Gudkov Gu-82: The La-5's Long Lost Older Brother

[Tiger2]

I'm sure most people here have heard about the Lavochkin La-5 and its successors, the Soviet fighter zero-to-hero story where the miserable LaGG-3 was coupled with the unwanted ASh-82 engine and became a powerhouse of a fighter that could challenge the Luftwaffe and was a favorite of many Soviet pilots. What most people seem to not know, me included, was the HGudkov Gu-82. The Gu-82 seems to be a previous attempt to fit the LaGG-3 with the ASh-82 headed by Mihail Gudkov, one of the designers that worked with Lavochkin and Gorbunov on the LaGG fighters. I couldn't find a lot of information on differences but apparently it had an armament of two 12.7mm UB machine guns and two ShVAK 20mm cannons, whereas the final La-5s only had the ShVAKs. It seems that in a similar story to the La-5 it was found the flight performance became much better and Stalin granted production, but as it turned out Lavochkin had a very similar project going on, the La-5, which while was almost the same had better flight performance than the Gu-82 thus leaving it to be produced while the Gu-82 was left behind.

 

[igor-mich]

Oh, my God, how much pathos, an unnecessary plane, an unnecessary engine. And you know that the engine was not in the big series.

By the last order, the chief designers Mikoyan A. I. (Plant No. 1), Polikarpov N.N. (plant No. 51), Sukhoi P. O. (plant No. 135) and Yakovlev A. S. (plant No. 115) were ordered to ensure the installation of the M-82 engine on their aircraft with a presentation for testing on July 1, 1941.
Simultaneously with this installation of the M-82, the chief designer of plant No. 301, M. I. Gudkov, was engaged in his fighter (GU-82).
The first flights of aircraft with M- 82A engines (the first modification of the ASH (m)-82 engine) took place: Su-2 – in early July, i-185 – on July 21, MiG-9 (i-210) – on July 23, Yak-7 With M-82 – in January 1942. In Novosibirsk (in evacuation), GU-82 – September 11, 1941

Due to the lack of engines, production of Tu-2 bombers had to be suspended, and only at the end of 1943 construction resumed.

And LaGG-3 destroyed a lot of Germans and is worthy of respect.

It's worth studying the question first, and then saying something.

 

[igor-mich]

The Soviet industry proved to be unable to build an efficient turbo-supercharger during the World War II and the era of mixed powered fighters was over: rockets, ramjets and thermojets were a dead end, but indigenous turbojets were not yet reliable at the end of the war.

In 1935 the German Dr. Ing. Hans-Joachim Pabst von Ohain patented a new propulsion system for aircraft which comprised a two-stage air compressor, with axial fan, followed by a centrifugal compressor and an inward-flow radial turbine.

To prove the concept, one private venture prototype, with 0.9 m overall length and 0.95 m of diameter, was built in 1935 by Max Hahn facilities.


The construction of the more sophisticated HeS1 (TL) jet engine, with radial-outflow compressor and radial-inflow turbine, started in the summer of 1936 at the Heinkel-Rostock facilities. The new engine was ground tested in March 1937, giving 136 kg static thrust only.


To further develop the HeS1 (TL) it was necessary to reduce engine RPM and obtain more thrust. To achieve this, four axial stages were added to the inlet to ease the load of the centrifugal compressor.


A year later, the HeS 3 (TL) engine, with 1.48 m length and 0.93 m of diameter, was bench tested, reaching 450 kg thrust.

The new engine was considered suitable for aircraft propulsion and the Heinkel He 178 experimental airplane was flown, on August 27, 1939, powered by one HeS 3b (TL) turbojet.

The He 178 was demonstrated to the RLM officials on November 1, 1939, but the Luftwaffe was not interested in the development of combat jet aircraft.


Instead, the Soviets quickly realized the potential of the new technology and in 1938 Arkhip Lyulka, an engineer of the Kharkov Aviation Institute, began the design of a gas turbine engine suitable for aircraft propulsion.

To prove the concept the RDT-1 prototype was built in 1939 at the Kirov-Leningrad plant.

The two-stage centrifugal Soviet turbojet, with 1.35 m length and 1.0 m of diameter, was very similar in shape and dimensions to the German HeS 3b. It was ground tested in December 1940, giving 500 kg thrust.

