Various Aircraft Specifications for a Video Game Mod

[GrauGeist]

I rarely recommend Wikipedia, however, for a quick overview of what the Soviets had, here's a fairly complete listing for reference:

List_of_aircraft_of_the_Red_Army_Air_Forces

 

[SuperAereo]

Books by Jason Nicholas Moore or Gordon/Kommissarov

 

[Darthtabby]

S SuperAereo By Gordon, you mean Gordon Yefim? I've actually got the second volume of his Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War out from my library (unofortunately they don't have the first volume anymore). Not as familiar with Jason Nicholas Moore but I'll try looking him up. Are there any particular books you'd recommend from those authors?

GrauGeist Sorry for the delayed response. Part of my issue with Soviet aircraft is actually the naming conventions for variants and translating those variant names. For instance the Polikarpov I-15 and I-16 were built by the same company and operated concurrently, but English language sources seem to use very different naming conventions for the subvariants of the two aircraft. Meanwhile the Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War book I mentioned in my reply ot SuperAereo often just refers to subtypes by their engine fit. Which I suppose could actually be accurate in the case of rapidly evolving wartime types.

I suppose it doesn't actually matter all that much if my audience doesn't have any better info on the designations then I have. If anything there's probably something to be said for going with the designations the audience is familiar with (like the ones on wiki). But it is a bit frustrating.

 

[Wurger]

Briefly, the soviet planes weren't built by companies. The main centres were the design offices (bureaus) known as the OKB. Each OKB was led by a main designer. In case of the I-15, I-153, I-16 it was Nikolai Polikarpov. Before the Russians started using names of their designers for planes they had used abbreviations. Usually it was the first letter of the purpose/kind the plane was designed for. Eg... the "I"="И" what means "Истребитель" - fighter. Other names could be B - bomber , TB - heavy bomber, SB - fast bomber , R - recce plane, UT - learning/ training aircraft. All OKBs could build prototypes either in their own workshops or a factory that was designeted for the OKB. When a prototype was ready it was qualified by a state commision and when got a good opinion it was sent for state trials. At the end again the state commision decided if the plane should be introduced on the assembling lines or not or it had to be improved. During the production process the OKB could introduce changings that were done because of users' suggestions , opinions or comments. So if the production lasted quite long there appeared sub-variants marked by soviets with "тип" - type. Therefore you may find the I-16 type 10 or 24 for instance. The number after the word ' тип " meant the modification that was introduced. And again there is no rule for the adjustments. It could be the different engine , different armament etc... A note though , also you may meet with using the years for naming of a sub-types. Eg.. I-16 model 1941. But it means the production standard rather than the corrections introduced.

BTW .. the I-15, I-15bis, I-153 and I-16 were four different planes although the three first kites were quite similar and differed form each other with a couple of the main parts.. However, it is easy to recoginze each of them.

 

[Darthtabby]

"Company" was definitely a poor choice of words for referring to an organization involved in Soviet aircraft development. Anyway thank you for clarifying the Soviet aircraft development system and designations. I'd come across parts of it before but I hadn't seen it laid out so clearly.

Do you know if the Soviets had an official designation for the version of the Il-2 that added accomodation for a rear gunner? Wiki says its often know as the Il-2m is western sources which suggest that wasn't its actual designation. Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War doesn't give it a designation and just titles the section about its development "Il-2 two-seater." (That book often doesn't give designations for engine changes and stuff, though it does for variants with specifics purposes like recon, trainer, or torpedo bomber. Or things like the modified for mass production DB-3F and "front requires" Pe-2FT. I guess the engines and things like that might fall under the "type" system you mentioned?)

 

[Wurger]

