started the production of the Yak-4 during October and November 1940. At that time, the type had not yet received official approval from the Soviet Army.

The damage suffered by the first prototype during its hard landing was so severe that it had to be scrapped. [Y. Gordon, D, Khazanov and S. Komissarov OKB Yakovlev]

The two trial aircraft were given to the Army for testing on 10th December 1940. These tests were held at the end of January 1941. The results were once again disappointing, as these aircraft had worse performance than the prototype. With the added weight of equipment and fuel, the maximum speed was reduced from 574 km/h (357 mph) to 535 km/h (332 mph). The cockpit was described as being too cramped, and with the full bomb load, the plane proved to be difficult to control even by experienced pilots. The commission that examined the two aircraft insisted that the Yak-4 should not be accepted for service. In late February 1941, the Director of Factory No.81 gave a report to the Soviet People’s Commissar of the Aircraft Industry, A. Shakhoorin, that the production of the Yak-4 was to be stopped and replaced with the Yak-3. Interestingly enough, while the Yak-2 was developed by Alexander Sergeyevich Yakovlev, he did not direct the design process of the Yak-4.

Technical Characteristics

The Yak-4 was an overall copy of its predecessor, the Yak-2, but there were still some differences. The most obvious change was the introduction of new engines. The older M-103 ,960 hp, was replaced with a stronger M-105 1050 hp engine. The installation of the two new engines also introduced a number of internal improvements to the ventilation and fuel systems. New 3.1 m (122 in) long VISh-22Ye type propellers were also used on this model. The landing gear retracted to the rear into the engine nacelles, but was not fully enclosed. These consisted of two pairs of 700×150 mm wheels.

The rear parts of the fuselage were lengthened and redesigned, and it was less bulkier than the Yak-2. The cockpit was improved in order to provide the crew with a slightly better overall view. The rear gunner received a completely new pivoting canopy. He operated the TSS-1 mount armed with two 7.62 mm (.30 caliber) ShKAS types machine guns.

Rear view of the Yak-4. [Wiki]
The maximum bomb load was increased to 900 kg (1,980 lbs). In addition, there was an option of mounting two 90 (20 gallons) or one 250 liter (54 gallons) auxiliary fuel tanks under each wing. There were six fuel tanks placed in the wings. These had a total capacity of 1,120 litres (244 gallons) of fuel.

A front view of the Yak-4 with its new and stronger M-105 engines. [Y. Gordon, D, Khazanov and S. Komissarov OKB Yakovlev]

In Combat

The Yak-4, together with the Yak-2, was allocated to the 314th and 316th Reconnaissance Regiments in the western district. Some were given to the 10th, 44th, 48th, 53rd, 136th and 225th short to medium range Bomber Regiments. The main problem for the units that operated the Yak-2 and Yak-4 was the slow delivery of these aircraft. For example, only a few pilots from the reconnaissance units had a chance to fly on these new aircraft. By 10th June 1941, only limited numbers of Yak-4s were available for service. A shipment of some 10 new aircraft was meant to arrive but did not due to the war’s outbreak.

Pilots from the 314th Reconnaissance Regiment performed several flights over the border with Germany just prior to the Invasion of the Soviet Union while flying Yak-4s. The Germans responded by sending the Bf 109E to intercept them, but they failed to do so. However, once the war started, the German Luftwaffe destroyed many Soviet aircraft on the ground. This was also the case with the Yak-4, with the majority lost this way. Some did survive though and offered limited resistance to the Germans. By September 1941, on the Northern front, there were still fewer than 10 operational Yak-4s. To the South, there were still some 30 or so Yak-4s which were still operational by October 1941. There is no information of the use or losses of the Yak-4 after 1942. According to Y. Gordon, D, Khazanov and S. Komissarov OKB Yakovlev , at least one Yak-4 was still operational and used by the 118th Reconnaissance Regiment in 1945.

Most of the Yak-4s were destroyed on the ground by the advancing Germans. [Y. Gordon, D, Khazanov and S. Komissarov OKB Yakovlev]
The advancing Hungarians, who were supporting the Germans during the Invasion of the Soviet Union, managed to capture at least one Yak-4 aircraft during 1941. The use of this aircraft by them would be limited at best, due to the scarcity of spare parts and general poor performance.

Production

The production of the Yak-4 was only carried out at Factory No.81. The production lasted from November 1940 to April 1941. Around 90 to 100 aircraft would be built, with the last 22 Yak-4s being delivered for use by late April 1941.

