# Soviet aircraft manufacturers....



## Lucky13 (Jan 24, 2008)

Mig, Sukhoi, Tupovlev, and the rest... Does any know how they compared to each other? Which was the better manufacturer? Any favorites?






SU-9





SU-15





MiG-19





MiG-21





TU-16


----------



## Ramirezzz (Jan 28, 2008)

it's a difficult question to answer. what do you mean by "better manufacturer"? they all made some decent planes


----------



## Graeme (Jan 28, 2008)

Purely based on 'diversity' I'd select Tupolev.





(Bill Gunston's introduction to his book 'Tupolev Aircraft since 1922')


----------



## B-17engineer (Jan 28, 2008)

My favorite is Tupolev...........I liked Tu-95 "Bear"


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 28, 2008)

I've worked a MiG-15 a MiG-21 and an An-2. As far as over-all quality, the 3 were about the same - "very good." The MiG-15 was a UTI converted - the quality of the conversion was very poor, but that was done in Poland. I don't know if the MiG-15 was built in Poland or not.. The 21 and AN-2 were both from Russia.

In a comparison I have found the L-29 and L-39 built a little better. I recently worked on on an Iskra and was very impressed by the aircraft - both in quality and simplicity of maintenance....


----------



## JiVi (Jan 16, 2009)

Mig 21MF (NATO code - FishBed-J) is very nice aircraft


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 18, 2009)

I'd go for MiG, since it (Mig 21 that is) was the only decent combat plane Croatian AF was equipped during the las war here. And it was put in good use back in 1995 glory days


----------



## Venganza (Jan 18, 2009)

I agree with Graeme on Tupolev, not just in diversity, but also in longevity. And I agree with B17engineer about the Tu-95 - always liked it - it may be my favorite airplane. Remarkable plane. It's interesting how the design bureaux seemed to specialize in different types of planes - Tupolev with bombers, Polikarpov, Lavochkin, Sukhoi, and MiG with fighters, Ilyushin, and Antonov with transports and Beriev with seaplanes. I don't know if this was where their respective engineers' talents lay, or what the Soviet leaders wanted them to specialize on - probably a combination of both.

Venganza


----------



## Waynos (Jan 18, 2009)

You may not be aware that the Russians didn't have 'manufacturers' like we are used to, designing and developing their aircraft and then, if lucky enough to be selected, producing them.

The Soviets just had 'design bureaux' whose sole responsibility was the design and prototyping of the aircraft, all production then being taken away and done in the govt owned state aircraft factories which could end up building aircraft designed by any of the famous names mentioned earlier in the thread.


----------



## Graeme (Jan 18, 2009)

Venganza said:


> .





Waynos said:


> .



Gentlemen, I'm hoping you can help me with this one as it's been annoying me for just over 30 yrs. Google is unhelpful. It appears at the back of a book (1954) devoted to jet engines, but with an encyclopaedic coverage of "existing" jet powered aircraft. 

Now I know that with publications around this period the West was very "imaginative" when it came to USSR products, but did it exist?

*EF* (Junkers, in Soviet hands?) I think we discussed EF machines in the Ju-287 thread?

There is no mention of it in the text, just a top view line drawing and the caption...





(And there are a few more illustrated Soviet oddities, if you're interested.)


----------



## Venganza (Jan 18, 2009)

Waynos said:


> You may not be aware that the Russians didn't have 'manufacturers' like we are used to, designing and developing their aircraft and then, if lucky enough to be selected, producing them.
> 
> The Soviets just had 'design bureaux' whose sole responsibility was the design and prototyping of the aircraft, all production then being taken away and done in the govt owned state aircraft factories which could end up building aircraft designed by any of the famous names mentioned earlier in the thread.



Good point, Waynos. Under the centralized Soviet control of factories, a factory could be producing Ilyushin products one year, tractors the next, and Tupolev products the next. Sometimes people in the West do tend to refer to the design bureaux as if they were Western-style aircraft manufacturers, like the late Hawker Siddeley or Boeing.

