Russian IL4 Question....
- Thread starter Reesche
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Thread starter
- #3
Hum..... So the rear container would open up and the parchute would go down with the torpedo to stabilize it? If so, was it attached at (2) points to stabilize it before it hit the water? Did the rear container just open up or did it fall with the torpedo then open up? See attached kit detatils..... They supplied (3) different configurations..... The added stabilizing on 2 of them was for shallow water use? And the one with nothing was for deep water use? Thank you for your ideas! Reesche
Attachments
Actually the diagram doesn't show the three different configurations but steps the torpedo replic has to be assembled with in order to get the final product.
However , the Russian torpedo was designed as two variants. The 45-36АN ( in Russian ... 45-36AH ) for dropping from a low altitude (20-100m) and the 45-36AV ( in Russian ... AB ) for dropping from higher altitude ( 300m and higher ) . Both torpedo types didn't vary themself. The only difference was the way of racking used for carrying and the additional container with the brake parachute used for the AV (AB) variant.
According to the diagram the parachute could be attached in two variants. Either it was mounted directly at the end of the torpedo tail or in the container behind the torpedo. The first variant was designation 45-36AV. The one with the container behind seems to be marked as the 45-36АV-А ( AB-A ... Aвиационная Bысотная Алферова) used for the higer level. IIRC, the system allowed to use the 45-36AN torpedo. The brake parachute was the rotary cone type one and with the line was packed in the container. The line was attached to the torpedo at two points to keep the line at the one axis with the torpedo. Thanks to the rotation of the parachute the speed was getting down and the correct angle (13-18 degrees) of getting into the water was kept.
However the torpedo marked as the 45-36AV in the diagram seems to be the 45-36AN type though with the АN-42 additional stabilizer allowig to drop the torped with 15-55m ( optimised for 30m) altitude and the aircraft speed 300km/h. The An-42 stabilizer ( introduced in 1941/1942 ) was a cylinder made of steel sheet 1600 mm long, 450 mm in diameter with longitudinal ridges to enhance rigidity. At the moment the torpedo entered the water, the inertial mechanism separated the stabilizer.
the AV torpedo ...
the AV-A one ...
And a note .. the diagram you posted above also shows ( parts B25-28 ) the strengthened stabilizers for the 45-36 torpedo marked as the 45-36AM. IIRC the torpedo is a post war (1948 ?) modification for dropping from 100m. But it looks like Russians tried to modify the 45-36AN torpedo during the war many times to get solved many troubles with it they had.
However , the Russian torpedo was designed as two variants. The 45-36АN ( in Russian ... 45-36AH ) for dropping from a low altitude (20-100m) and the 45-36AV ( in Russian ... AB ) for dropping from higher altitude ( 300m and higher ) . Both torpedo types didn't vary themself. The only difference was the way of racking used for carrying and the additional container with the brake parachute used for the AV (AB) variant.
According to the diagram the parachute could be attached in two variants. Either it was mounted directly at the end of the torpedo tail or in the container behind the torpedo. The first variant was designation 45-36AV. The one with the container behind seems to be marked as the 45-36АV-А ( AB-A ... Aвиационная Bысотная Алферова) used for the higer level. IIRC, the system allowed to use the 45-36AN torpedo. The brake parachute was the rotary cone type one and with the line was packed in the container. The line was attached to the torpedo at two points to keep the line at the one axis with the torpedo. Thanks to the rotation of the parachute the speed was getting down and the correct angle (13-18 degrees) of getting into the water was kept.
However the torpedo marked as the 45-36AV in the diagram seems to be the 45-36AN type though with the АN-42 additional stabilizer allowig to drop the torped with 15-55m ( optimised for 30m) altitude and the aircraft speed 300km/h. The An-42 stabilizer ( introduced in 1941/1942 ) was a cylinder made of steel sheet 1600 mm long, 450 mm in diameter with longitudinal ridges to enhance rigidity. At the moment the torpedo entered the water, the inertial mechanism separated the stabilizer.
the AV torpedo ...
the AV-A one ...
And a note .. the diagram you posted above also shows ( parts B25-28 ) the strengthened stabilizers for the 45-36 torpedo marked as the 45-36AM. IIRC the torpedo is a post war (1948 ?) modification for dropping from 100m. But it looks like Russians tried to modify the 45-36AN torpedo during the war many times to get solved many troubles with it they had.
- Thread starter
- #5
Thank you so much for the detailed explanation Wurger!
So the parachute retards the fall but what about aiming the torpedo at the target. It would seem that the torpedo just dangles and spins then it hits the water in what direction?
Interesting concept. I do not remember seeing anything like this used by other countries.
Attached: where I am with this kit......
Again, thank you!
Reesche USA
So the parachute retards the fall but what about aiming the torpedo at the target. It would seem that the torpedo just dangles and spins then it hits the water in what direction?
