Early Tupolev projects wanted


Fight for yor Right!
14 January 2007
Reaction score
Hi all,

to complete my list about Tupolev aircraft I search for some drawings of the following aircraft projects:
1) ANT.11 (MTBT)
2) ANT.12 (I.5)
3) ANT.15 (DI.3)
4) ANT.17 (TShB/TSh.1)
5) ANT.19 passenger aircraft


I forgot...

6) ANT.24 (TB.4 version)
7) ANT.32 (I.13)
8) ANT.33 passenger aircraft
9) ANT.34 (MI.4)
10) ANT.38 (VSB.1)
11) ANT.39

Thanks ;)
Hi Karsten
According to M. Maslov tactical and technical requirements for Di-3/ANT-15 considered the possibility to form a 'box' wing biplane with a turn back, it suggests (in his opinion) that he created with the possibility of its use as a carrier-based fighter.
Like contemporary Di-3 - attack aircraft ShON (TsKB # 23) had a folding wings for this very reason.

ANT-33, 34, 39-No further details are known.

(Sources Petrov "Seaplane Russia"
Journal of Aviation and Space


  • ANT-11.jpg
    123.2 KB · Views: 865
  • ANT-17.jpg
    60.2 KB · Views: 734
  • ANT-15.jpg
    70.5 KB · Views: 696
  • ANT-19.jpg
    56.3 KB · Views: 675
Oh my good ::)

thanks Anatolyi, what a big surprise...
Very nice projects by Tupolev, do you know more about ANT.12, ANT.24 and ANT.38 ???

Thanks again
ANT-34: Prepared in response to an Air Force requirement for a twin-engined fighter-cruiser, the ANT-34 was to have been powered by two Wright Cyclone engines, but the proposal was cancelled.

Source: TUPOLEV - THE MAN AND HIS AIRCRAFT by Paul Duffy and Andrei Kandalov, SAE International 1996
ANT-34 (MI-4) multi-seat fighter
In developing the concept of multi-seat fighters
in the first half of the 1930s, the OKB
worked on the project for an MI-4 fighter with
the in-house designation ANT-34. No further
details are known.

(Source: Gordon "OKB Tupolew")
Sorry all, I recall this old topic because I'm looking for some Tupolev Shturmovik project's info.
Does someone know more about ANT-17?
And what is this? Maybe a fantasy-modified ANT-4?


  • tshb-i.jpg
    9 KB · Views: 480

has anyone a drawing to ANT-29 a passenger project version of ANT-27 ?.

Sorry all, I recall this old topic because I'm looking for some Tupolev Shturmovik project's info.
Does someone know more about ANT-17?
And what is this? Maybe a fantasy-modified ANT-4?
This ANT-18. Armored attack. Modification of the R-6 with two motors M-34.
As well as the ANT-17 was designed on the technical task TShB-1 (heavy armored attack)
has anyone a drawing to ANT-29 a passenger project version of ANT-27 ?.
I have no picture ANT-29 (2nd) - passenger version of ANT-27, but I do not think that it was very different to the example of the ANT-22 passenger version.


  • ANT-22 (passenger var.).jpg
    ANT-22 (passenger var.).jpg
    187.6 KB · Views: 69
Hi! Tupolev: The Man and His Aircraft


  • Tupolev_The_Man_and_His_Aircraft.jpg
    49.3 KB · Views: 57


  • ANT-12.jpg
    129.1 KB · Views: 47
  • ANT-12 PIC2.jpg
    ANT-12 PIC2.jpg
    14.5 KB · Views: 40
visvirtusvoluntas said:
Sorry all, I recall this old topic because I'm looking for some Tupolev Shturmovik project's info.
Does someone know more about ANT-17?
And what is this? Maybe a fantasy-modified ANT-4?