Venganza


----------



## Venganza (Jan 18, 2009)

Graeme said:


> Gentlemen, I'm hoping you can help me with this one as it's been annoying me for just over 30 yrs. Google is unhelpful. It appears at the back of a book (1954) devoted to jet engines, but with an encyclopaedic coverage of "existing" jet powered aircraft.
> 
> Now I know that with publications around this period the West was very "imaginative" when it came to USSR products, but did it exist?
> 
> ...



Wierd. Definitely looks one of those Luft '46 designs. I'll take a look at my references and other sources to see if I can find anything about this, Graeme.

Venganza


----------



## Waynos (Jan 19, 2009)

It was designed as the Junkers EF.128 and was to be a fighter, but was never built or flown as far as I can confirm (who knows what archive material still lurks unfound in Russian Libraries?)

The Russians weren't the only ones to get hold of it though. I have two very similar looking designs (and I mean VERY) in books at home and they are labelled 'Westland N.40/46' and 'Hawker P.1077' The latter seems a more 'developed' design though with more highly swept wings and a pointy nose on a longer body


----------



## Flyboy2 (Jan 19, 2009)

In modern times it has seemed to me that the Sukhoi aircraft have been more on the cutting edge of aerial combat, especially the Su-27 and its many derivatives.
But for and overtime comparison I think MiG would probably win and Tupolev as well because overall it seems there aircraft have been much more involved.


----------



## Graeme (Jan 22, 2009)

Waynos said:


> It was designed as the Junkers EF.128 and was to be a fighter, but was never built or flown as far as I can confirm (who knows what archive material still lurks unfound in Russian Libraries?)



Thanks Wayne, suspected as much but wasn't entirely sure. However I'm sure the author and illustrator weren't privy to Kremlin secrets. So here's a few more to look/laugh at...

The name is legitimate but the illustration...is of what?..





The MiG-17 SN?...





The "Flat MiG?"...





The Tupolev Tu-10  ...





And the SIX-engine BEAR  ...


----------



## Venganza (Jan 22, 2009)

That "Tu-10 " looks suspiciously like an IL-28 Beagle. What a coincidence! I love that six-engined Bear (the nose looks like it came from a giant X-1). Some of the Soviet "aircraft" that were reported, especially in the 1950's, seem to have been nothing but the product of the fevered imagination of people in the West. In response to you previous post about the EF-128, I found information that says not only was a complete mockup built, but the actual fuselage was built and test-flown underneath a Ju-88. Supposedly the Soviets got their hands on the fuselage, but alas, I can find no further information or photos regarding this. Like so much else from that chaotic immediate post-war period, I suppose its fate will remain shrouded in mystery.

Venganza


----------



## The Basket (Jan 22, 2009)

Andrei Tupelov was considered number one of the big names so he would win the contest but its all about who had favour.

Polikarpov was big but fell out with Stalin and was replaced by Mikoyan because his brother was Stalins crony.

Lavochkin was the big fighter name of the 1940s era and its La-15 was considered even better than the MiG-15 but was moved into rockets.

Sukhoi seems the player today.


----------



## Waynos (Jan 23, 2009)

Yes, that is certainly the Il-28 in that picture. I also have amongst my own books a photo of a MiG 15 variant with a solid nose, lateral intakes (like the Gloster Javelin except very small) and moveable cannon installation in the nose that could be vectored up and down, have you seen it?

Meanwhile this impression looks very much like the large bomber you illustrated Graeme;






while this is the true Tupolev prototype that was contemporary with the Il-28 It was a swept wing aircraft and was developed as the Tu-82 and was to enter service as the Tu-22, with its cancellation that designation was reallocated to the later Tu-105


----------



## Graeme (Jan 23, 2009)

Venganza said:


> I found information that says not only was a complete mockup built, but the actual fuselage was built and test-flown underneath a Ju-88. Venganza



Many thanks for taking the time to have a look for me!



Waynos said:


> Yes, that is certainly the Il-28 in that picture.



Undoubtedly. Was there ever a* night-fighter* version? (1953 book).







