Cloning?

[Shortround6]

Better how?

The 14R was not really a developed engine and post war engines (with better fuel) never reached the the 1940 numbers projected for it. Different life expectancy?

The Ha-41 already exceeded the power of the 14N, and the Ha-109 pretty much matched (about 100hp less) the postwar-14R while running on 92 octane fuel compared to 100/130 at about the same weight.

 

[cherry blossom]

Yes I think that you are correct although the 14R was probably able to be flown at 1,300 hp in 1940 which is a little better than the Ha 41. The extra power of the 14R postwar seems to be roughly what you might expect from using higher octane and thus higher boost (for the Merlin 1 lb of boost gave 50 hp. as a rule of thumb). The 820-860 kg weight of the 14R might suggest that it was stronger than the 780 kg Ha 109 and perhaps a 14R might be run with Japanese 91 octane plus ADI at around 9 lbs.

You posted data for the 14R elsewhere http://warbirdsforum.com/showthread.php?p=30014 and I have added my errors in square brackets

The 1946 edition [of Aircraft engines of the world by Paul Wilkinson] gives the following figures of the 14R-24 with a two speed supercharger.
1600hp/2600rpm/8.6lbs boost for take off [47.43", 1.59 ata].
1660hp/2600rpm/3,300ft.
1525hp/2600rpm/20,000ft.

q‹ó‹@ƒGƒ"ƒWƒ"ˆê——E"ú–{ŒR for the Ha 109 gives a take off power of 1520 hp at 2650 rpm with 300mm/41.7" [5.8 lbs, 1.39 ata] and military power of 1440 hp at 2100 metres at 2600 rpm and 1320 hp at 5200 metres at 2600 rpm with 200mm/37.8".

We have examples of both engines http://www.preservedaxisaircraft.com/Japan/Engines/Ha34-11 NASM.jpg and http://www.enginehistory.org/Museums/SNECMA/133 Gnome Rhone 14R.jpg, so it might be fun for someone to investigate how two teams of designers managed almost the same work completely independently. I have not completely given up the idea that on talking to each other the two teams might have realised that some improvements were only present in one design but could be transferred.

 

[CobberKane]

My favourire clone would have to be the Tu-144 'Concordski', though to be fair it was quite different to the anglo-french effort. Being a Kiwi, my second pick would be Dolly the sheep. Grrr!

 

[tomo pauk]

Don't think the Tu-144 is a clone of anything.

 

[CobberKane]

Perhaps in the sense that it was a political exercise meant to demonstrate that anything the West could do, the Soviets could do too. Same with their B 29, no doubt, though that was a true case of reverse engineering and they would have picked up valuable insights into production processes, etc.
I understand the USSR did try to pinch the design of the Concorde, but were fed disinformation. Doubtless someone out there is more across that piece of history than me.

 

[bobbysocks]

how much cloning was able to be done because they had obtained a license to make DC-3s which was designated nakajima/showa L2d "tabby"? wouldnt they have access to the engines as well??

 

[nuuumannn]

Perhaps in the sense that it was a political exercise meant to demonstrate that anything the West could do, the Soviets could do too. Same with their B 29, no doubt, though that was a true case of reverse engineering and they would have picked up valuable insights into production processes, etc.

Bingo! You got it. Stalin wanted B-29s and had asked the US for them repeatedly, but the US denied them. The next best thing was to reverse engineer it. The B-29 was not obsolete; it was still in production and it was the most advanced strategic bomber in service in '44, 45, so the captured machines were a coup for the Soviets. The big thing about reverse engineering the B-29 was that it introduced new alloys to Russian industry, new materials that had never been built, levels of precision never been achieved and new weaponry, electronic equipment etc. The russians had never cast such large castings for undercarriage legs before the B-29. Neither had they come across so much wiring in an aeroplane before. It singlehandedly changed the Russian aircraft industry; never before had such a big pressurised fuselage been built in the Soviet Union and consequently the technology was utilised by almost every big aircraft builder in the USSR, not least Tupolev, who incorporated B-29 technology in almost every subsequent aircraft design, including the Tu-16 Badger and Tu-95 Bear.

As for the engine, the Cyclone was not reverse engineered; the Russians used the Shvetsov Ash-73TK 18 cylinder radial. The supercharger, magnetos and advanced heat resistant alloys and bearings were copied.