Operators

  • Soviet Union – Operated some 90 aircraft
  • Hungary – Managed to capture at least one Yak-4 aircraft

Conclusion

Despite attempts to resolve a number of issues noted on the previous version, the Yak-4 in general failed to do so. The problem was the overall poor design of the original Yak-2 which offered little room for improvement. The inability to improve the aircraft to the satisfaction of the Soviet Air Force led to the cancelation of the Yak-4 project after only a small number of aircraft was built.

Yak-4 Specifications
Wingspans 45 ft 11 in / 14 m
Length 33 ft 4 in / 10.18 m
Wing Area 316.4 ft² / 29.4 m²
Engine Two M-105  hp engines
Empty Weight 10,050  lbs / 4,560 kg
Maximum Takeoff Weight 13,481 lbs / 6,115 kg
Climb Rate to 5 km In  6.5 minutes 
Fuel load 1,120 litres (244 gallons)
Maximum Speed  332 mph / 535 km/h
Cruising speed 284 mph  / 458 km/h
Range 460  miles / 740 km
Maximum Service Ceiling 31,824 ft / 9,700 m
Crew Pilot and the rear gunner. 
Armament
  • Two 7.92 mm (.30 caliber) machine guns 
  • 400 to 900 kg (880 to 1.980 lbs) bombs

Gallery

Illustrations by Ed Jackson

Yak-4, 118th Independent Reconnaissance Aviation Regiment, Northern Fleet, 1943
Yak-4, Riga, Latvia, June 1941
Yak-4, 314th Reconnaissance Aviation Regiment, 1941
Yak-4, Grodno, Belarus, June 1941
Yak-4 from the 314th Reconnaissance Aviation Regiment, Babruysk, Belarus, June 1941

Credits

  • Written by: Marko P.
  • Edited by: Stan L. & Henry H.
  • Illustrations by Ed Jackson

Sources

  • D. Nešić (2008), Naoružanje Drugog Svetskog Rata SSSR, Beograd
  • B. Gunston and Y. Gordon (1977)Yakovlev Aircraft Since 1924, Putnam Aeronautical Books.
  • Y. Gordon, D, Khazanov (1999) Soviet Combat Aircraft, Midland Publishing
  • Y. Gordon, D, Khazanov and S. Komissarov (2005) OKB Yakovlev, Midland
  • G. Sarhidai, H. Punka and V. Kozlik. (1996) Hungarian Air Forces 1920-1945, Hikoki Publisher

 

Yakovlev Yak-10

Cold War, Soviet Union, , ,

USSR flag USSR (1946)
Multipurpose Aircraft – 41 Built

An impressive photo of freshly produced Yak-10 sit on the Dolgoprudny airfield awaiting delivery. [Yefim Gordon]
The Yakovlev Yak-10 was a four-seat multipurpose light aircraft designed in 1944 as a replacement for the Polikarpov U-2 (Po-2), a biplane which served as a liaison and passenger transport aircraft. Although the Yak-10 successfully passed state acceptance trials in January of 1945, it proved rather unsatisfactory with Soviet Air Force pilots, and thus, only 41 examples, including the prototype, were produced in 1946 before being replaced by the redesigned and superior Yak-12 light aircraft in 1947. Though unsuccessful in service, the Yak-10 provided valuable experience in light aircraft design and served as a stepping stone for the more successful Yak-12.

History

In early 1944, the Soviet High Command was beginning to realize the obsolete nature of the Polikarpov U-2 (Po-2) in its liaison role. In the wake of the quickly advancing aircraft industry, Yakovlev OKB (Experimental Design Bureau) was called upon to design a multipurpose light aircraft capable of performing liaison missions, ferrying passengers, cargo, and aerial ambulance duties for the Air Force to replace the Po-2. In response, Yakovlev OKB initiated a project with G.I. Gudimenko assigned as chief engineer and work commenced on a four-seat, high-wing monoplane using the firm’s pre-war AIR-6 design as a basis, which had similar traits. The new aircraft design was assigned the designation of Yak-14.

Due to the rather obscure nature of the project’s development, it is unknown when the first prototype was produced, but it is most likely sometime before or in early January of 1945. First flown by test pilot F.L. Abramov, the Yak-14, powered by a 5-cylinder, air cooled Shvetsov M-11FM radial engine producing 145 hp, proved to have unacceptable handling characteristics. This prompted minor redesigning and modifications to the prototype which would address the issues that emerged from the test flight. Amongst the various modifications, the aircraft was also redesignated as the Yak-10 (the Yak-14 designation would later be reused for a 1947 assault glider project). With the completion of modifications, the Yak-10 was resubmitted for state testing. The aforementioned handling characteristic issues appeared to have been addressed, and the Yak-10 passed state trials in June of 1945.

