• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Multi-seat fighters: "cruiser fighters" and "battleplanes"

Avimimus

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,981
Reaction score
102
Hello,

I don't have many references - but I've always been fascinated by these. Ultimately they didn't work.

In part these designs overlooked the impacts of increasingly power autocannons, in part they forgot the inherent difficulty hitting small and manoeuvrable targets from an airborne target. But, from experiments in the Great War until the end of the interwar period (especially in countries influenced by Giulio Douhet's air doctrines) a number of fascinating designs were imagined.

So, when I saw Borovik's post with with an ANT-17, I figured it was time to start a thread.
 

Avimimus

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,981
Reaction score
102
Re: Multi-seat fighters and cruiser fighters

List of known cruiser fighters (to be updated with further research)

Tentative criteria for inclusion in the list:
- A small bomb load is acceptable, but the variant must be intended primarily for air-combat.
- Forward firing armament must be flexibly mounted or the aeroplane must have at least three gunner positions.
- At least three crew

The "Great War" (escort/battleplanes):
- Letord 1-5
- Salmson-Moineau SM-1
- Caudron R.4
- Caudron R.11
- Caudron R.14
- Fokker M.9 (Fokker K.1)
? Possibly the Lohner 10.21, Lloyd 40.06 or Phönix 20.10 (depending on Austro-Hungarian air doctrines)

The "Great War" (airship/G-series interceptors):
- Bristol Type 95
- Westland Westbury
- Pemberton-Billing (Supermarine) P.B.31E
- Robey Peters R.R.F.25
- Dyott "Battleplane"
- Armstrong-Whitworth FK.5 and FK.6 (also airship interceptor)
- Vickers F.B.11 (also airship interceptor)
- Sopwith L.R.T.Tr. (also airship interceptor, but primarily an escort fighter)

Inter-war:
- Bristol Bagshot
- Westland Westbury
- Caudron C.34
- Couzinet RC.190
- Schneider Henri-Paul S.3
- Blériot 117 & 127
? Blériot 137
- Blériot 270 "Cruiser"
- Breguet 413
- Hanriot H.220 (two forward firing turret version)
- Loire 30 / Loire 301
~ Romano R-110/130 (typically only one gunner, but designed as a component of multicrew formations).
? Bloch M.B.130, M.B.131 (unproduced fighter variants?)
? S.A.B. AB-80
- De Schelde S.19 'jachtkruiser'
- Fokker T.V (in the original 'Luchtkruiser' concept)
- Fokker ontwerp 153, 154/G.2 193
? Koolhoven 1164 and 1167
- Tupolev ANT-7 / R-6
- Tupolev ANT-21 / Mi-3
- Tupolev ANT-30 / SK-1
- Tupolev ANT-34
- Tupolev ANT-41 / LK-4 (pre-1935)
- Tupolev ANT-46 / DI-8
- Grokhovsky G-38 (I & II) / LK-2 (note: the definitive version falls outside of the current list's criteria, but was still classified as a "light cruiser")
- Grokhovskiy G-52 "Heavy Cruiser" (TB-3 derivative)
- Grigorovich DG-56 / LK-3
- Bolkhovitinov TK-1 & TK-4
- Kochergin IT (technically WW2)
? Kochergin DIS (technically WW2)
- Focke-Wulf Fw 57
- Henschel Hs 124
- Arado E.500
? Messerschmitt P.08 (four 88mm guns - mobile)
~ Caproni Ca.65 (only 1-2 gunners)
- Burnelli BR Mark II / Clyde Comet?
- Naval Aircraft Factory TF
- Martin B-10 variant (lightened with three gunners)
- Bell YFM/FM-1 Airacuda
- Lockheed-Vega Model 11 / XPB-3 / XFM-2
? Curtiss XFM-3
? XPB-3

Heavy Escort conversions (WW2):
- Consolidated XB-41
- Boeing YB-40
- Vega V-150
- Ilyushin TsKB-54
- Me 323E-2 WT
- Nakajima Ki-58
? Nakajima Ki-80
- Mitsubishi G6M1
- Mitsubishi Ki-69
? Mitsubishi Ki-109 (only prototype falls under the classification, while later variants deleted some of the gunners)
- PZL-25

WWII
- P-61
- Boulton Paul P.92
- Boulton Paul P.93 / Blackburn Roc
- Boulton Paul P97B (and some P96 variants)
- the Bristol F.11/37
? Malcolm ML (Crew three? Armament sighted separately? Flexible?)
- Some Japanese 'Mukade' concepts would fit (if deployed against flying bombers)