Further development of the Soviet RDT-1 turbojet led to the RDT-1/VDR-2, designed in 1939, with a new two-stage axial compressor added to the inlet.

The construction of one prototype that promised 750 kg thrust started in 1940. The new engine, with 2.2 m length and 1.06 m of diameter, was very similar in shape and dimensions to the German HeS 8. It was also cancelled in mid-1943 when the prototype was 70 percent built.


RDT-1/VDR-2 was scheduled to power the first Soviet jet fighter Gudkov Gu-VRD which also had to be cancelled.

Gu-VRD technical data

Wingspan: 31 ft. (9.5 m), length: 30.5 ft. (9.9 m), height: 9.68 ft. (2.95 m), wing surface: 122 sq. ft. (11 sq. m), take-off weight: 4,967 lb. (2,250 Kg), estimated maximum speed: 560 mph (900 km/h), proposed armament: one ShVAK 20 mm cannon and two UBS 12.7 mm machine guns.

In summer 1943, Lyulka started the design of the S-18/VRD-3 eight-stage axial-flow turbojet, with 2.10 m length and 0.75 m of diameter.

The new engine was bench tested in August 1945 giving 1,268 kg static thrust, but their mass production was dismissed because steel turbine blades were not heat-resisting enough for use in operational airplanes, due to technological backwardness of Soviet metallurgy alloys.

It was also necessary to cancel two fighter projects that had been designed to use RD-1/TKVRD axial-flow turbojets: The LaGG-3/RD (October 1942) and the Lavochkin-Gudkov VRDK-1 (1943).

LaGG-3/RD technical data

Wingspan: 34.4 ft. (10.5 m), length: 29 ft. (8.9 m), height: 8 ft. (2.45 m), wing surface: 202.6 sq. ft. (18 sq. m), estimated maximum speed: 435 mph (700 km/h).

Gu-VRDK-1 technical data

Wingspan: 32 ft. (9.8 m), length: 29 ft. (8.9 m), height: 7.6 ft. (2.03 m), wing surface: 188.5 sq. ft. (17 sq. m), take-off weight: 4,967 lb. (2,250 Kg), estimated maximum speed: 541 mph (870 km/h).

And what does your information have to do with the Gu-82? Yes, it was not possible to create a turbocharger. It's good that in the first two years, planes were built in conditions that you have no idea about. Where the factories were transported to Siberia, to a bare field, where they began to build planes without windows and roofs, in the cold. Women and children were standing at the machines. It's a miracle that these planes were able to fly with such skilled workers.

 

[Justo Miranda]

OK info deleted.

 

[tomo pauk]

Oh, my God, how much pathos, an unnecessary plane, an unnecessary engine. And you know that the engine was not in the big series.



It's worth studying the question first, and then saying something.

Was the opening post worthy of such a display of arrogance?

 

[Justo Miranda]

Life has taught me that if you are not welcome in a place there is no point in insisting.
I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.
Groucho Marx

 

[igor-mich]

Oh, my God, how much pathos, an unnecessary plane, an unnecessary engine. And you know that the engine was not in the big series.



It's worth studying the question first, and then saying something.

Was the opening post worthy of such a display of arrogance?

Before mentioning my arrogance, carefully read the first message about the Gu-82. There's nothing but arrogance and contempt (a pathetic LaGG-3 plane, an unnecessary M-82 engine). For me, it was not arrogance, but an adequate response.

 

[Antonio]

Options:

Should we try a less emotional approach and give this thread a try or should be better to close it and forget the subject?

 

[Tiger2]

Oh, my God, how much pathos, an unnecessary plane, an unnecessary engine. And you know that the engine was not in the big series.



It's worth studying the question first, and then saying something.

Was the opening post worthy of such a display of arrogance?

Before mentioning my arrogance, carefully read the first message about the Gu-82. There's nothing but arrogance and contempt (a pathetic LaGG-3 plane, an unnecessary M-82 engine). For me, it was not arrogance, but an adequate response.