Yak-10 Blueprint Drawing

Now authorized for service, production of the Yak-10 was assigned to the No. 464 aircraft plant in Dolgoprudny (Долгопру́дный), approximately 12 mi / 20 km north of Moscow. A total of 40 models were produced in 1946, which were then delivered to air force units. An important difference between the prototype and production models was the conversion from the 145 hp M-11FM engine to the 160 hp M-11FR engine. During the Yak-10’s service life, several variants were designed. These included a dual-control trainer variant known as the Yak-10V, an aerial ambulance variant capable of carrying two stretchers and a doctor known as the Yak-10S, an experimental floatplane variant known as the Yak-10G, and an experimental ski landing gear conversion without a proper designation. Due to the scarcity of documents regarding the Yak-10, it is unknown how many Yak-10V and Yak-10S models were produced, but the Yak-10G and Yak-10 with ski gear were converted from standard Yak-10 models. Curiously, the Yak-10 also had a competitive experimental low-wing development in 1944 known as the Yak-13 (originally designated the Yak-12, which is unrelated to the 1947 development) which featured a split landing flap and various smaller modifications. Though the Yak-13 was superior to the Yak-10 in speed, the Yak-10 possessed operational advantages and thus won the favor of the Soviet high command. Though the Yak-13 was considered to be produced alongside the Yak-10, the act was deemed economically unviable and thus the Yak-13 remained a one-off prototype.

The Yak-10 prototype, still known as the Yak-14 at the time this photo was taken. [Yefim Gordon]
In Soviet service the Yak-10 proved to be lacking in terms of performance, which also impacted the aircraft’s ability to be adapted to more roles. Within a year of the Yak-10’s fielding, the Yakovlev OKB was once again called upon to produce a better aircraft. In early 1947, the bureau initiated another project to fulfill the demands of the Air Force. G.I. Gudimenko was once again assigned as chief engineer, but now M.A. Shchyerbina, M.N. Beloskurskii and L.L. Selyakov joined the team as designers. The new project was designated as the Yak-12 (recycled from the Yak-13’s initial designation) and was essentially a redesigned Yak-10 that featured a redesigned rear fuselage contour and a shallower upper decking. Along with some other modifications to the wings, structure and fuselage, the Yak-12 would undergo flight testing within the same year. Though slower than the Yak-10 in speed, the Yak-12 proved to be more versatile for other roles and had greater operational characteristics. Such improvement was deemed satisfactory by the Air Force and mass production thus commenced. The success of the Yak-12 overshadowed the Yak-10 and all examples were withdrawn soon afterwards. The Yak-12 would be produced in the thousands with dozens of variants and conversions designed. It would see service with several Eastern Bloc countries, as well as the People’s Republic of China, Mongolia and possibly Cuba (it is unknown if they operated this type). The Yak-12 was saw military service well into the 1970s but were all retired prior to the 21st century. Several Yak-12 models are still flown to today for recreation, airshows and other roles.

The Yak-10, despite passing state acceptance trials, was still an operational failure and saw only limited production. However, the Yak-10 was an important stepping stone in the development of the Yak-12, which was much more successful and had a fruitful service life within the Soviet Union and several other countries.

Design

A Yak-10 flies over the Moskva River near the Moscow suburbs. [Yefim Gordon]
The Yakovlev Yak-10 was a four-seat, high-wing, single-engine multipurpose light aircraft designed in 1944. The standard production Yak-10 was powered by a 5-cylinder air-cooled Shvetsov M-11FR radial engine providing 160 hp, accompanied by a two blade aluminum VISh-327 propeller. The Yak-10’s fuselage and tail was of metal construction while the wings were wooden. The wooden wings possessed a thickness to chord ratio of 11% and utilized the Clark YH airfoil. The fuselage consisted of a welded tubular steel truss while the tail possessed duralumin frames. Fabric was utilized throughout the entire aircraft for skinning. Twin bracing struts constructed of airfoil section steel tubes joined the wings and fuselage. The Yak-10 also had a non-retractable undercarriage in a taildragger configuration. It consisted of pyramid type, rubber-sprung main units and had a castoring tailwheel.