British two-seat turreted fighters (Note that these don't exactly qualify for our classification as 'cruisers' defined above) - requirement F9/35:
- Supermarine Model-305 for Spec. F9/35
- Armstrong Whitworth F.9/35
- Boulton Paul P.82
- Bristol Type 147
- Fairey F.9/35
- Gloster F.9/35
- Hawker F.9/35 Hotspur
- Supermarine 305
- Vickers F.9/35
- Parnall Type 381 (doesn't quite fit F9/35, but had a similar philosophy - actually twin engined type with a two crew gun turret and a dedicated loader)
 

Avimimus

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,981
Reaction score
102
Re: Multi-seat fighters and cruiser fighters

I'm making it, I just added the first entry ;)

*edit*
I'm basically done for the moment. So, if you find any that I missed - let me know and I'll update the list. Pictures are also encouraged of course.
 

Jemiba

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,294
Reaction score
1,251
Re: Multi-seat fighters: "Battleplanes" and "cruiser fighters"

The Henschel Hs 124 would fit, too, I think. AFAIK, the german term "Zerstörer" was at first used
for this type of aircraft, not for multi-engined fighter, as the Messerschmitt Bf 110. Just when the
110 had won the contest, the meaning of "Zerstörer" (destroyer) changed.
BTW, aren't the Boeing YB-40 and Consolidated XB-41 the same kind of aircraft ?
 

lark

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
1,812
Reaction score
104
Re: Multi-seat fighters: "Battleplanes" and "cruiser fighters"

The XB-40 and X-41 were intended as escort ships no so
much as 'cruise fighters' I think...
 

Jemiba

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,294
Reaction score
1,251
Re: Multi-seat fighters: "Battleplanes" and "cruiser fighters"

The task originally envisaged for the german "Zerstörer" HS 124/Fw 57 was
"to sweep the sky ahead of the bomberstream", so just another concept for
bomber escort, I think.
And it fits the list of criteria .. ;)
 

Maveric

Fight for yor Right!
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
374
Re: Multi-seat fighters: "Battleplanes" and "cruiser fighters"

The Lohner 10.21/Type U was a bomber prototyp with the designation G.I (G=Großflugzeug).

The Lloyd 40.06 (K.F.1 with two 160hp Daimler) was a bomber project (also 40.07/K.F.2).
You mean the 40.08 (L.K.1) was a prototyp, also designated G.I (bomber but not a cruise fighter).

For the same advertising the Albatros/Phönix 20.10, a G-Prototyp.

(Source: Keimel "Luftfahrzeugbau in Österreich")

Servus Maveric
 

Silencer1

That now I am the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
638
Reaction score
145
Re: Multi-seat fighters and cruiser fighters

Hi!

"Tupelov" is not correct. Actually there were Soviet aicraft designer Andrey Nikolaevich Tupolev

Cheers!
 

Skybolt

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,299
Reaction score
155
The British "turret" fighters, notably Boulton-Paul's, should be in a borderline category, if not straight inside it.
 

Jemiba

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,294
Reaction score
1,251
Probably at the edge of the borderline, but certainly a "yes" for
all the mentioned criteria : The Messerschmitt Me 323E-2 WT
"Waffenträger" (weapons carrier), with a task very similar to that
of the YB-40/XB-41
 

Maveric

Fight for yor Right!
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
374
Tupolew ANT-41 (T-1, LK-1) experimental
bomber, torpedo-bomber and 'cruiser'

(Source: Gordon "OKB Tupolew)

Servus Maveric
 

redstar72

Soviet Aviation enthusiast
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
519
Reaction score
63
The Tupolev/Myasischev ANT-41 was initially designed to be a multi-purpose aircraft: a cruiser, bomber and torpedo bomber. But only during short time from April 1935 it was projected mainly as a cruiser. At the middle 1935 the specification was revised, and ANT-41 became torpedo bomber first of all, getting army designation T-1 (Torpedonosec 1).

According to http://www.airwar.ru/enc/sww2/ant41.html, the "cruiser" version of ANT-41 was designated LK-4, not LK-1 (if it's not a misprint).

I can add two other Soviet "cruiser" aircraft - one was only a project, the other was really built and tested.

The Tupolev ANT-30 / SK-1 was a development of R-6 and MI-3 mentioned here. It was projected at 1933. Like its precursors, ANT-30 was full-metal monoplane with two engines (there was a version with two 570-hp Kontsevich M-38 radial engines and with inline Hispano-Suiza 12Ybrs). It was armed with one Oerlicon cannon and three ShKAS machine guns (two of them in the nose turret). The aircraft could be used also as a bomber, with 1000 kg bomb load in fuselage bay; in cruiser version, this space was occupied with an additional fuel tank.
The normal flight weight of ANT-30 was 5300 kg, and the maximum speed was 317 km/h (at 4000 m altitude). The prototype had been begun to build, but it never fly: when it was ready at about 16 %, the project was cancelled - the VVS command decided it's out of date. It was happened at early 1934. (Source: the article by Vladimir Rigmant in "Aviatsia i Kosmonavtika" No.1-1998).

