Klimov M-105 series performance data
- Thread starter greybeard
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
compiled from various sources:
42-43 105PF: maximum take off (WER) 1210hp/2700rpm/110cm (5-7mins), maximum WER low blower at 700 metres alt 1260hp/2700rpm/110cm (5-7mins), at 2700 metres alt 1180hp. Otherwise as 105P.
41 105P/PA (PA is neg G safe and more reliable than P): normal maximum take off 1020hp/2600rpm/96cm; military rating in low blower at 2000 metres alt 1100hp/2700rpm/92cm, normal military in high blower at 4000 metres 1050hp/2600rpm/92cm
43-44 105PF2 maximum take off only 1300-1360hp/2800rpm/120cm (2mins), fuel quality dependent (build quality sorted by then), otherwise as PF.
Essentially the 2700rpm is normal maximum engine speed, 2600rpm normal operating engine speed (eg. climb setting), exceeded in later versions of high build quality for a couple of minutes for the WER ratings.
I've seen someone at one of these forums post fairly complete tech specs on the 105 though. I'm having trouble finding some of my old links.
edit, ah I found my Yak 3 pilot manual. Unfortunately it's in Russian of course and um, of course I don't speak russian. I'm just doing the best I can with the figures here, cyrillic is really hard to read:
These figures are for the 105PF2 motor: normal max operating speed 2600-2700rpm, climb speed 2400-2500rpm, max continuous 2200-2300rpm, normal cruise 2000-2200rpm, economy cruise 1900-2000rpm. WER 2800rpm. Low blower is actually 2500m throttle height in this engine rather than 2000m for the 105P, high blower is the same. Boost settings are 100-110cm military/WER at alt (10-20min), 110 (10min) to 115cm (5min) max take off/emergency/WER under 2000 metres, 90-100cm for norm.military/max climb (30min), 70-80cm normal climb, 90cm max continuous, 60cm normal cruise, and 50-70cm is overall cruise range. Mixtures all vary by condition, ambience and demands, so do time limits, the guideline is essentially 110cm is 10min, 115cm is 5min, 100cm about 30min or so, unlimited for 90cm and lower boost, with corresponding rpm.
Max allowed boost pressure at 3500-4000m is 105cm and from 4000-9000m is 100cm.
Just making an observation, these oldish engines have a very wide array of rpm/boost/mixture combinations for a wealth of engine settings. Really you should see all this stuff on engine settings in here. Not like easy auto boost regulators, automixture, single carbs (these have six), these are not like Allied/German contemporaries for ease of piloting but appear to be fairly complicated to do rather simple things with, a bit like adding wartime features to prewar technology engines without updating their technology, just adding the manual features piecemeal. Well as a characterisation.
Hey anybody speak Russian
This is becoming a bit of a theme with me
42-43 105PF: maximum take off (WER) 1210hp/2700rpm/110cm (5-7mins), maximum WER low blower at 700 metres alt 1260hp/2700rpm/110cm (5-7mins), at 2700 metres alt 1180hp. Otherwise as 105P.
41 105P/PA (PA is neg G safe and more reliable than P): normal maximum take off 1020hp/2600rpm/96cm; military rating in low blower at 2000 metres alt 1100hp/2700rpm/92cm, normal military in high blower at 4000 metres 1050hp/2600rpm/92cm
43-44 105PF2 maximum take off only 1300-1360hp/2800rpm/120cm (2mins), fuel quality dependent (build quality sorted by then), otherwise as PF.
Essentially the 2700rpm is normal maximum engine speed, 2600rpm normal operating engine speed (eg. climb setting), exceeded in later versions of high build quality for a couple of minutes for the WER ratings.
I've seen someone at one of these forums post fairly complete tech specs on the 105 though. I'm having trouble finding some of my old links.
edit, ah I found my Yak 3 pilot manual. Unfortunately it's in Russian of course and um, of course I don't speak russian. I'm just doing the best I can with the figures here, cyrillic is really hard to read:
These figures are for the 105PF2 motor: normal max operating speed 2600-2700rpm, climb speed 2400-2500rpm, max continuous 2200-2300rpm, normal cruise 2000-2200rpm, economy cruise 1900-2000rpm. WER 2800rpm. Low blower is actually 2500m throttle height in this engine rather than 2000m for the 105P, high blower is the same. Boost settings are 100-110cm military/WER at alt (10-20min), 110 (10min) to 115cm (5min) max take off/emergency/WER under 2000 metres, 90-100cm for norm.military/max climb (30min), 70-80cm normal climb, 90cm max continuous, 60cm normal cruise, and 50-70cm is overall cruise range. Mixtures all vary by condition, ambience and demands, so do time limits, the guideline is essentially 110cm is 10min, 115cm is 5min, 100cm about 30min or so, unlimited for 90cm and lower boost, with corresponding rpm.
Max allowed boost pressure at 3500-4000m is 105cm and from 4000-9000m is 100cm.