The same Yak-10 above parked at the Chkalovskaya AB during state acceptance trials at NII VVS. [Yefim Gordon]
The Yak-10V dual control trainer variant would have featured a new set of controls next to the regular pilot seat. This would allow a co-pilot to fly while both pilots sat side by side. The Yak-10S ambulance variant would have a hatch on the port side of the fuselage for loading stretchers. A total of two stretchers could be accommodated in the Yak-10S along with a seat for a doctor. The Yak-10G featured the replacement of the conventional landing gear with floats previously used in the Yakovlev OKB’s previous AIR-6 multipurpose light aircraft design. Little is known about this variant, but it is known that it did not go into production due to the loss of performance caused by the floats’ drag. The experimental Yak-10 ski conversion had the landing gear replaced by Canadian manufactured wood skis of 6 ft 3 63/64 in x 1 ft 25/64 in / (1,930 x 340 mm). These skis weighed 44.7 lb (20.25 kg). The tail wheel was also replaced by a ski which measured at 1 ft 6 7/64 in x 4 47/64 in (460 x 120 mm) and weighed 4.25 lb (1.93 kg). This modification caused the aircraft’s performance to deteriorate and proved to be only capable of operating in rolled-down airfields. Consequently, the type was not adopted for use.

Variants

  • Yak-10 – Standard production variant powered by a 5-cylinder air-cooled Shvetsov M-11FR radial engine providing 160 hp.
    • Yak-10V – Dual control trainer variant of the Yak-10. An unknown amount were produced.
    • Yak-10S – Medical variant of the Yak-10 which featured a hatch on the port side of the fuselage for loading stretchers. The passenger compartment could accommodate two stretchers and one doctor. It is unknown how many Yak-10S models were manufactured.
    • Yak-10G – Experimental floatplane variant of the Yak-10. A single Yak-10 was modified to carry AIR-6 type floats in 1946. The Yak-10G underwent manufacturer’s tests but this type was not accepted for mass production, likely due to the degradation of performance generated by the floats’ drag.
    • Yak-10 (Skis) – Experimental conversion of a Yak-10 to replace the conventional landing gears with Canadian manufactured wooden skis. A single example was converted from a standard model in February of 1947 but was rejected for service as the skis caused the Yak-10’s performance to deteriorate. The ski variant was also deemed only capable of being operated from rolled-down airfields, thus limiting the operable areas.
  • Yak-13 – Development of the Yak-10 in 1944 which saw a redesigned low-wing configuration, a split landing flap and various smaller modifications. The engine was also switched to a M-11FM radial engine producing 145 hp. The Yak-13 was superior to the Yak-10 in terms of performance, but this aircraft was not accepted for mass production as the Yak-12 was deemed better in some regards and as a result, the Yak-13 remained a one-off prototype. This variant was originally designated as the Yak-12 but the name was changed to Yak-13 during trials and the designation was reused for the 1947 development project of the Yak-10.
  • Yak-12 – Redesigned variant which first appeared in 1947. The Yak-12 featured a redesigned rear fuselage contour and a more shallow upper decking. Though the base model was slightly inferior to the Yak-10 in speed, the redesigned variant proved more capable in other aspects and was thus mass produced and replaced the Yak-10 in service.

Operators

  • Soviet Union – The Yakovlev Yak-10 and it’s variants were briefly operated by the Soviet Air Force from 1946 to 1947 before being replaced by the superior Yak-12.

Yakovlev Yak-10 Specifications
Wingspan 39 ft 4 ½ in / 12.0 m
Length 27 ft 8 ⅝ in / 8.45 m
Wing Area 237 ft² / 22 m²
Wing Airfoil Clark YH Airfoil
Thickness / Chord Ratio 11%
Engine 1x 5-cylinder air-cooled Shvetsov M-11FR-1 radial engine (160 hp)
Propeller 1x two-blade aluminum VISh-327 propellers
Empty Weight 1,746 lb / 792 kg
Normal Loaded Weight 2,535 lb / 1,150 kg
Maximum Loaded Weight 2,712 lb / 1,230 kg
Fuel Weight 207 lb / 94 kg
Oil Weight 31 lb / 14 kg
Climb Rate 3,280 ft / 1,000 m in 5.5 minutes
Maximum Speed 124 mph / 200 kmh – Normal Loaded Weight

122 mph / 196 kmh – Maximum Loaded Weight
Landing Speed 49 mph / 79 kmh – Normal Loaded Weight

52 mph / 84 kmh – Maximum Loaded Weight
Takeoff Distance 853 ft / 260 m – Normal Loaded Weight

1,115 ft / 340 m – Maximum Loaded Weight
Landing Distance 919 ft / 280 m – Normal Loaded Weight

984 ft / 300 m – Maximum Loaded Weight
Range 358 mi / 576 km
Maximum Service Ceiling 11,155 ft / 3,400 m
Crew 1x Pilot
Load Capacity 3x Passengers