The Ilyushin TsKB-54 was a kind of Soviet "XB-40/41", though not so big - it was an escort / cruiser version of well-known DB-3 bomber. Two prototypes were built. The first was tested in early 1938; it was converted from early-series DB-3 with M-85 engines and fixed-pitch propellers, so the main purpose was armament testing. The ShKAS machine gun in the nose turret was replaced with 20-mm ShVAK cannon; the dorsal turret was of new design, also with ShVAK. The ventral turret was standard, with ShKAS, but it was also an additional remote-controlled ShKAS mounted in cigar-shaped rotable pod. The crew was enlarged from 3 to 4 men.
The estimation of all this was different: while the dorsal turret with cannon was good, that original remote-controlled ShKAS turret was rejected - it produced too large aerodynamic drag. So, the second prototype had no this turret, and no standard ventral turret named LU: instead of them, it was fitted with two side-mounted ShKAS in blister stations. This second prototype was based on more recent DB-3 Series 16, fitted with M-87A engines and variable pitch propellers. It was tested in 1939, but it appeared to be 100 kg heavier and 16 km/h slower than basic bomber with the same engines. It wasn't able to go in formation with standard DB-3s; so, the project was cancelled. (http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fww2/ckb54.html)
 

Attachments

  • ANT-30_3view.jpg
    ANT-30_3view.jpg
    94.8 KB · Views: 1,886
  • ckb54-1.jpg
    ckb54-1.jpg
    33.1 KB · Views: 1,707
  • ckb54-1.gif
    ckb54-1.gif
    289.6 KB · Views: 1,767

robunos

You're Mad, You Are.....
Senior Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
1,974
Reaction score
392
and no standard ventral turret named LU: instead of them, it was fitted with two side-mounted ShKAS in blister stations

The drawing 'ckb54-1.gif' shows a ventral turret on the second version, too. Which is correct?

cheers,
Robin.
 

redstar72

Soviet Aviation enthusiast
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
519
Reaction score
63
robunos
The 3-view is a bit incorrect in this case. Initially, when the second version of TsKB-54 was projected, it was planned to leave the LU ventral turret on its place - but at least, the second prototype flew without it. Maybe, if TsKB-54 would came into production, the LU could "return" on serial machines - who knows...

Also the drawing of the first wersion isn't correct - it had small pilot's canopy as the early DB-3.
 

ChuckAnderson

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
187
Reaction score
18
Hi Everyone!

Would this Soviet aircraft, the Belyayev DB-LK, also be in this category?

(The scale model was scratchbuilt by Frank Perkins.)

Chuck
 

Attachments

  • Belyayev_DB-LK,,.JPG
    Belyayev_DB-LK,,.JPG
    77.8 KB · Views: 1,425

airman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
1,246
Reaction score
104
Website
zeef.com
i want remember other multiseat fighters based on core of bombers the japanese : the three nakajima ki-80 based on ki-49, the g6m1 based on g4m , mitsubishi ki-69 and ki-109 based on ki-67 that was really builded but like xb-40 was a failure !

Well in ww2 i had assisted to defeating of multiseat fighters based on bombers! :D
 

robunos

You're Mad, You Are.....
Senior Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
1,974
Reaction score
392
robunos
The 3-view is a bit incorrect in this case. Initially, when the second version of TsKB-54 was projected, it was planned to leave the LU ventral turret on its place - but at least, the second prototype flew without it. Maybe, if TsKB-54 would came into production, the LU could "return" on serial machines - who knows...

Also the drawing of the first wersion isn't correct - it had small pilot's canopy as the early DB-3.

Thanks for that,

cheers,
Robin.
 

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,227
Reaction score
661
Since we are also talking about projected multiplace fighters, allow me to add the Lockheed Model 11 project, sometimes given as a Vega project, and also known as the cancelled US Army Air Corps' XFM-2.

Interestingly, a "Curtiss XFM-3" appears in the Sara Clark archives listing, although no book I've ever read on US fighters or Curtiss ever mentioned such a project...
 

Attachments

  • Vega XFM-2.jpg
    Vega XFM-2.jpg
    20.3 KB · Views: 1,207

Nik

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
474
Reaction score
118
Would the big night-fighters belong in this category ?
 

Avimimus

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,981
Reaction score
102
The list is updated. Thanks for all the help ;D
Designs that start with a "?" require further research.