Just making an observation, these oldish engines have a very wide array of rpm/boost/mixture combinations for a wealth of engine settings. Really you should see all this stuff on engine settings in here. Not like easy auto boost regulators, automixture, single carbs (these have six), these are not like Allied/German contemporaries for ease of piloting but appear to be fairly complicated to do rather simple things with, a bit like adding wartime features to prewar technology engines without updating their technology, just adding the manual features piecemeal. Well as a characterisation.
Hey anybody speak Russian
This is becoming a bit of a theme with me
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #3
....
Hey anybody speak Russian
This is becoming a bit of a theme with me
Will you please post the manual here? Not that I'm fluent in Russian, but will give it a shot.
- Thread starter
- #5
Please find it at following link:
http://www.aviation.ru/Yak/Yak-3.man.html
A competent translation of at least main parts would be great; I can't decipher the Google one.
Thank you,
GB
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Speaking of oldish Soviet engines.....
Ford Model A (1927
The Ford Model A was produced in the USA during 1927 to 1931. Ford Motor Company sold tooling for the obsolete vehicle to the Soviet Union who produced a copy during 1932 to 1936.
Soviet Union's BA-64 Armored Cars - World War II Vehicles, Tanks, and Airplanes
The Soviet Union produced about 9,000 BA-64 light armored cars during 1941 to 1946. It was powered by the Soviet copy of the 1927 Ford Model A engine.
Not that this has anything to do with aircraft but the remark about oldish Soviet engines reminded me of the BA-64.
Ford Model A (1927
The Ford Model A was produced in the USA during 1927 to 1931. Ford Motor Company sold tooling for the obsolete vehicle to the Soviet Union who produced a copy during 1932 to 1936.
Soviet Union's BA-64 Armored Cars - World War II Vehicles, Tanks, and Airplanes
The Soviet Union produced about 9,000 BA-64 light armored cars during 1941 to 1946. It was powered by the Soviet copy of the 1927 Ford Model A engine.
Not that this has anything to do with aircraft but the remark about oldish Soviet engines reminded me of the BA-64.
- Thread starter
- #9
Thanks a lot for your kindness.
Parts regarding take-off and landing procedures would be of interest for me, as well as that regarding guns: so far I was unable to find neither boresighting procedures nor convergence values about russian fighters.
Best regards,
GB
- Thread starter
- #10
I think any people, soon or later, copied from another one: it's human and is a big resource.
The refrain that russian (as well as japanese) copied all from american (with a much lower quality) is a myth hard to die, at least in U.S.A. and a bit annoying in the rest of world.
As a few examples, I could recall Sputnik, Laika and Gagarin and even (so to avoid thinking I'm russian-biased) Offenhauser racing car engine, still winning at Indianapolis in the 1970's, and derived from Peugeot 1912...
Cheers,
GB
The refrain that russian (as well as japanese) copied all from american (with a much lower quality) is a myth hard to die, at least in U.S.A. and a bit annoying in the rest of world.
As a few examples, I could recall Sputnik, Laika and Gagarin and even (so to avoid thinking I'm russian-biased) Offenhauser racing car engine, still winning at Indianapolis in the 1970's, and derived from Peugeot 1912...
Cheers,
GB
Shortround6
Major General
I am not sure what your objective is with last post but there is a bit of a difference between licensed production (like the Russians did with the Wright Cyclone and the French Hispano and Gnome-Rhone engines) and coping without license. There is also a difference between building off of a item (using a few features) and "copying".
As far as the Miller/Offenhauser being a "copy" or "derived" from the Peugeot 1912 engine that is a real stretch. It only took 12-15 years for Miller to "copy" the 1912 Peugeot and he designed a number of engines in the meantime. The Peugeot 1912 was neither the first engine to use 4 valves per cylinder or the first engine to use double over head camshafts and by the late 1920s (when the Miller engine was designed) such features were fairly common in both aircraft engines and race car engines in a number of country's.
While the Miller Golden Submarine of 1917 may have had a bit more in common with the Peugeot 1912 than the later engines the only things the the 1970 Offenhauser had in common with the Peugeot 1912 was the number of cylinders (4 in line), the valve arrangement ( 4 per cylinder with DOHC) and that they were liquid cooled.
As far as the Miller/Offenhauser being a "copy" or "derived" from the Peugeot 1912 engine that is a real stretch. It only took 12-15 years for Miller to "copy" the 1912 Peugeot and he designed a number of engines in the meantime. The Peugeot 1912 was neither the first engine to use 4 valves per cylinder or the first engine to use double over head camshafts and by the late 1920s (when the Miller engine was designed) such features were fairly common in both aircraft engines and race car engines in a number of country's.
While the Miller Golden Submarine of 1917 may have had a bit more in common with the Peugeot 1912 than the later engines the only things the the 1970 Offenhauser had in common with the Peugeot 1912 was the number of cylinders (4 in line), the valve arrangement ( 4 per cylinder with DOHC) and that they were liquid cooled.