The LaGG-3 was disliked by pilots a lot (the pilots had a play on words of its LaGG designation with "LAkirovanny Garantirovanny Grob" or "Guaranteed Painted Coffin." A plane doesn't get called a name like that for nothing) and was well documented as having poor performance with an underpowered engine and a heavy body. Perhaps "miserable" was a bit of a dramatic way to describe it but from a pure fact perspective it was not a good plane and if "miserable" is emotional that the aforementioned "Guaranteed Painted Coffin" must really mean something. From what I have heard the ASh-82 engine was also not very popularly used at first and only was fitted inside the Su-2. This made Lavochkin, Gudkov, and Shvestov fall out of favor with Soviet command and was also what prompted them to work on fitting the engine into the LaGG-3 which created the much better Gu-82 and La-5. As far as I am concerned, there is more act of ignorance on your end than on mine.

 

[igor-mich]

Oh, my God, how much pathos, an unnecessary plane, an unnecessary engine. And you know that the engine was not in the big series.



It's worth studying the question first, and then saying something.

Was the opening post worthy of such a display of arrogance?

Before mentioning my arrogance, carefully read the first message about the Gu-82. There's nothing but arrogance and contempt (a pathetic LaGG-3 plane, an unnecessary M-82 engine). For me, it was not arrogance, but an adequate response.

The LaGG-3 was disliked by pilots a lot (the pilots had a play on words of its LaGG designation with "LAkirovanny Garantirovanny Grob" or "Guaranteed Painted Coffin." A plane doesn't get called a name like that for nothing) and was well documented as having poor performance with an underpowered engine and a heavy body. Perhaps "miserable" was a bit of a dramatic way to describe it but from a pure fact perspective it was not a good plane and if "miserable" is emotional that the aforementioned "Guaranteed Painted Coffin" must really mean something. From what I have heard the ASh-82 engine was also not very popularly used at first and only was fitted inside the Su-2. This made Lavochkin, Gudkov, and Shvestov fall out of favor with Soviet command and was also what prompted them to work on fitting the engine into the LaGG-3 which created the much better Gu-82 and La-5. As far as I am concerned, there is more act of ignorance on your end than on mine.

To illustrate how LaGG-3 was inferior to Messerschmitt, without even delving into the technical characteristics of the machines, let's take a simple statistic for the period of fighting in the Kerch Peninsula area from November 1, 1943 to April 11, 1944. The pilots of the 88th, 249th and 790th IAP, having made about 6000 sorties, in in battles with German fighters, with the irretrievable loss of 61-62 Laggovs, 62-64 Bf 109s were shot down.
So, you want to say that the Bf 109 is also a bad fighter, although its characteristics are better than the LaGG-3.
It all depends on the skill of the pilot. And the I-16 shot down more Bf 109s at the beginning of the war than the rest of the Soviet fighters because of the good training of pilots on the I-16. And he was clearly lagging behind the Bf 109 in almost all characteristics.

 

[Tiger2]

Oh, my God, how much pathos, an unnecessary plane, an unnecessary engine. And you know that the engine was not in the big series.



It's worth studying the question first, and then saying something.

Was the opening post worthy of such a display of arrogance?

Before mentioning my arrogance, carefully read the first message about the Gu-82. There's nothing but arrogance and contempt (a pathetic LaGG-3 plane, an unnecessary M-82 engine). For me, it was not arrogance, but an adequate response.

The LaGG-3 was disliked by pilots a lot (the pilots had a play on words of its LaGG designation with "LAkirovanny Garantirovanny Grob" or "Guaranteed Painted Coffin." A plane doesn't get called a name like that for nothing) and was well documented as having poor performance with an underpowered engine and a heavy body. Perhaps "miserable" was a bit of a dramatic way to describe it but from a pure fact perspective it was not a good plane and if "miserable" is emotional that the aforementioned "Guaranteed Painted Coffin" must really mean something. From what I have heard the ASh-82 engine was also not very popularly used at first and only was fitted inside the Su-2. This made Lavochkin, Gudkov, and Shvestov fall out of favor with Soviet command and was also what prompted them to work on fitting the engine into the LaGG-3 which created the much better Gu-82 and La-5. As far as I am concerned, there is more act of ignorance on your end than on mine.