Nik said:
Would the big night-fighters belong in this category ?

Yes, if they have three gunners. The criteria are designed to exclude many bomber-to-fighter conversions and most heavy fighters (eg. Pe-3, Bf-110, XP-58). However, some most likely qualify.

Similarly, the three seat requirement is designed to exclude a number of single or twin seat fighters that were designed with only flexible armament.
 

Silencer1

That now I am the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
638
Reaction score
145
Hi, ChuckAnderson!

ChuckAnderson said:
Would this Soviet aircraft, the Belyayev DB-LK, also be in this category?

This is dedicated long-range bomber, not a fighter or bomber' excort.
DB-LK states for "Dalniy Bombardirovschik - Letayuschiye Krylo" (Long Range Bomber - Flying Wing)

Cheers!
 

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,227
Reaction score
661
Avimimus said:
The list is updated. Thanks for all the help ;D
You're very welcome! But "Vega" does not refer to the model... It was a subsidiary of Lockheed that may have produced the design or was to build it...
 

elmayerle

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
1,415
Reaction score
234
Stargazer2006 said:
Since we are also talking about projected multiplace fighters, allow me to add the Lockheed Model 11 project, sometimes given as a Vega project, and also known as the cancelled US Army Air Corps' XFM-2.

Interestingly, a "Curtiss XFM-3" appears in the Sara Clark archives listing, although no book I've ever read on US fighters or Curtiss ever mentioned such a project...

This was Lockheed-Vega's competing design to Bell's winning XFM-1. The carry-over of certain standard design aspects of Vega aircraft is obvious as are some new aspects. The nose section definitely was retained when Lockheed did the P2V Neptune.
 

lark

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
1,812
Reaction score
104
Lockheed was awarded a study contract for a multiplace fighter designated
as the XFM-2 and based their design on the Electra transport.
More conventional than Bell's XFM-1 design, Lockheed's entry was also powered by two
Allison turbosupercharged V-1710 tractor engines.
A part mock-up of the forward fuselage with the dorsal
turret was constructed.
 

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,227
Reaction score
661
lark said:
Lockheed was awarded a study contract for a multiplace fighter designated
as the XFM-2 and based their design on the Electra transport.
More conventional than Bell's XFM-1 design, Lockheed's entry was also powered by two
Allison turbosupercharged V-1710 tractor engines.
A part mock-up of the forward fuselage with the dorsal
turret was constructed.

I don't think I've ever seen any pictures of the mock-up forward fuselage. Do you have one of these to display here? That would be interesting!
 

elmayerle

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
1,415
Reaction score
234
Such a picture has shown up in an article or book on the P2V Neptune since there's a very distinct family resemblance.
 

redstar72

Soviet Aviation enthusiast
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
519
Reaction score
63
Some additions - more Soviet cruisers!

The last from Tupolev's line - ANT-46 / DI-8, an unlucky brother of legendary SB (ANT-40) bomber. Yes, it was really a three-seat "cruiser", not a two-seat fighter like other aircrafts with "DI" index. In this case, "DI" doesn't mean Dvukhmestnyi Istrebitel (two-seat fighter) as usual, but Dvukhmotornyi (twin-engined) or Dalniy (long-range) Istrebitel.

The ANT-46 prototype was converted from one of the first production SB bombers, built by Zavod No.22 in Fili, near Moscow. Its main weapon was rather unusual (while not unique for Soviet alrcraft of middle 1930s, remember Grigorovich I-Z and IP-1) - two 76.2-mm (yes, 3-inch) recoilless guns named APK-4, designed by Leonid Kurchevsky. This kind of weapon seemed to be very promising at that time, but later appeared to be a big disappointment.

These guns were mounted in the wings, outside the propeller disks; amunition load for them was 15 rounds each. The twinned ShKAS machine gun from the nose turret was replaced by ShVAK - not the famous 20-mm cannon but its precursor, a 12.7-mm machine gun. A single fixed ShKAS firing forward was mounted in the starboard wing root, and two other fixed ShKASes were mounted inside each wing root to fire backward (!). The dorsal (TUR-9) and ventral turrets were standard, each fitted with ShKAS.

Another distinctive feature of the ANT-46 was its powerplant. It is known that ANT-40 prototypes tested two types of engines: the first with Wright R-1820 radials (later license-built as M-25) was unsuccessful, the second with liquid-cooled Hispano-Suiza 12Ybrs (M-100) had much better performance and turned into mass-production SB. The ANT-46, with its basically the same airframe, was planned to test two other alternatives. First prototype was powered by two Gnome-Rhone 14K radials (which later become the M-85), and the second (so-called "Dubler", or ANT-46bis) was planned to be built with Mikulin AM-34RNF inline engines.