As memo serves the Il-2 was designed as a two-seater initially. The CKB-55 (ЦКБ-55) was powered by the Mikulin AM-35 engine (1350KM). There were two CKB-55 prototypes no.1 and no.2 built. The trials of the prototypes revealed that the plane was too heavy and the engine was of not enough power. The armament of 4xSzKAS MGs also was not enough. Therefore the state commision ordered changings. Following them Ilyushin re-designed the CKB-55 no.1 and changed the plane marking to the CKB-57. The prototype was powered by the AM-38 engine (1600KM). To save some of the weight, Ilyushin gave up the rear gunner compartment. Instead of this the additional fuel tank was mounted there what increased the range. Unfortunately the order 739 14.12.1940 demended production of a single-seat plane powered by the AM-35A engine. Fortunately the plan failed. In meantime the CKB-55 no.2 was also made as a single seater and fitted with the AM-38 engine. The prototype was marked as CKB-55P. In March 1941 after the state trials the CKB-55P was sent to the factory for mass assembling as the Il-2. The operational using of the Sturmoviks revealed a couple of problems. One of them was just the lack of the rear gunner. As a result the rear gunner station was restored. Initially the rear gunner station was added in field workshops But at the end of 1942 the State Defense Committee (ГКО) ordered to start assembling of the two-seat Il-2s in factories. And from this the Il-2 with the AM-38 engine became the two-seater again. However both variants of the Il-2 were still assembled simultaneously . At the beginning of the 1943 the AM-38F engine was introduced for both the single-seater and two-seat Il-2. A such modified Il-2 is named Il-2M (Il-2m) in books. The "M" can be translated as "modified" but it is the western marking in order to differ the aircraft from those with the AM-38 engine. Russiand didn't change the name and stayed with the Il-2.

If you want here is a link to the GKO orders for a couple of soviet planes.. not sure if it can help but it may be worth to have a look.

http://rgaspi.info/k-75-letiyu-pobedy/tematicheskie-podborki/oruzhie-pobedy/oruzhie-1/

And here shots showing the mentioned planes ...

CKB-55

CKB-57

CKB-55P

the pic source: Il-2 Shturmovik

 

[Darthtabby]

Interesting. I was under the impression the two seat Il-2 supplanted the single seater on the production line, but from what you're saying the single seater continued to be produced alongside the two seater. I'll have to discuss the best way to handle that with the mod team.

Would you happen to have any sources on the take off power of the Klimov M-105(R?) and M-105RA used on early production Pe-2s? I've found some data online but its a bit contradictory and I'm suspicious that some of the sources may be mixing up different variants of the engine.

 

[GrauGeist]

Wurger is well versed in Soviet types, so his info is solid.

I have to ask, though - with a nick of "Darth Tabby", are you 501st?

 

[Wurger]

Interesting. I was under the impression the two seat Il-2 supplanted the single seater on the production line, but from what you're saying the single seater continued to be produced alongside the two seater. I'll have to discuss the best way to handle that with the mod team.

Would you happen to have any sources on the take off power of the Klimov M-105(R?) and M-105RA used on early production Pe-2s? I've found some data online but its a bit contradictory and I'm suspicious that some of the sources may be mixing up different variants of the engine.

Regarding the Il-2 production .. there were four factories that were assigned to the process. The factory No.1 in Moscow, no.18 in Voronezh, no.380 and 381 in Leningrad. All the factories started assembling of the single-seat IL-2s. Because of the German advance the factories were evacuated east. The no.1 and 18 to Kuybyshev and the no.380 with the 381 to Nizhny Tagil. The no. 380 and 381 were merged into one and got the number 381. Therefore the factory no.30 in Moscow was attached to the set. The decision of introducing two-seat Il-2 on assembling lines was made in October 1942. The production started in the factories no.1,18 and 30 while the no.381 still was assembling the single seat varsion. Just from my memory.

As far as the Klimov M-105 engine is concerned.. I have to dig up a little bit. I'll try to post later .

 

[Wurger]

Ok.. the Klimove M-105 engine ... In 1940 Klimove designed М-105 engine of 1100KM power for taking off. The power at the ground level was 1020KM. And this info is the basic one. In 1940 the engine was introduced into production for both fighters and bombers. The unit for fighters was marked as М-105П while the one for bombers М-105Р. The letter "П" means "Пушечный" - for a gun because there was a possibility of mounting a gun at the engine block and firing through the reductor device. The letter "P" means "Pедукторный" - with a governor for a prop. But all the engine data for them was the same as for the M-105 In 1941 the engine was modified mainly by improving and reinforcement of its construction . The variants for a figter and bomber were marked as М-105ПА and М-105PА. The power for the variants of the engine was still at the same level. Here is a shot of a chart from H.W.Sorokin's book titled " История конструкций авиационных двигателей в России и СССР" - The history of construction of aviation engines in the USSR. The first line is the max power at the ground level. The second one is the nominal power at the ground level. The third line is the nominal power above the ground with the first speed. The fourth line is with the altitude for the first speed. And the fifth line is with the nominal power at the altitude with the second speed. So the entire mess with the power data seems to be caused by the using of the data for different altitudes (levels) it was measured.

the pic source: Авиационный двигатель М-105.