To illustrate how LaGG-3 was inferior to Messerschmitt, without even delving into the technical characteristics of the machines, let's take a simple statistic for the period of fighting in the Kerch Peninsula area from November 1, 1943 to April 11, 1944. The pilots of the 88th, 249th and 790th IAP, having made about 6000 sorties, in in battles with German fighters, with the irretrievable loss of 61-62 Laggovs, 62-64 Bf 109s were shot down.
So, you want to say that the Bf 109 is also a bad fighter, although its characteristics are better than the LaGG-3.
It all depends on the skill of the pilot. And the I-16 shot down more Bf 109s at the beginning of the war than the rest of the Soviet fighters because of the good training of pilots on the I-16. And he was clearly lagging behind the Bf 109 in almost all characteristics.

Using numbers to compare them like this is a ridiculously bad way to compare them, and I never even brought up loss numbers you just pulled them out here. No matter loss ratio or pilot skill, it does not change the fact that the LaGG-3 was a plane that was a plane that had poor flight characteristics, an overweight body with an underpowered engine, and was widely disliked by its pilots. It does not make the LaGG-3 any better nor it for any other plane that has a similar situation. There were later versions of the LaGG-3 I believe that fixed some of the issues the original models had but overall they were still extremely troubled and there was no purpose for them really when you had the much better La-5 already by the time those ones came out.

To put it bluntly, get off your copium supply brother.

 

[igor-mich]

Oh, my God, how much pathos, an unnecessary plane, an unnecessary engine. And you know that the engine was not in the big series.



It's worth studying the question first, and then saying something.

Was the opening post worthy of such a display of arrogance?

Before mentioning my arrogance, carefully read the first message about the Gu-82. There's nothing but arrogance and contempt (a pathetic LaGG-3 plane, an unnecessary M-82 engine). For me, it was not arrogance, but an adequate response.

The LaGG-3 was disliked by pilots a lot (the pilots had a play on words of its LaGG designation with "LAkirovanny Garantirovanny Grob" or "Guaranteed Painted Coffin." A plane doesn't get called a name like that for nothing) and was well documented as having poor performance with an underpowered engine and a heavy body. Perhaps "miserable" was a bit of a dramatic way to describe it but from a pure fact perspective it was not a good plane and if "miserable" is emotional that the aforementioned "Guaranteed Painted Coffin" must really mean something. From what I have heard the ASh-82 engine was also not very popularly used at first and only was fitted inside the Su-2. This made Lavochkin, Gudkov, and Shvestov fall out of favor with Soviet command and was also what prompted them to work on fitting the engine into the LaGG-3 which created the much better Gu-82 and La-5. As far as I am concerned, there is more act of ignorance on your end than on mine.

To illustrate how LaGG-3 was inferior to Messerschmitt, without even delving into the technical characteristics of the machines, let's take a simple statistic for the period of fighting in the Kerch Peninsula area from November 1, 1943 to April 11, 1944. The pilots of the 88th, 249th and 790th IAP, having made about 6000 sorties, in in battles with German fighters, with the irretrievable loss of 61-62 Laggovs, 62-64 Bf 109s were shot down.
So, you want to say that the Bf 109 is also a bad fighter, although its characteristics are better than the LaGG-3.
It all depends on the skill of the pilot. And the I-16 shot down more Bf 109s at the beginning of the war than the rest of the Soviet fighters because of the good training of pilots on the I-16. And he was clearly lagging behind the Bf 109 in almost all characteristics.

Using numbers to compare them like this is a ridiculously bad way to compare them, and I never even brought up loss numbers you just pulled them out here. No matter loss ratio or pilot skill, it does not change the fact that the LaGG-3 was a plane that was a plane that had poor flight characteristics, an overweight body with an underpowered engine, and was widely disliked by its pilots. It does not make the LaGG-3 any better nor it for any other plane that has a similar situation. There were later versions of the LaGG-3 I believe that fixed some of the issues the original models had but overall they were still extremely troubled and there was no purpose for them really when you had the much better La-5 already by the time those ones came out.

To put it bluntly, get off your copium supply brother.

This concludes the discussion.

 

[athpilot]

Wow this derailed completely. Too bad, that would have been a very interesting thread.

 

[Tiger2]

Wow this derailed completely. Too bad, that would have been a very interesting thread.

Last time I bring anything LaGG-3 related up after this