The first ANT-46 was built at July, 1935 and first flown at August 1, 1935 by TsAGI test pilot Mikhail Alekseev. The aircraft had some problems with stability and flight control, but they were the same that ANT-40 prototypes had - so the designers knew quite well how to solve them. But more difficulties were with the whole concpt, especially with the recoilless guns. Eventually in January, 1936 the conference of high military command decided to stop all the works on Kurchevsky's guns due to number of inherit defects. Because of this, Alexander Arkhangelsky's team working on the DI-8 had to "re-equip" it with new-designed 20-mm ShVAK cannons. Two versions were designed: one with two cannons mounted in wing roots, other with quick-release under-fuselage battery with FIVE ShVAK in it! But these works took a lot of time, all the dates of DI-8 delivery to the state official tests were gone, and sometimes in mid-1936 it was decided to cancel this program. The ANT-46bis with Mikulin engines remained unbuilt...

Technical data for ANT-46bis (projected):
Wing span - 20.30 m
Length - 12.24 m
Wing area - 55.70 m2
Empty weight - 4180 kg
Normal takeoff weight - 5910 kg
Maximum speed - 404 km/h
Flight range - 1800 km
Service ceiling - 9000 m
Crew - 3 to 4

Source: http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fww2/di8.html. The drawing "di8.jpg" is by Ivnamin Sultanov, published in "Krylia Rodiny" magazine No.10-1996.
 

Attachments

  • di8.jpg
    di8.jpg
    667.6 KB · Views: 239
  • di8-1.gif
    di8-1.gif
    210.9 KB · Views: 627
  • di8-1.jpg
    di8-1.jpg
    38.1 KB · Views: 584

redstar72

Soviet Aviation enthusiast
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
519
Reaction score
63
The twin-boom Grokhovsky G-38 / LK-2 is a relatively known project, there is even an 1/72 model kit produced by Unicraft (http://www.geocities.com/unicraftmodels/on/g38/g38.htm). Though it was very compact aircraft (comparable to Hurricane in size), it had 3-member crew and can be placed into this category. And, yes, it was called "Legkiy Kreiser" (light cruiser).

It's interesting that in the beginning G-38 looked totally different. It was still twin-boom, but MUCH larger - a really big, five-seat aircraft with 28 m wingspan. But the calculations indicated that maximum speed of such an airplane could be only about 300 km/h, which was totally obsolete for middle 1930s.

So, Pavel Grokhovsky invited a young, talented designer named Pavel Ivensen to his team to become a chief designer of all-new G-38. Previosly, Ivensen worked at Bartini's team on the Stal-7 airliner project (a precursor of Yer-2 bomber). At November, 1934 he was employed to Grokhovsky's Oskonbiuro (Special Construction & Industrial Bureau) and began to work. He created totally different, twice smaller aircraft with extremely high wing load (for that time) - 125 to 130 kg/m2. But the calculated maximum speed was more than 450 km/h (the VVS required 400 km/h). Grokhovsky agreed.

At December, 1934 the new preliminary design was approved. Declared maximum speed was 520 km/h (tunnel tests indicated that it could be even about 550 km/h!). Two and a half months later a wooden full-scale mockup was built. The Zavod No.47 in Leningrad was chosen for the prototype production. But the works on the prototype progressed too slowly, and at the end of 1936 it still wasn't ready to fly. At that time the GUAP NKTP (Aircraft industry headquarters) decided to close G-38 project for unknown reasons.

Technical data for G-38 (projected):
Wing span - 13.4 m
Length - 8.8 m
Wing area - 32 m2
Takeoff weight - 4000 kg (normal), 4100 kg (overload)
Powerplant - two GR 14K (M-85) radial engines, 800 hp each
Maximum speed - 520 km/h (at 4000 m altitude)
Flight range - 1200 km
Service ceiling - 9500 m
Climb to 8000 m - 12 minutes
Crew - 3
Weapon: fixed - two 20-mm ShVAK cannons and 2 ShKAS machine guns, a twinned backward-firing pivoting ShKAS operated by gunner, a turret ShKAS operated by navigator. Two wing-mounted Taubin grenade launchers.

Source: "Krylia Rodiny" No. 5-1993. Some info here: http://www.acepilots.com/discussions/grokhovsky.html.

Another "flying cruiser" was designed by Grigorovich - the DG-56 / LK-3. It was cancelled at the same time as the G-38, but it's all the info I have about it. According to http://www.cofe.ru/avia/G/G-44.htm, it was a three-seat aircraft with two HS 12Ybrs (M-100) engines.
 