Yakovlev Yak-10S Specifications
Wingspan 39 ft 4 ½ in / 12.0 m
Length 27 ft 8 ⅝ in / 8.45 m
Wing Area 237 ft² / 22 m²
Wing Airfoil Clark YH Airfoil
Thickness / Chord Ratio 11%
Engine 1x 5-cylinder air-cooled Shvetsov M-11FR radial engine (160 hp)
Propeller 1x two-blade aluminum VISh-327 propellers
Empty Weight 1,808 lb / 820 kg
Normal Loaded Weight 2,579 lb / 1,170 kg
Maximum Loaded Weight 2,756 lb / 1,250 kg
Fuel Weight 207 lb / 94 kg
Oil Weight 31 lb / 14 kg
Climb Rate 3,280 ft / 1,000 m in 5.5 minutes – Normal Load Weight
Maximum Speed 128 mph / 206 kmh – Normal Load Weight
Landing Speed 45 mph / 73 kmh – Normal Load Weight
Takeoff Distance 748 ft / 228 m – Normal Load Weight
Landing Distance 633 ft / 193 m – Normal Load Weight
Range 376 mi / 605 km
Maximum Service Ceiling 11,483 ft / 3,500 m
Crew 1x Pilot
Load Capacity 2x Stretchers + Injured Personnel

1x Doctor

Gallery

Illustrations by Haryo Panji

Yakovlev Yak-10 – Standard Model
Yakovlev Yak-10 – Standard Model in Alternate Livery
Yakovlev Yak-10 – Air Ambulance
Yakovlev Yak-10 – Float Variant

The prototype Yak-10G floatplane variant sits in a river awaiting flight trials. [Yefim Gordon]
A Yak-10 flies over the Moskva River near the Moscow suburbs. [Yefim Gordon]
A white painted Yak-10S ambulance variant. The port hatch for loading stretchers is visible beside the cross. [Yefim Gordon]

Credits

Yermolayev Yer-2ON

Soviet, WW2, ,

USSR flag USSR (1944)
VIP Transport – 3 Converted

A 1/4 view of the Yer-2ON. (AviaDejaVu)

The Yer-2ON was a VIP passenger transport aircraft designed in 1944 by Vladimir Grigoryevich Yermolayev and his Yermolayev OKB (design bureau). Based off of the firm’s preexisting Yer-2 bomber, the Yer-2ON was meant to fulfill the role of a government VIP transport aircraft which would carry government members to and from meetings in or out of the Soviet Union. Shortly after Vladimir Yermolayev died on December 31st of 1944 from a typhoid infection, the Yermolayev OKB firm was integrated into Pavel Sukhoi’s Sukhoi OKB firm where the project continued. Despite showing relatively promising performance, the Yer-2ON would eventually be cancelled due to the conclusion of the Second World War and the Sukhoi OKB’s need to concentrate resources on other projects. Thus, the three produced Yer-2ON would never be used for their intended purpose and were presumably scrapped some time post-war.

History

Diplomacy between the Allied countries during the Second World War was an essential step in defeating the Axis powers. With the increasing successes of the Allies during the war, meetings between representatives from the United States, Soviet Union and United Kingdom were held to discuss the future of Europe along with battle plans. In order to attend these meetings, the Soviet government became aware of the need for a long-range VIP passenger transport aircraft capable of carrying 10 to 12 people while maintaining comfort, reliability, cruising abilities at 13,000 ft to 16,400 ft (4,000 m to 5,000 m) and range of 2,500 mi to 3,100 mi (4,000 km to 5,000 km). After Joseph Stalin himself made a request for an aircraft meeting these requirements in January of 1944, a meeting was held between government and Soviet Air Force officials discussing the feasibility of converting existing bomber aircraft to meet this need. Not only would this save time, but also had the benefit of sharing the same airframe as aircraft already in production. In the end, the Yermolayev OKB’s liquid-cooled Charomskiy ACh-30B V-12 diesel engine powered Yer-2 bomber was chosen for conversion. Curiously enough, Yer-2 being used as a transport aircraft is quite ironic, as it reflects on Roberto L. Bartini’s 1937 Stal-7 transport aircraft, from which the Yer-2 bomber was originally developed from.