- Thread starter
- #12
Davebender entered discussion about Klimov M-105 mentioning how russian produced a copy of Ford Model A motor with recovered tools for a vehicle employed about twenty years later.
This, as still said by him, "Speaking of oldish Soviet engines....."
I would suggest that, although M-105 was a derivative of Hispano Suiza 12Y, Klimov was able to develop it from original 850 HP to 1650 HP in late production series. This is not, IMO, same as Ford A engine mentioned above, but, instead, something much more similar to development you said by Miller of Peugeot 1912.
In other words, I do not agree with cliché of soviet engineering obsolescence generally applied.
Regards,
GB
This, as still said by him, "Speaking of oldish Soviet engines....."
I would suggest that, although M-105 was a derivative of Hispano Suiza 12Y, Klimov was able to develop it from original 850 HP to 1650 HP in late production series. This is not, IMO, same as Ford A engine mentioned above, but, instead, something much more similar to development you said by Miller of Peugeot 1912.
In other words, I do not agree with cliché of soviet engineering obsolescence generally applied.
Regards,
GB
Shortround6
Major General
There was nothing wrong with soviet engineering theory or principles. the Soviet problem was that the country, for all the stuff it did manage to produce in WW II, actually had a small manufacturing base. Most, if not all, plants were fully committed and there were no spare plants. There was very little "machine tool" industry, the ability to make the machines that made the parts for the engines, guns, planes. The best design on paper is of little use if you cannot actually make it. While talented machinists can make prototype parts on old, obsolete machinery, you cannot mass produce high quality parts that way. Some of the soviet "engineering obsolescence" was forced on them by this situation. They had to adapt and use "old" engine designs because that is what they had tooling to make.
It is no good designing a radial engine to use forged cylinder heads unless you have the capacity to forge hundreds of cylinder heads per week if not per day. That limit does not mean that soviet engineers did not know about forged heads or could not design them. It does mean that their choices were limited.
It is no good designing a radial engine to use forged cylinder heads unless you have the capacity to forge hundreds of cylinder heads per week if not per day. That limit does not mean that soviet engineers did not know about forged heads or could not design them. It does mean that their choices were limited.
Seems that most sources indicate that the 1600 hp or so of the Klimov VK-107 was never achieved with decent reliability. The way I see it is that the original Hispano-Suiza design was a piece of s**t with little development potential. On the other hand, the Mikulin series based on the BMW VI is another story as it did apparently provide a very decent engine in the 1700-2000 hp class.
The HS 12Z was produced in small numbers, with german occupation preventing the mas production. The max power was 1300-1500 HP. Even 1300 HP is a great power for 1940.
Even the late versions of the 12Y were capable for almost 1100 HP, that's in 1940.
Both better than an Allison V-1710 from same era.
Shortround6
Major General
The reason the HS-Y engine had little development potential was that it was several years earlier in timing than the Allison, Merlin, DB 600-1 and Ju 211. When it was designed/developed even 80 octane fuel has hot stuff. This limited the cylinder pressures that could be achieved and to make a "competitive" engine it meant that the weight could not be too high for the power produced. The HS-Y engine, for all of it's 36 liters of displacement was under 1100lbs. When fuel got better this light weight construction meant that the engine could not stand up to the higher pressures that could be achieved with the better fuels. Both the crankshaft and breathing arrangements limited the engines ability to run at higher rpm too. But stronger crankshafts (and crankcases) are heavier and 4 valve heads are heavier than 2 valve heads.
The VK-105 and the HS-Z engines gained several hundred pounds in weight over the originals and gained extra valves.
The Mikulin series was a 46 liter engine that weighed 1850lbs or so and this weight somewhat limited it's applications. It's higher power was also limited (in most war time versions) to rather low altitudes.
Shortround6
Major General
In the high altitude versions the power was more like 1350hp. The different gear ratio for the supercharger for high altitude work took more power to drive and heated the air more. While a 2 speed version was built the early/mid war engines were single speed and so had around 1600-1700hp for take-off and near sea level (2000meters and under) compared to 1350-1400hp at 6000 meters for the AM-35/A
Shortround, it does seem that overall the H-S design was seriously constrained. E.g. whose brilliant idea was to use 6 carburettors...If one compares actual H-S/VK engines side-by-side with with the Jumo, Db, Merlin or Allison one's first impression is "This must be a work of some blacksmith in a dirt pit", the overall appearance is more of a farm machine than an aircraft engine.
What is more, Finnish experience with both the original H-S and the Klimovs indicate that they weren't particularly robust or reliable engines to begin with. One might even say typical French "quality".
What is more, Finnish experience with both the original H-S and the Klimovs indicate that they weren't particularly robust or reliable engines to begin with. One might even say typical French "quality".