German reverse engineering? I reckon if anything a German DH Mosquito, a proper one, not the Ta 154, but a purpose built high speed multi role aircraft. The Germans could certainly do it.
if they wanted to, perhaps put their own engines in it.

Interesting to note the Russians built a copy of the DH.88 Comet, which was slightly larger than the British machine and not as fast, but in outline it was almost identical; they called it Dyevushkovaya Mashina "Ladies' Machine", since it was largely built by women.

 

[A4K]

I understand the USSR did try to pinch the design of the Concorde, but were fed disinformation. Doubtless someone out there is more across that piece of history than me.

From what I've read, they not only tried, but DID procure most of the Concorde's design documentation, through two main spies (one of whom was caught).
They were fed a little disinformation too: the Russians wanted to find out the compound of the tyres, so took samples from tyre marks on the test runway. The Concorde team were ahead of them there though and brushed heated chewing gum over them!
The similarity between the two was purely external, btw: the russians received design documentation, but not manufacturing details. As a result the Tu-144 was constructed in accordance with standard Russsian manufacturing processes, suffereing as a result from being heavier, and engines underpowered in comparison to Concorde's (IIRC).

 

[nuuumannn]

The Russians never replicated the gracefully shaped ogival wing of the Concorde either; it was an aerodynamic masterpiece. They relied on brute force to get the Tu-144 to do what they wanted it to!

 

[parsifal]

Im surprised to see the claim that the Soviets were caught off guard, so to speak, by the size of the fittings and production techniques in the B-29. If thre was one thing the Soviets could do, and still do, its build big things. They are good at it. Including big airframes and associated technologies.

Not saying I know, just surpised that they supposedly couldnt

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Even the Americans could take 1 1/2 to 2 years to set up a factory and getting it turning out large numbers of engines starting from a bare plot of ground BUT starting WITH the help of a complete set of blueprints of the engine, Some parts supplied by outside vendors (laready making parts for parent company) AND the help of some engineers from the parent factory/s.

There are two stories on the engines for the Russian TU-4, one is that they copied the engines in teh B-29 and the other is that they used their own engines in it, only part/s not copied.

But since their own engine was a 2 row 18 cylinder developed of a licence built 9 cylinder 1 row Wright Cyclone and the R-3350 was a Wright developed 2 row 18 cylinder version of the 9 cylinder 1 row Wright Cyclone the practical difference is vary small.
The Russian 2 row 18 cylinder engine was the 4th attempt at such an 18 cylinder engine by the same design team and the 9 cylinder Licence built engines had already been "Metricized".

From Wiki - thought this was interesting...

 

[Shortround6]

Im surprised to see the claim that the Soviets were caught off guard, so to speak, by the size of the fittings and production techniques in the B-29. If thre was one thing the Soviets could do, and still do, its build big things. They are good at it. Including big airframes and associated technologies.

There is big and there is big and light

The Russians were very good at building a number of items that worked ( and worked well for their application) AND had a lot of good theories/ideas (research). Were they had problems was in the development and, believe it or not, manufacture.

The Russians turned out some amazing quantities of certain things, like aircraft and tanks, but the quality control was often abysmal and durability and interchangeability of parts was also often less than desired.
The Russians often made up for lack of sophistication in manufacture with shear numbers. This may work for tanks but defective aircraft tend to fail in rather spectacular fashion.

The Russians got a lot better during the 50s and 60s. The Russians had been trying to "jump start" their own aviation industry all during the 2-s/30s. Licencing the BMW V-12. The Liberty, Gnome Rhone engines, The Cyclones, Hispano Suiza and Renault engines. And maybe a few I missed
They had also licensed the DC-3 and the Catalina.

All pre war and all cash deals. Russians were probably the 2nd leading nation in turbo chargers in the 1930s after the Americans. The idea was there, the manufacturing ability to bring it to production was not.

 

[nuuumannn]

Nice little flow chart there, Joe, you can see the ASh-73 that powered the Tu-4 on the bottom right.

WE also have to remember that prior to WW2 Soviet Russia was a backward country whose primary industry, agriculture, still used horses and human power for years after the West mechanised. Much of its population lived without electricity and running water and literacy was low. Barbarossa did a huge amount of damage to infrastructure in the western Soviet Union; during the Soviet occupation of eastern Germany, whole power stations and factories were dismantled and sent back East. I can vaguely remember that one of the hangars at Monino had "Rauchen Verboten" painted on the walls years ago.