Hi! Attack aircraft HS-b?
blackkite said:


The Polikarpov/Grigorovich I-5 is not the ANT-12, and isn't even based on ANT-12 project. When it became clear than ANT-12 would not be built in terms, the task was transmitted to TsKB; but they created totally new aircraft, only the specification was the same. ANT-12 was never built, even its project wasn't finished, and no pictures of it are known until now. But it's known that ANT-13 (I-8) was developed from ANT-12 preliminary project. So I can guess that if ANT-12 would be built, it would look much like ANT-13 but with radial engine.
Ummm.......Thanks a lot.

Some information.
blackkite said:
Some information.

I can't recommend this book as a good source. There is a lot of silly mistakes in it.
The confusion arises because there were two I-5s, one from Tupolev's design team and one from Polikarpov's. Both were designed in response to a requirement for a highly maneuverable, radial-engined fighter.

According to my sources, the Sukhoi-designed ANT-12 was the first I-5. It was of composite construction, unlike Sukhoi's preceding, all-metal I-4, subsequent I-13, and all of Tupolev's other projects. The Tupolev-led bureau focused on all-metal structures. This and the demands of the bomber program caused progress to be slow.

Both the ANT-12 (I-5) and the competing Polikarpov I-6 were delivered late, and neither was considered satisfactory. As a result neither was chosen for production, and the Soviet air force found itself without a modern figher.

After Polikarpov and most of his team were imprisoned in 1929, they rapidly designed a new fighter that was broadly similar to their I-6. This was designated VT-11/VT-12/VT-13. This design proved acceptable. So it was was put into production using the designation I-5, being the fifth Soviet production fighter (following the Polikarpov I-1, Grigorevich I-2, Polikarpov I-3, and Tupolev/Sukhoi I-4).

So the production I-5 was a derivative of the earlier I-6. It was unrelated to the Ant-12/I-5 except to the extent that it originated from the same government requirement.

Sources: Les Chasseurs Polikarpov by Herbert Leonard (Docavia, 2004); OKB Tupolev: A History of the Design Bureau and its Aircraft, by Yefin Gordon and Vladimir Rigmant (Midland, 2005)
Hi! Wikipedia says that.....

"The 1928 Five-Year Plan ordered the Tupolev design bureau to develop a mixed-construction (metal and wood/fabric) biplane fighter powered by a Bristol Jupiter VII engine with the first prototype completed by 1 September 1929. The new fighter was designated I-5 (Istrebitel'—Fighter), but had the internal Tupolev designation of ANT-12. Concurrently, Nikolai Nikolaevich Polikarpov's group was tasked with creating a wood-construction aircraft designated as the Polikarpov I-6 to the same specification. The I-5 design, begun by Pavel Sukhoi, under the supervision of Andrei Tupolev, lagged because the Tupolev bureau was preoccupied with large bombers. As the result the I-5 and I-6 projects were unified in 1929 under Polikarpov's leadership, although neither project met its specified completion date."


So I think that Tupolev ANT-12(I-5) was realized as Polikarpov I-5.


  • i5-7.jpg
    94.8 KB · Views: 307
blackkite said:
Hi! Wikipedia says that.....

That's English Wikipedia, and the article is based mostly on foreign (non-Russian) sources. It doesn't take into account the newest publications on I-5 by such renowned Russian aviation historians like Mikhail Maslov and Vladimir Ivanov. The only Russian source of it is Shavrov book which is a great work, of course, but is old enough. And even Shavrov didn't proclaim that Polikarpov I-5 is based on ANT-12; vice versa, he states that its general arrangement was almost the same as in Polikarpov's previous fighter project, the I-6 (with the exception of girder fuselage made of welded steel tubes, instead of wooden monocoque), while ANT-12 project became the basis for ANT-13/I-8.

By the way (the following info is from M.Maslov's book "First fighters of the USSR - from I-1 to I-5" published in 2012), ANT-12 story didn't finished when TsKB beginned the work on their own I-5. On February 10, 1930 the task for TsAGI to build a biplane fighter of composite construction with Jupiter VII engine was confirmed. Pavel Sukhoi reported that the full set of design drawings is completed, the fuselage girder and two full-scale wooden mockups of the aircraft are made. The ANT-12 was finally cancelled only in Summer 1930, when Polikarpov's I-5 (first flown on April 29, 1930) was under tests in the NII VVS and it was already evident that it is a good aircraft.