A frontal view of the passenger compartment. (AviaDejaVu)

Shortly after the NKAP (People’s Commissariat for Aviation Industry) approved Order 351 on May 23, 1944, the head designer of the Yermolayev OKB firm, Vladimir Grigoryevich Yermolayev, began work on converting the Yer-2 into a VIP passenger transport aircraft. In his address to the NKAP on that day, he promised that a completed example would be converted by Factory No.39 and be ready for tests by November 15th. This new variant would be designated Yer-2ON (Osoboye Naznachenie – Special Purpose). With most of the groundwork already completed, Yermolayev was able to complete the conversion blueprints by August. An inspection was conducted on the Yer-2ON’s plans on August 28th and was approved for production. The difference between the Yer-2ON and the standard bomber variant was the removal of all armament and replacement of the bomb bay with a passenger compartment. The passenger compartment would have been able to hold 9 passengers, as well as a flight attendant. All relevant technical drawings were sent to Factory No.39 in the Irkutsk Oblast. A total of four Yer-2 bombers were ordered for conversion, but standard Yer-2 production would run into difficulties as the diesel powered Charomskiy ACh-30B engines manufactured at Factory No.500 were found to have defects and needed to be addressed. As such, the project was put on hold for a considerable amount of time.

A rear view of the Yer-2ON. (Одноклассники)

On December 31st, Vladimir Grigoryevich Yermolayev passed away due to a typhoid infection. As a result, the Yermolayev OKB and its assets were integrated into Pavlov Sukhoi’s Sukhoi OKB firm. It would appear that N.V. Sinelnikov took over as head designer once the project was integrated into Sukhoi OKB. Once the issue with the engines was resolved, three Yer-2 bombers were set aside and were prepared to be converted into the Yer-2ON. Due to the relatively poor documentation of the Yer-2ON’s development, it is unknown when precisely the first Yer-2ON was completed, but most sources allege it was completed at the end of December. The manufacturer’s flight tests and maiden flight appeared to have taken place sometime in February of 1945. Through these tests it was revealed that the Yer-2ON was capable of covering a distance of 3,230 mi / 5,200 km while maintaining a flight ceiling of 19,700 ft / 6,000 m and a top speed of 270 mph / 435 kmh.

On April 16th, the first Yer-2ON made a record non-stop flight from the Irkutsk Aviation Plant’s airfield in Eastern Siberia to Moscow. This flight was accomplished by Heroes of the Soviet Union M. Alekseev and Korostylev over a flight time of 15 hours and 30 minutes and covered a distance of approximately 2,611 mi / 4,202 km. It would appear that a second flight would be conducted sometime near the end of April with the second converted aircraft once it was ready. The second flight had identical circumstances as the first flight (same pilots, destination, fuel load, etc). Interestingly enough, both flights concluded with enough fuel for four more hours of flight, attesting to the Yer-2’s long-range capabilities. A third Yer-2ON was converted at an unspecified time, but details of its tests (if it performed any at all) are unknown. Some internet sources claim that a fourth example was completed on May 10th of 1945, but this cannot be confirmed and disagrees with most publications.

One of the passenger seats of the Yer-2ON. (AviaDejaVu)

Despite the Yer-2ON performing relatively well and passing the manufacturer’s flight tests, the aircraft was never used for its intended role of government VIP passenger transportation. This was likely the result of the project being deemed as low priority within the Sukhoi OKB firm. At the time, Sukhoi was invested in other more pressing projects which led to the Yer-2ON being eventually canceled. Joseph Stalin himself was reputed to have aviophobia (a fear of flying) and the Yer-2ON not entering service did not appear to have consequences for the Sukhoi OKB. Nonetheless, the Yer-2ON project was dropped some time post-war and the three manufactured prototypes were likely scrapped as a result.

Design

A cutout drawing of the Yer-2ON’s interior. (AviaDejaVu)

The Yermolayev Yer-2ON was a two engine VIP passenger transport aircraft based on the Yermolayev Yer-2 bomber aircraft, powered by two liquid-cooled Charomskiy ACh-30B V-12 diesel engines capable of producing 1,500 hp each. The Yer-2ON was identical to the standard Yer-2 bomber in most respects, though armaments and turrets were removed and the bomb bay was converted to a passenger compartment with seats for 9 passengers and 1 flight attendant. The crew would have consisted of a commander pilot, a co-pilot, a navigator, a radio operator, and a flight attendant. In the passenger compartment, the left side (aircraft facing forward) had 5 seats while the right side had 4. The flight attendant’s seat was located behind the last seat on the right side, and was retractable. A luggage compartment was also provided. Another notable feature was the addition of a toilet compartment, as the aircraft’s long-distance travel routes required such a feature. Several windows were installed on the side of the fuselage for the passengers.

Operators

  • Soviet Union – The Yer-2ON was intended to be used as a passenger transport aircraft for government VIPs traveling in and out of the country to attend meetings.