 

[bobbysocks]

when the americans were negotiating with stalin for air bases in western russia with the hopes of putting some in eastern russia...the soviet response was to ask for the planes for their own personel to fly. there were rumors that the russians had taken all they had learned from the american engineers and constructed several bases big enough to handle heavy long range bombers. they did get to keep a few B17s ( and P51s ) that were damaged on the shuttle missions or diverted to soviet held territory due to being shot up.

 

[davebender]

Britain built the Mosquito out of wood because they didn't produce much aluminum. The same reason some WWII Soviet aircraft were made of wood.

1939 Germany produced more aluminum then anyone else. Why would they build a wooden aircraft?

 

[nuuumannn]

Britain built the Mosquito out of wood because they didn't produce much aluminum.

Bingo! http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/aviation-myths-will-not-die-34833-7.html#post969234

Come on now Dave, we've been over this before, countless times; Britain did not have a shortage of aluminium before the war and during it; the Mosquito was built out of wood because DH was experienced in wooden construction methods and the use of a non-strategic material in case there was a shortage, NOT because there was!

 

[nuuumannn]

To enforce the reasons behind why DH built the Mossie out of wood, here is text from a letter written by GdeH for Wilfred Freeman dated 20 September 1939;

"From former conversations with you, and using the experience we have gained in very quickly producing types which have to compete with others from all over the world, we believe that we could produce a twin engine bomber which would have a performance so outstanding that little defensive equipment would be needed. This would employ the well tried out methods of design and construction used in the Comet and Albatross and, being of wood or composite construction, would not encroach on the labour and material used in expanding the RAF. It is specially suited to really high speeds because all surfaces are smooth, free from rivets, overlapped plates and undulations. It also lends itself to very rapid initial and subsequent production."

More:

"Its production would absorb a class of labour and material which is outside and additional to that used in the main aircraft production." No mention of any national shortage of aluminium as a reason for building the Mosquito out of wood at all anywhere, in any paperwork, letters, documentation etc.

Dave, I have authoritative books on the Mosquito on my shelf and can find no reference to any such thing, now will you please stop insisting that this is the case as it most certainly was not.

 

[tomo pauk]

...

WE also have to remember that prior to WW2 Soviet Russia was a backward country whose primary industry, agriculture, still used horses and human power for years after the West mechanised. Much of its population lived without electricity and running water and literacy was low. Barbarossa did a huge amount of damage to infrastructure in the western Soviet Union; during the Soviet occupation of eastern Germany, whole power stations and factories were dismantled and sent back East. I can vaguely remember that one of the hangars at Monino had "Rauchen Verboten" painted on the walls years ago.

This is a myth, the Soviet Russia being such a backward country prior ww2?
Is it early 20s, or late 30s for the 'prior ww2'? How many countries in the West were above, say, 80% electrified, with fully mechanized agriculture of high literacy (I'm not talking about paragons of 'good societies', like Switzerland, Denmark, Netherlands like)?

 

[CobberKane]

Regarding the claim that the Mossie was built of wood due to an wartime aluminium shortage in the UK, this probably has it roots in Lord Beaverbrook's claims to that end when he extoled British households to give up their aluminium cookwear to aid aircraft production during the BoB, irrespective of the fact that the UK had plenty of scrap aluminium at the time. The net effect of the exercise was to piss off a few milloin British housewives who, having given up their pots and pans, continued to see the same products for sale in shop windows thereafter.

 

[nuuumannn]

This is a myth, the Soviet Russia being such a backward country prior ww2?

Not really. When the Communists came into power, much was made of industrially modernising the country and brining it up to a standard comparable with the West. While growth in this area was achieved to a certain extent, economically and socially their impact was the same as and worse for the peasants living in the cities and rural areas (who constituted the vast majority of the Soviet population) than what had happened under the Tsars.

Forced collectivisation of farms, the destruction of religious icons (rural Russians are deeply spiritual people), the forced relocation of thousands of farmers and peasants to arid unmanageable land saw poverty and famine on an enormous scale throughout the Soviet Union. The cities may have experienced industrial growth, but the poor rural population lost everything. Propaganda images show tractors at work in the fields and electricity being installed in rural homes; the reality was vastly different. Thousands died from lack of basic facilities in the 1930s.