Attachments

  • g38-3view.jpg
    g38-3view.jpg
    173.5 KB · Views: 248
  • g38-art.jpg
    g38-art.jpg
    35 KB · Views: 352

borovik

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
792
Reaction score
140
Redstar72 Ahead of me, /мои поздравления Саша ;)/

I think Avimimus should remove the question marks in front
? Grokhovsky G-38 / LK-2 and
? Grigorovich DG-56 / LK-3
They were in direct competition with the Tupolev ANT-46 / DI-8
By the way G-38 / LK-2 (I) - / summer 1934 / by Vladimir Rentel was at that time the terminology of the "Legkiy Kreiser" (light cruiser).
G-38 / LK-2 (II) - / November 1934 / by Pavel Ivensen generally outstripped tactics - the technical requirements
by: redstar72

«At that time the GUAP NKTP (Aircraft industry headquarters) decided to close G-38 project for unknown reasons.»
The reason is clear:
... Personally Tupolev headed the committee, who came to the factory and "cleared" him from the G-38.
In direct instruction manual GUAP NKTP (and the actual owner of the agency was not the nominal head Mikhail Kaganovich, and unaffected by his powerful first deputy A.Tupolev) called the planes were destroyed, and workers of these enterprises or transferred to another bureau, or "let the world "... (GULAG camps)
 

redstar72

Soviet Aviation enthusiast
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
519
Reaction score
63
borovik said:
Redstar72 Ahead of me, /мои поздравления Саша ;)/
Спасибо!

borovik said:
The reason is clear:
... Personally Tupolev headed the committee, who came to the factory and "cleared" him from the G-38.
In direct instruction manual GUAP NKTP (and the actual owner of the agency was not the nominal head Mikhail Kaganovich, and unaffected by his powerful first deputy A.Tupolev) called the planes were destroyed, and workers of these enterprises or transferred to another bureau, or "let the world "... (GULAG camps)

This is almost direct quote from two sources mentioned by me: Mikhail Maslov's article about G-38 (Krylia Rodiny 5-1993), and Sultanov's article about DI-8 (Krylia Rodiny 10-1996, the same text on Airwar.ru). Of course I know about this point of view. But I don't like conspiracy theories and I'm not convinced by this. This all is about G-38; but if we agree with this version, why DG-56 was cancelled at the same time? Anybody didn't reorganize Grigorovich OKB. All this could make sence only if we guess that Tupolev wanted to make a clear way for his DI-8, pulling away the competitors. But it's a nonsence again: DI-8 itself was cancelled too, even earlier!

It seems more probable for me that GUAP administration refused the whole concept of "flying cruiser". Maybe they decided it's obsolescent, without perspectives.

Excuse me if something is wrong.
Maybe you have some more info about DG-56? Any technical data, or even maybe some pictures?
Thanks!
 

redstar72

Soviet Aviation enthusiast
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
519
Reaction score
63
A little note. I can't imagine that anybody could specify G-38 (I), similar in size to the TB-1, as "light cruiser". I guess that usual interpretation for "LK" index was Letajuschiy Kreiser (flying cruiser), and only G-38 (II) was Legkiy Kreiser.

It's only my assumption. Of course I can be mistaken - I didn't see official documents of that time.
 

borovik

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
792
Reaction score
140
«But I don't like conspiracy theories and I'm not convinced by this.»
Alexander, I believe my word is also not a supporter of conspiracy theories, but the words of M. Maslov from an article in (Krylia Rodiny 5-1993) is not based only on a personal conversation took place in the early nineties with the head of the design aircraft G-38(II) Paul Ivensen. Be sentenced to 5 years in the camps, and 5 years of exile, without the right to continue living in big cities, puts an end to future career designer. (In this case, a personal motive).
Gist of article was based on a set of facts and archival documents (my confidence in this already follows from today's telephone conversation with Mikhail Maslov)

«... But if we agree with this version, why DG-56 was cancelled at the same time? Anybody didn't reorganize Grigorovich OKB. »

December 11, 1936 Member of KSK Hahnyan sent a letter (#№ 598ss )to the Central Committee of the CKVKP (b) Stalin, SNK - Molotov, KSK - Antipov, which cleared up many points occurring in the Soviet aviation industry. In the section on Grigorovich, was written the following:

«Анализ причин неудовлетворительных темпов внедрения в производство новых самолетов показывает, что одной из главных причин является совершенно недопустимое неприязненное отношение главного инженера ГУАПа Туполева к внедрению машин не его конструкций.
…Григорович безусловно является одним из опытнейших конструкторов и в этом отношении солидным конкурентом Туполева. Многие задания Григоровичу не могли быть реализованы им из-за того, что ему препятствовали всячески. Сначала Григоровича загнали в кустарные мастерские (ныне утильцех завода №1), где он все-таки построил самолет ИП-1 и заложил ИП-2. Затем перекинули на завод № 1 в качестве главного конструктора. Главным конструктором этого завода он так и не был, так как его таковым фактически не признавали ни Шекунов, ни Беленкович.
Работы Григоровича над пикирующим бомбардировщиком и ИП-2 на заводе №1 вовсе не продвигались. Ныне же Григорович фактически отстранен от конструкторской работы над этими машинами и детали его машин на заводе № 1 упакованы в ящики для отправки неизвестно куда».