Interesting concept. I do not remember seeing anything like this used by other countries.
Attached: where I am with this kit......
Again, thank you!
Reesche USA
Attachments
To answer your question .. no the torpedo didn't dangle and spin. It was going down steady. The only part that was spinning was the parachute because the joint with the line was of the rotary/pivotal type. You may notice that in the bottom diagram in my post above. Here below is a diagram I made to give you the idea on how the dropping could be looking like. The direction the torpedo hit the water was the same as the aircraft heading. The pilot or bombardier with a sight determinated the needed direction and time the torpedo had to be dropped taking into consideration the distance and time to the target and its speed. When the torpedo was in the water the hydrostat and the Aubrey device based on a gyroscope were controlling the torpedo submergence and the direction/running course.
and here is a shot of a moment of dropping of the 45-36AM torpedo that was used for shallow waters ... even without the parachute it looks very steady in the air.
- Thread starter
- #7
Hey Werger..... THANK YOU again for the expainations!
GREAT graphic of the dropping of the torpedo and retarding parachute !!! Very well done!
Also, a great shot of the IL-4 dropping the shallow depth torpedo !
I really had no idea that the canister behind the torpedo was what you have shown me......
You have been very helpful my friend!
Reesche USA
GREAT graphic of the dropping of the torpedo and retarding parachute !!! Very well done!
Also, a great shot of the IL-4 dropping the shallow depth torpedo !
I really had no idea that the canister behind the torpedo was what you have shown me......
You have been very helpful my friend!
Reesche USA
- Thread starter
- #9
Hey Werger..... One last question on this.
Did the Metal pod open up and release the drag-chute and dangle underneath until the bomber landed ... or ... was the outer pod part of the the drag chute system as it fell to the water?
If the pod was not ejected it would just dangle until landing.... not very aerodynamic!
Thank you again!
Reesche
Did the Metal pod open up and release the drag-chute and dangle underneath until the bomber landed ... or ... was the outer pod part of the the drag chute system as it fell to the water?
If the pod was not ejected it would just dangle until landing.... not very aerodynamic!
Thank you again!
Reesche
Actualy the Russian sources don't state this at all. The only thing I found was that the kind of the pod together with the torpedo caused limitation to the aircraft speed. Also I haven't seen any image of the torpedo dropped similar to the one with the 45-36AM. Looking at diagrams I would say that one of the cables ( A or B ) was the parachute line while the second one causing the container opened. The C part seen on the container side looks like the hinge for the opening door. So when the pod was opened the door were moved sideways and up (2) with a spring(s) and the chute could be drawn out. I don't think there was the door closing mechanism and the container was still open during the back way to the base.The diagram no.3 ( red ) shows its appearance from the front. After returning the base, the maintenance crew could reload a new parachute closing the container manually. I'm almost sure one of the mentioned cables was connected to a kind of a "pull pin/trigger" releasing the door locker.
- Thread starter
- #11
Wurger...... You are awesome!
Again, a great explanation of the sequence! Very nice graphics (Are you a Graphic Artist?) That's what I did for a living for 30 years....now retired.
I can't help but think, they would have had many mechanical failures with this method of deployment. Damage to the un-faired tail wheel, rear horizontal stabilizers etc.
I can't tell you how enjoyable this thread has been with you! This is what the Internet use to be like years ago and should be now. Good Conversation, Learning, and speaking with someone around the world in a different country! Makes me feel like someone is listening.
Thank you so much!
Reesche
USA
Again, a great explanation of the sequence! Very nice graphics (Are you a Graphic Artist?) That's what I did for a living for 30 years....now retired.
I can't help but think, they would have had many mechanical failures with this method of deployment. Damage to the un-faired tail wheel, rear horizontal stabilizers etc.
I can't tell you how enjoyable this thread has been with you! This is what the Internet use to be like years ago and should be now. Good Conversation, Learning, and speaking with someone around the world in a different country! Makes me feel like someone is listening.
Thank you so much!
Reesche
USA
My suspicion is that it operates like this:
A is the cable to the parachute, probably passing through a small cut-out.
B is a small safety pin the holds the parachute canister closed. When the torpedo is dropped, the cable yanks out the pin.
The parachute cable then yanks the parachute out of the canister.
It make sense to have the doors spring-loaded so that they close after the parachute is out. Otherwise, the piano hinges (C) are likely to be damaged by buffeting. That might still have been a problem, but it would have been less severe if the doors closed automatically. Aside from anything else, the safety pin would have held the door closed against the spring tension.
A piano hinge doesn't need other hinges fore and aft of it. If you do need other hinges, it makes more sense get rid of the piano hinge and use one or two more of the other type. Instead, those are likely the springs.
Rare photo: dropping of war torpedoes by five IL-4s during convoy attack.
Memories of Vasily Minakov
Memories of Vasily Minakov