Yermolayev Yer-2ON*

* – Statistics taken from “OKB Sukhoi: A History of the Design Bureau and its Aircraft” by Dmitriy Komissarov, Sergey Komissarov, and Yefim Gordon
Wingspan 75 ft 5.51 in / 23 m
Length 53 ft 7.31 in / 16.34 m
Height 15 ft 9.76 in / 4.82 m
Wing Area 850.35 ft² / 79 m²
Engine 2x liquid-cooled Charomskiy ACh-30B V-12 diesel engines
Engine Ratings 1,500 hp (1,120 kW) – Maximum at Sea Level

1,250 hp (930 kW) – Regular
Empty Weight 38,800 lb / 17,600 kg
Takeoff Gross Weight 41,890 lb / 19,000 kg
Maximum Speed 270 mph / 435 kmh at 19,680 ft / 6,000 m
Ranges 3,040 mi / 4,900 km – Standard

3,230 mi / 5,200 km – Maximum
Maximum Service Ceiling 19,700 ft / 6,000 m
Takeoff Run 3,445 ft / 1,050 m
Landing Run 3,346 ft / 1,020 m
Crew Pilot / Commander

Co-Pilot

Navigator

Radio Operator

Flight Attendant
Accomodation 9 Passengers

Gallery

Yermolayev Yer-2ON Side View Illustration
A side view of the Yer-2ON. (AviaDejaVu)
The entrance to the passenger section. (AviaDejaVu)
This photo shows what appears to be a retractable seat in the rear of the passenger compartment. This seat most certainly would be for the flight attendant. (AviaDejaVu)
Toilet compartment of the Yer-2ON. (AviaDejaVu)

Sources

 

Messerschmitt Me 163S Habicht

Weimar and Nazi Germany, WW2, , ,

Nazi flag Nazi Germany (1945)
Rocket Interceptor Trainer – 1 Built

A rear 3/4 view of the Soviet captured “White 94” Me 163S. Colorization by Michael Jucan [Yefim Gordon]
The Messerschmitt Me 163S (Schulflugzeug / Training Aircraft) Habicht (Hawk) was an unarmed two-seat training glider based off of the famous Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet. Originally designed for the purpose of training novice pilots for landing, the Habicht ultimately never saw active service with the Germans and only a single example was produced through the conversion of a serial Me 163B-1. With the sole example captured by the Russians after the war, the Habicht underwent extensive testing by the Soviet Air Force which helped them understand the flying characteristics of the Komet and prepared Soviet pilots for flying the powered Komets. The Habicht undoubtedly played a part in helping Soviet engineers understand the Komet and thus played a part in the future development of Soviet rocket aircraft.

History

A closeup view of the Me 163S showing the right wing. [Yefim Gordon]
The Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet was one of Nazi Germany’s most famous aircraft produced during the Second World War. Although bearing the title of the world’s first mass-produced rocket-powered interceptor, the Komet did have its fair share of flaws, such as the volatile and sometimes dangerous Walter HWK 109-509 rocket engine, which prevented it from becoming an effective weapon against the Allies.

As the Komet was designed to have a limited amount of fuel to engage Allied bombers, pilots were expected to glide the Komet back to friendly airfields once they disengaged from combat. With gliding landings as a potential problem for the less experienced pilots, one of the ideas proposed by Messerschmitt designers in 1944 was to introduce a dedicated trainer variant of the Komet which would have a student pilot accompanied by an instructor pilot. Designated as the Messerschmitt Me 163S (Schulflugzeug / Training Aircraft) Habicht, the trainer glider differed from the production model with the addition of an instructor’s cockpit behind the forward cockpit. This addition was accompanied by the removal of the Walter HWK 109-509 rocket engine and the Habicht would have to be towed by another aircraft in order to get airborne. Another interesting addition to the Habicht was a second liquid tank behind the instructor’s cockpit for counterbalancing. All the liquid tanks would be filled with water for weight simulation and ballast. A total of twelve examples were planned for production, but only one was produced due to wartime production constraints.

The sole example of the Habicht was built by converting an earlier Me 163B-1 production model. Due to the scarcity of information regarding the Me 163S, it is unknown exactly when the Habicht was produced and what sort of testing it may have undergone during German possession. However, it is known that the Soviet Union was able to capture the only example during the final stages of the World War II’s Eastern Front. The sole Habicht was sent to the Soviet Union along with three Me 163B Komets during the Summer of 1945 for thorough inspection and testing. In historian Yefim Gordon’s book “Soviet Rocket Fighters – Red Star Volume 30”, he claims that in addition to the three Komets, seven Habicht trainer models were also captured. This, however, remains quite dubious as there is no evidence that more than one Habicht existed, and all current photographic material, research materials, and books all suggest that only a single example was produced.