"Analysis of the causes of the unsatisfactory pace of introduction of new aircraft shows that one of the main reasons is totally unacceptable hostile attitude GUAP Tupolev chief engineer for the introduction of machinery is not his designs.
Grigorovich ... certainly one of the most experienced designers and in this regard, a solid competitor to Tupolev. Many job Grigorovich could not be realized by him from the fact that he obstructed in every way. First Grigorovich drove in handicraft workshops (now utiltseh plant number 1), where he still built the aircraft IP-1, and laid the IP-2. Then spread to the plant number 1 as the chief designer. Chief designer of the plant, he was not, as it so actually did not recognize any Shekunov nor Belenkovich.
Grigorovich's work over the dive bombers and IP-2 at the plant number 1 is not moved. But now Grigorovich actually removed from the design work on these machines and parts of his machines at the factory № 1 are packed in boxes for shipment to nowhere. "

«It seems more probable for me that GUAP administration refused the whole concept of" flying cruiser ". Maybe they decided it's obsolescent, without perspectives. »
I agree with you, most likely it was.
Regarding the term «Legkiy Kreiser»; «Letajuschiy Kreiser» or even in the same source I have seen «Leningradsky Kombinat")))
From the perspective of V. Rentel working in the first half of the thirties CRUISER was still "light".
At the same Grokhovskiy a four-engine G-52, "Heavy Cruiser" (TB-3) with three 76mm cannon (not recoilless )
Do not get me wrong, I have no desire to denigrate nor A. Tupolev, Yakovlev neither, nor anyone else was. Nothing personal. In the end, judged the cases as positive and ...
Must be objective.
Best regards,
Anatoliy
 

borovik

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
792
Reaction score
140
redstar72 said:
Maybe you have some more info about DG-56? Any technical data, or even maybe some pictures?
Thanks!
Only for users of our forum.
The request to publish a book on D. Grigorovich (at least within the next year) not to use the scheme to other sites.
(Courtesy by M.Maslov)
DG-56 preliminary sketch (not weapons)
LK-3 (DG-56)
Exact date of the appearance of this project, or failing to pursue its development is not revealed. Perhaps the aircraft design was conducted throughout 1935 It was at this time in the leadership of Red Army Air Force marked interest in high-speed twin-engine plane, which was used for the definition of "cruiser" - LK. The objectives for these aircraft were called protecting its bombers and the destruction of enemy planes flying in the large units. Project "light cruiser" Grigorovich was designated LK-3 (DG-56). The plane was assumed under the two engine Hispano Suiza »12Ybrs with a maximum output of 850 hp each. DW-56 sleek contours, had retractable landing gear, smooth lining. The crew consisted of three people. Armament expected from two dinamoreaktivnyh guns APK-4 76 mm or 2 x 20 mm cannons ShVAK.
The main calculated characteristics of LK-3 (DG-56)
Wingspan (m) 20.0
The length of the line of flight (m) 13.0
The height of the parking lot (m) 4,895
Wheel track (m) 5,048
Wing Area (m2) 53.0
WEIGHT (kg) 1940
Full load (kg) 2220
Flight weight (kg) 5675
Wing loading (kg/m2) 111.0
Bombs (kg) 200 (overload)
Maximum speed at 5000 m (km / h) 428
Range (km) 1900
 

Attachments

  • DG-56-1.jpg
    DG-56-1.jpg
    41.2 KB · Views: 798

redstar72

Soviet Aviation enthusiast
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
519
Reaction score
63
Анатолий, большое спасибо! Thank you very much Anatoly!
The DG-56 is a very elegant aircraft. Unarmed it looks like long-range racer ;) .
 

redstar72

Soviet Aviation enthusiast
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
519
Reaction score
63
In early 1941 - the flying cruiser returned! If not to the sky, then at least to the drawing boards of some aircraft designers. Leonid Kurbala, a chief designer of KB-70 based on Zavod No. 81 in Tushino, was one of them. His "IS" project was discussed at http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5362.0.html, there was a 3-view but no story. So, the story is here.