 

[Darthtabby]

I have to ask, though - with a nick of "Darth Tabby", are you 501st?

Darthtabby originated as my first eMail address as a kid in the late 90s. I'm not 501st though I've seen them at a few events I've been to.

Ok.. the Klimove M-105 engine ... In 1940 Klimove designed М-105 engine of 1100KM power for taking off. The power at the ground level was 1020KM. And this info is the basic one. In 1940 the engine was introduced into production for both fighters and bombers. The unit for fighters was marked as М-105П while the one for bombers М-105Р. The letter "П" means "Пушечный" - for a gun because there was a possibility of mounting a gun at the engine block and firing through the reductor device. The letter "P" means "Pедукторный" - with a governor for a prop. But all the engine data for them was the same as for the M-105 In 1941 the engine was modified mainly by improving and reinforcement of its construction . The variants for a figter and bomber were marked as М-105ПА and М-105PА. The power for the variants of the engine was still at the same level. Here is a shot of a chart from H.W.Sorokin's book titled " История конструкций авиационных двигателей в России и СССР" - The history of construction of aviation engines in the USSR. The first line is the max power at the ground level. The second one is the nominal power at the ground level. The third line is the nominal power above the ground with the first speed. The fourth line is with the altitude for the first speed. And the fifth line is with the nominal power at the altitude with the second speed. So the entire mess with the power data seems to be caused by the using of the data for different altitudes (levels) it was measured.

View attachment 626745
the pic source: Авиационный двигатель М-105.

Thanks, that's really helps clear things up. I think some of my uncertainty came from one source that suggested the ПA was optimized for lower altitudes but I think said source may have gotten it mixed up with a later variant of the П series M-105.

Also for some reason most English sources seem to refer to the "P" engines as "R" engines and the "П" engines as "P" engines.

Anyway thank you very much for the help.

 

[GrauGeist]

Ahh...ok, was just wondering.
I'm with Stormtrooper Ranch and occasionally troop alongside 501st at events.
I'm a TIE Pilot as well as a Tank Trooper (also have a Command Centurion ensemble from BSG TOS - but that's a different Empire!)

 

[Denniss]

380/381 were merged as 381, 381 changed to La-5 and moved to Moscow in early 43
could not find a 240 associated with IL-2 production

 

[Wurger]

... Thanks, that's really helps clear things up. I think some of my uncertainty came from one source that suggested the ПA was optimized for lower altitudes but I think said source may have gotten it mixed up with a later variant of the П series M-105.

Also for some reason most English sources seem to refer to the "P" engines as "R" engines and the "П" engines as "P" engines.

Anyway thank you very much for the help.

Yes the M-105ПA was better for dogfights at the lower attitudes. The M-105 engine series was "equipped" with the device called by Russian " ПЦН - Приводной Центобежный Нагнетатель" what can be simply cansidered to be a centrifugal compressor or supercharger. It was two-speed device. The first speed was started at 2000m while the second one at 4000m. By reduction of these calculated altitudes it was possible to increase the pressure at the lower levels. This resulted in increasing of the power at the lower altitudes.

And here is another chart form the mentioned book. It may come in handy as well...

the source: Авиационный двигатель М-105.

 

[Wurger]

380/381 were merged as 381, 381 changed to La-5 and moved to Moscow in early 43
could not find a 240 associated with IL-2 production

Yes.. the 380+381 got the number 381. Sorry just a typo. Edited.

Regarding the factory no.240... as I said I wrote the post just of memory .. so I could confuse something with the factory number. I'll check..

Yep .. actually the factory no.240 in Moscow became the Ilyushin's OKB workshop in April 1942. Also known as the OKB-240 and they didn't perticipate in the mass assembling of the Sturmovik. However they took part in working on both the Il-2 and Il-10. Edited.
.

 

[Darthtabby]

Ahh...ok, was just wondering.
I'm with Stormtrooper Ranch and occasionally troop alongside 501st at events.
I'm a TIE Pilot as well as a Tank Trooper (also have a Command Centurion ensemble from BSG TOS - but that's a different Empire!)

I have actually considered doing a Star Wars costume. Specifically an X-Wing pilot.