Waynos said:


> I also have amongst my own books a photo of a MiG 15 variant with a solid nose, lateral intakes (like the Gloster Javelin except very small) and moveable cannon installation in the nose that could be vectored up and down, have you seen it?



Doesn't ring any bells, all I can think of is the MiG 17SN? Maybe Venganza can help.



Waynos said:


> Meanwhile this impression looks very much like the large bomber you illustrated



Incredible, it certainly does! Western imagination or was it a "real" Tupolev design? What year is the image from?


----------



## Waynos (Jan 24, 2009)

Yes, it was the Mikoyan SN, that was based on the MiG 17, sorry for my typo when I put 15.

The Il-28 was never considered as a fighter, but by coincidence the later supersonic Il-54 'Blowlamp' was considered as a night fighter but rejected before being built with the Yak 28 being produced instead.

The large bomber is an interesting story. It was leaked to western intelligence in the early 50's who immediately gave it the fictitious name Tu-200 and we had it entering service. When the Tu-20 (Tu-95) was identified shortly afterwards this 'Tu-200' was immediately dismissed as, at best, a mis-identification of the Tu-20 or, at worst, a complete hoax.

It remained this way until after the end of the cold war when a lot of archive material became available and the following were revealed;

first there is this, a redesigned 6 engined derivative of the Tu-85 that dates from 1948 (there was an 8 engine version proposed as well) designed as 'Project 489'








This design then evolved into this one, still under the same number, it now has more highly swept wing and a fully glazed nose, but the tail is lower than on the Western created picture in my earlier post. 







There were even some sketchy specs with the drawings, range was 'up to 12,430 miles' Span 183ft, MTOW 209,000lbs and powerplants were to be 6 x Shvetsov ASh-73TK turboprops.


----------



## Graeme (Jan 24, 2009)

Excellent Wayne! Great info there! So there really was some 'truth' in that ridiculous looking bomber drawing I posted earlier after all. Thanks!

Crazy paranoid times...


----------



## Waynos (Jan 24, 2009)

I bet the 'Mole' was well impressed when he got called an idiot for 40 years


----------



## Venganza (Jan 24, 2009)

Waynos said:


> The large bomber is an interesting story. It was leaked to western intelligence in the early 50's who immediately gave it the fictitious name Tu-200 and we had it entering service. When the Tu-20 (Tu-95) was identified shortly afterwards this 'Tu-200' was immediately dismissed as, at best, a mis-identification of the Tu-20 or, at worst, a complete hoax.
> 
> It remained this way until after the end of the cold war when a lot of archive material became available and the following were revealed;
> 
> ...



Great drawings, Waynos! The first drawing is like a Soviet B-36, even more than the Tu-85. I thought I knew most everything about the Tu-4, Tu-80, Tu-85, Tu-95 family (and let's not forget the Tu-75), but these are news to me. I suppose these were "way stations" on the path to the Tu-95. What source did you get these drawings from?

Venganza


----------



## Waynos (Jan 24, 2009)

They are from the 'Secret Projects' series, in this case Soviet Bombers since 1945, there is a companion volume on fighters too. I would love to scan and post all the exotic designs, mock ups, models and prototypes it features but I don't thinkt hat would be fair on the authors, rather I would recommend you to get a copy if you can. Needless to say there is much more to Russia's attempt to emulate the B-36 than the 2 drawings here. I now wonder what else is out there?


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 24, 2009)

Must be quite few things that we still don't know about....8)


----------



## Venganza (Jan 24, 2009)

Waynos said:


> They are from the 'Secret Projects' series, in this case Soviet Bombers since 1945, there is a companion volume on fighters too. I would love to scan and post all the exotic designs, mock ups, models and prototypes it features but I don't thinkt hat would be fair on the authors, rather I would recommend you to get a copy if you can. Needless to say there is much more to Russia's attempt to emulate the B-36 than the 2 drawings here. I now wonder what else is out there?



Thanks for the information, Waynos! You're right about it not being fair to the authors to post all their pictures; I will try and get ahold of the books.

Venganza


----------