P.S. According to Maslov, initial Tupolev's proposition (in the year 1927) for what became the ANT-12 was simply to redesign the I-4 (ANT-5) from full-metal to composite construstion;).


  • first fighters.jpg
    first fighters.jpg
    62.1 KB · Views: 302
Redstar's detailed response makes sense and is fully in accord with the sources I quoted. Only the interesting detail about the ANT-12 being a composite-construction I-4 is new to me.

Wikipedia is a great encyclopedia that gains significantly in reliability by being crowd-sourced. But it is still an encyclopedia, a tertiary source. It deliberately bars primary sources and original research/synthesis (secondary sources). What a third-hand publication gains in accessibility and comprehensiveness is always offset to some degree by reduced accuracy when it comes to details and less insightful interpretation.

The idea that the Polikarpov I-5 was somehow an amalgam of the ANT-12/I-5 and the I-6 seems unlikely, given the very different design principles of the two organizations. Both teams used types of mixed/composite construction. But the types were very different.

Tupolev aircraft like the Sukhoi I-4/ANT-5 used a Junkers-style structure built up from metal tubes and covered with corrugated aluminum alloy sheet. Y. Gordon mentions an I-4 variant that was studied with mixed, wood/metal construction "split" wings that was studied until 1931 but never flown (might this be a reference to Redstar's ANT-13?). But adding wood components to an ANT-5/I-4 wing would be a very different sort of mixed constrution from the type Polikarpov practiced.

The I-6 and the production Polikarpov I-5 used the kind of classic, mixed construction pioneered by Anthony Fokker in the D-VII. The I-6's wings were fabric-covered with wooden spars. Aluminum alloy was used for wing ribs, control surface framing, and struts. The fuselage was a wooden semi-monococque covered with strips of wood veneer (shpon). The engine was mounted on a framework of welded steel tubes and cowled with aluminum alloy panels. The VT-11 (prototype of the production I-5) and the production I-5s abandoned the semi-monococque fuselage construction. A welded, steel tube box beam formed the main structure of the fuselage. This was faired to an oval section with aluminum alloy formers and stringers, covered in fabric and by detachable aluminum panels around the engine. The outer wing panels had wooden spars and ribs. These were joined to an all-metal center section. Control surfaces were aluminum-alloy framed, as were the fin and rudder. All surfaces were fabric-covered.

The requirement for what became the Polikarpov I-5 followed closely on initial producion of the all-metal Tupolev/Sukhoi I-4. It was clearly meant to address shortcomings in its predecessor. The most obvious advantage of the newer design is that it did not rely so heavilly on aluminum alloy. Wood and steel were more readily available and, more importantly, more familiar to the work force. The I-6/VT-11/I-5 would thus have been easier to produce in quantity at a time when all Soviet production facilities were having trouble meeting delivery schedules and quality requirements.

Once we see the I-6/VT-ll as a rival to the I-4, the idea of a combined I-13/I-6 project seems unlikely on political as well as technical grounds. The period we are discussing, 1928-1930, was the period when Stalin's big purges were affecting the aviation industry. Designers were blaming delays and poor test results on factories that couldn't meet quality controls or schedules. Factories were in turn blaming designers for "unproducible" designs. So both Polikarpov and Tupolev had an interst in the other's failure. As the champion of all-metal airframes, Tupolev did not want to see old-fashioned, not-invented-here products proving that his own engneering approach was at fault for production shortfalls. Polikarpov likewise did not want his success as a fighter designer to be compromised by the real or perceived production bottlenecks rooted in Tupolev's single-minded devotion to metal. So they criticized each other, interfered with each other's requisitions, etc. until Polikarpov was arrested and imprisoned for "bourgeois sabotage" (Tupolev's chance would come too, soon enough).