In early March, 1941 Kurbala proposed two very similar aircraft projects. De facto it was one and the same project, adopted for two different roles: “PB” as a twin-engined dive bomber, and “IS” as heavy escort fighter. If somebody thinks that “IS” means Iosif Stalin, he is wrong: it is simply Istrebitel Soprovozhdenia (escort fighter). It was a large twin-boom aircraft built mostly from wood (about 70 % of construction weight), powered by two 2000-hp Shvetsov M-71 radial engines. It had three-men crew: pilot, navigator, and rear gunner / radio operator. The escort fighter version was armed with two 23-mm Taubin / Baburin MP-6 cannons (or even 37-mm BMA-37 cannons, as an option) and a battery of four ShKAS machine guns mounted in wing center section. It had also two turret ShKAS operated by navigator (in the nose turret, so I think it suits the criteria?) and by gunner. All ShKASes could be replaced by 12.7-mm Taubin / Baburin machine guns. Also the aircraft could carry rocket weapons – six RS-82, or six RS-132, or even four RS-132 and two powerful RS-203.

The NII VVS experts examined Kurbala’s proposal, but were more interested in the “PB” dive bomber version. It was included into the schedule of prototype works for the year 1941, and the full-scale mockup was offered. But the German invasion didn’t allow to develop this project.

Technical data for Kurbala IS (projected):
Wing span - 17.2 m
Length - 14.4 m
Wing area - 37.0 m2 (?)
Maximum takeoff weight - 10 500 kg
Powerplant - two M-71 radial engines, 2000 hp each
Maximum speed - 520 km/h (near the ground), 660 km/h (at 6500 m altitude)
Vertical speed - 770 m/min
Flight range - 2500 km
Service ceiling - 11 000 m
 

Maveric

Fight for yor Right!
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
374
Hi redstar72,
do you have also a short biography by Leonid Kurbala?

Thanks
 

redstar72

Soviet Aviation enthusiast
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
519
Reaction score
63
Maveric said:
Hi redstar72,
do you have also a short biography by Leonid Kurbala?

Hello Maveric! Sorry I have only some facts about Kurbala. In 1932-34, he was a student of Moscow Aviation Institute (MAI). At that time he was a member of students' designer team and took part in some interesting aircraft projects, such as long-range Stal-MAI made from Energe-6 steel and EMAI-1 "Sergo Ordjonikidze" light experimental aircraft made from magnesium alloy called Elektron. Another members of this team were Petr Grushin (later known as a rocket designer), Mikhail Pashinin, and others. They worked under the leading of Dmitry Grigorovich, who headed MAI aircraft construction department at the time. The chief designer of Stal-MAI was Grigorovich himself, later Grushin; the EMAI-1 project was headed by S. Zonshajn and A. Gimmelfarb. The Stal-MAI was first flown at September 19, 1934, but was seriously damaged in crash landing during its 5th flight. The EMAI-1 tests begun at November 1934, and it made about 600 flights during next 4 years. The tests were so long because the main task was to examine the new material by all aspects – including its corrosion stability etc. More info on these aircrafts here:
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/law1/stalmai.html
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/xplane/emai.html

Later, Kurbala became an engineer of Yakovlev OKB. At June 27, 1940 by the NKAP order #317 he was sent to Zavod 81 as a head of new-established KB-70, which task was to adjust the series production of Yakovlev BB-22 high-speed light bomber (later known as Yak-2) and to design its version with M-105 engines (BB-22bis / Yak-4). Also Kurbala designed a dive bomber version of this aircraft, called BPB-22 or Izdelie 31, first flown at late October, 1940.

In the middle 1941, Kurbala got a task for 25-30-seat cargo /assault glider design. He designed a twin-boom, mostly wooden aircraft called K-G. The project was approved by NKAP, and Kurbala got a former wooden container factory in Stalingrad for its production. He became a director and a chief designer of that factory which was now called Zavod No. 490. Two K-G prototypes were built there and tested in 1942, but the production was stopped because Nazi troops approached close to Stalingrad.

In early 1960s, Kurbala worked in Kazan’ at the GSKB SA (State Specialized Design Bureau for Sport Aviation), which designed different types of sport and training gliders and, beside them, pilotless target drones.
 

Attachments

  • stalmai-2.jpg
    stalmai-2.jpg
    46.6 KB · Views: 587
  • stalmai-1.gif
    stalmai-1.gif
    226.2 KB · Views: 582
  • emai-1.jpg
    emai-1.jpg
    72.7 KB · Views: 495
  • emai-1.gif
    emai-1.gif
    275.5 KB · Views: 489

Similar threads

Top