I'm a bit curious as to whether you ever played the old Tie Fighter PC game, but perhaps we should move that discussion to PM or the off topic forum.

Yes the M-105ПA was better for dogfights at the lower attitudes. The M-105 engine series was "equipped" with the device called by Russian " ПЦН - Приводной Центобежный Нагнетатель" what can be simply cansidered to be a centrifugal compressor or supercharger. It was two-speed device. The first speed was started at 2000m while the second one at 4000m. By reduction of these calculated altitudes it was possible to increase the pressure at the lower levels. This resulted in increasing of the power at the lower altitudes.

And here is another chart form the mentioned book. It may come in handy as well...

View attachment 626871
the source: Авиационный двигатель М-105.

Thanks. Could be useful for some of the Yakolevs, and also for the later Pe-2s if we include those.

I'm currently shifting my attention to the Yermolayev Yer-2 while I await clarification from the mod team about some issues with the aircraft I had been working on. The written text and data tables in my source are contradictory about the bomb load. The write up says the DB-240 prototype could carry 2000kg externally plus 2x 500kg bombs externally, while the data table says the DB-240 prototype and the M-105 and AM-37 powered production models could carry 4000kg and the Diesel powered model 5000kg. I'm personally leaning towards the text over the data tables since its more specific and I think there may be some errors in the data tables. Do you have anything on that aircraft that might help clarify matters?

 

[Wurger]

Which the data tables do you use for the ДБ-240?

 

[Darthtabby]

Which the data tables do you use for the ДБ-240?

The main source I've been using for Soviet bombers is the second volume of Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War by Gordon Yefim and Dmitri Khazanov. Here's a chart of the data for the DB-240 and Yer-2 from the "Soviet Long Range Bombers" data table on page 172. (Note that I deliberately copied a metric to imperial conversion error in the take off run for the AM-37 variant. )

(Edit: I thought I had the whole set of data here, but it looks like the bomb load got cut off. It listed 4000kg for the DB-240 and the first to variants and 5000kg for the Diesel variant.)

The actual write up on the DB-240 on p.92 states "The bomb bay could accomodate a bomb load of up to 4,409lb (2,000kg), and two 1,102lb (500kg) bomb could be attached to external carriers." (It also states that the DB-240's 445km/h top speed was achieved at 4,250m and that "normal flying weight" for the production Yer-2 grew from 11,300kg to 12,520kg). I'm leaning towards trusting the write up over the data table since it breaks down the load and because a 4000-5000kg bomb load would be something like ~50% of the aircraft's empty weight which seems like a little much.

 

[Wurger]

I see. Here is a chart from the Medved and Khazanov book " Дальний бомбардировщик Ер-2 - самолет несбывшихся надежд". It says that the bombload was the standard one - 1000kg and the maximal one - 3000kg. However please note the small digit "1" at the DB-240 line. Below the chart there is a note that these are the calculated data. In the text it is stated that the bomb bay was designed for 2000kg load that what was 1000kg more than the DB-3F could take. What is more, the description of the DB-240 trials says that the 1000kg load was used for all tests in flight. Generally the Russian sources state that the 1000kg load was the basic one for all the Yer-2 variants. The 3000kg was the maximal one for them, except of the late variant powered by the ACh-30B engines that is said to be of the 5000kg although the standard load was still the same. Well, according to the book, the bombload depended on the amount of the fuel that was going to be taken. And this determinated the range. I guess that the 4000kg could be attached as the overloading with decreased amount of fuel drasticly. Although the AM-37 engines could give the possibility very likely. But the M-105 engines used for the DB-240 and the first series of 71 Yer-2s ( it was the same like the DB-240 prototypes ) were of too less power to provide the possibility of the larger bombload. Therefore the 2000kg bomb as the maximal bombload for the DB-240 sounds good and the additional 1000kg if overloaded with already decreased range for the initail Yer-2s as well. Of course there is still a problem of the distance for the aircraft starting up. The one for the DB-240/Yer-2 wasn't quite too short for an airfield during the war as memo serves.

Here is a diagram of the configuration of the bombload ...

and here is the same but showing the fuel amount with the range for the Yer-2 powered by the ACh-30B engines.

the source: the mentioned above book.

 

[Denniss]

If I understand this correctly the load diagram confirms the maximum of 2000kg internal load (4x500, 2x 1000 not listed so bombbay probably not suited for them)