The I-6 was completed and successfully test flown after Polikarpov was imprisoned, under Kocherygin's direction. But it was not fully developed or cleared for production. With the I-6 out of the way, Tupolev seems to have lost what little incentive he had for a mixed construction ANT-13. Apparently, his position remained that the I-4/ANT-5 was good enough, and nothing substantive came of the ANT-13.

However, the air force still lacked a modern, mass-production fighter. So, under secret police managment, Polikarpov designed his VT-11/I-5 essentially as an I-6 with a lighter, easier to build fuselage and a revised wing structure--the published dimensions of the I-6, VT-11/12/13, and prodution I-5 are virtually identical. There is no obvious sign of any Tupolev/Sukhoi influence.
Hi! Tupolev I-4, Polikarpov I-5/I-6 and Tupolev ANT-13.
According to redstar72-san,
"ANT-12 was simply to redesign the I-4 (ANT-5) from full-metal to composite construstion.
ANT-12 project became the basis for ANT-13/I-8."

According to iverson-san,
"Polikarpov designed his VT-11/I-5 essentially as an I-6 with a lighter, easier to build fuselage and a revised wing structure--the published dimensions of the I-6, VT-11/12/13, and prodution I-5 are virtually identical. There is no obvious sign of any Tupolev/Sukhoi influence."


  • Tupolev I-4.gif
    Tupolev I-4.gif
    91.8 KB · Views: 257
  • Polikarpov I-5.jpg
    Polikarpov I-5.jpg
    175.2 KB · Views: 252
  • Tupolev Ant13.jpg
    Tupolev Ant13.jpg
    43.7 KB · Views: 237
  • Polikarpov I-6.jpg
    Polikarpov I-6.jpg
    29.8 KB · Views: 50
ANT-22(also known as the MK-1) with APSS.


"Project APSS
The first Soviet midget submarine built was code named Project APSS (special-purpose autonomous submersible vessel). In other documents and publications this submarine was called a ‘telemechanical submarine', ‘radio-controlled TV-equipped submarine' and even a ‘telecontrolled self-propelled vehicle.' The APSS project was developed in 1934 – 1935 by the 1st Division (the Submarine Division) of the famous Leningrad Ostekhbyuro (The Special Bureau of Unique Military Designs) headed by Chief Designer Fyodor Shchukin. The APSS was his first submarine. A famous defense-industry engineer, V. Bekauri, who was Head of Ostekhbyuro at that time, and the Naval Communications Research Institute, took part in the APSS development work.

APSS was a midget submarine with a surface displacement of 7.2 tons and underwater displacement of 8.5 tons. The submarine was armed with one forward mounted torpedo tube, and could be operated in two basic modes: standard mode (by one man) and remote-control mode. In the latter mode, the possibility of controlling the submarine from surface ships and aircraft (ANT-22 or MBR-2 flying boats--the so-called ‘drivers') was studied. A remote ‘wave control' was supposed to be accomplished via a Kvarts system, developed for the purpose by Ostekhbyuro, and installed on board the ‘drivers.' In the telemechanical mode, the APSS carried a 500-kg explosive charge instead of a torpedo."


  • ant22apss.jpg
    124.9 KB · Views: 78
Bartini MTB-2's shape looks lime MK-1 very much.

"Bartini MTB-2
Roberto L. Bartini project for a heavy bombardment Hydrocanoe with double hull structure and 6 motors located on the wing developed in 1930.
Later this design served as the basis of the MK-1 Tupolev."

Bottom two drawings are off topic. Sorry.


  • Bartini MTB-2.gif
    Bartini MTB-2.gif
    191.3 KB · Views: 73
  • 1370540630_02.jpg
    107.8 KB · Views: 78
  • project of torpedo bomber designed by Grigorovich.jpg
    project of torpedo bomber designed by Grigorovich.jpg
    130.4 KB · Views: 89
  • The project of a 4-motor two-seater hydroplane TsAGI.  1938.jpg
    The project of a 4-motor two-seater hydroplane TsAGI. 1938.jpg
    26.7 KB · Views: 86
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Top Bottom