The Me 163S in simulated flight configuration aided by struts. [Yefim Gordon]
As the Soviets were particularly interested in rocket propulsion aircraft, the State Defence Committee issued a resolution which called for the thorough examination of the Walter 109-509 jet engine and the Me 163 Komet along with captured German documents on rocket propulsion. The three Me 163B Komets, of which only one was airworthy, and the Me 163S Habicht were sent to the Flight Research Institute (LII), the Valeriy P. Chkalov Soviet Air Force State Research Institute (GK NII VSS), and the Central Aerohydrodynamic Institute (TsAGI). The Habicht and Komets saw extensive testing in Soviet hands, undergoing several structural, static and wind tunnel tests. During the initial flight testing period, the Komet only flew as a glider as Soviet pilots and engineers were unsure of whether or not the Walter rocket engine was ready for use since bench tests were not completed. Securing the T-Stoff and C-Stoff propellants for the rocket engine was also a problem. In order to understand the handling characteristics of the Komet, the Habicht was flown numerous times at different altitudes, as was the unpowered Komet. A Tupolev Tu-2 bomber was responsible for towing the Habicht to these altitudes. Under Soviet ownership, the Habicht was given the nickname of “Карась” (Karas / Crucian Carp) due to the glider’s distinct silhouette. The test pilot responsible for flying the Habicht was Mark Lazarevich Gallaj. In general, the Habicht was considered relatively easy to handle by the Soviet test pilots. It is unknown how many test flights the Habicht underwent, but the aircraft certainly aided Soviet pilots in understanding the handling characteristics of the Komet. The Habicht’s service came to an end once the Soviet state trials of the Komet concluded. The sole example was scrapped sometime in 1946, along with seemingly all the other Komets.

If the Me 163S was able to be mass produced and flown with the Luftwaffe, the aircraft would have been a valuable tool to train German pilots. Landing the Komet was a problem for some pilots and in some cases resulted in fatalities but, with the use of the Habicht, the number of accidents would have certainly decreased.

Design

The Me 163S hung upside down in an unspecified TsAGI workshop for static testing. [Yefim Gordon]
The Messerschmitt Me 163S Habicht was a semi-monocoque aluminum based two-seat training glider developed off the standard tailless Messerschmitt Me 163B-1 Komet. The sole example was converted from a production Komet, which meant dramatic modifications had to be made to the aircraft. The Walther HWK 109-509 rocket engine was removed and in its place was a cockpit for an instructor. The fuel tanks in the airframe were all filled with water to simulate fuel weight while another water tank was added behind the instructor’s cockpit for ballast purposes. There was no armament fitted to the glider. There was a small transparent section between the student pilot’s cockpit and the instructor pilot’s cockpit, presumably for the purpose of communication. As there are no known German documents on the Habicht and Russian documents are scarce, not much is known on the other differences the Habicht may have had. Detailed specifications of the Habicht are unknown, but theoretically it should have been identical to the standard Me 163B-1 Komet except for possibly weight, air drag and center of gravity.

Operators

  • Nazi Germany – The intended operator and producer of the Me 163S Habicht.
  • Soviet Union – The main operator of the Me 163S Habicht. A single Habicht was captured and tested by the Soviets after the war. The Habicht was scrapped in 1946.

*Editor’s note: As noted above, the exact specifications of the Me 163S Habicht are unknown. However they are presumed to be similar to that of the Me 163B-1 Komet.

Gallery

Illustrations by Haryo Panji https://www.deviantart.com/haryopanji

Me 163S Habicht “White 94” in Russian Service [Haryo Panji]
Me 163S Habicht in German Service [Haryo Panji]
 

 

Now known as the “White 94”, the Me 163S sits idly by. [Yefim Gordon]
A closeup view of the Me 163S showing the transparent section between the two cockpits. [Yefim Gordon]
The Me 163S in simulated flight configuration aided by struts. [Yefim Gordon]
A top down view of the “White 94” Me 163S. [Yefim Gordon]
A photo of the “White 94” Me 163S in flight being towed by a presumed Tupolev Tu-2. The pilot in the photo is likely Mark L. Gallaj. [Yefim Gordon]
The Me 163S inside TsAGI’s T-101 wind tunnel for testing. The struts support the Habicht and simulate its flight configuration. [Yefim Gordon]
An alternate closeup view of the Me 163S during static tests. [Yefim Gordon]

Yet another inverted static test, but this time the tail wheel strut and tire were removed from the Me 163S. [Yefim Gordon]

Sources