Questions re Polikarpov-fighters.

[Birgir Thorisson]

Technical issues relating to soviet aircrafts are not the most popular topic here, but in the faint hope that some "connoisseurs" are lurking here...

The wikipedia entry for the Polikarpov I-180, which is well sourced, names a number of projected developments of the I-16, that I have never seen mentioned before. As I understand it, these were attempts to re-engine the basic design with 14 cylinder, two-row radial engines. derived from the Gnome Rhone Mistral-Major (14K I presume). The are called I-161, I-162, I-163, I-164, and I-165.
These seem to be precursors to the second variation of the I-180, (mixed construction), represented by the second prototype. (I-180-2).

Does anyone have any info on these planes? or know of websites with more information about them?

A related topic. The wikipedia authors relate M. Maslovs conclusions that the I-180 was cancelled for "irrational" reasons. That, over-awed by the Bf 109, the soviet high command cancelled the radial engined I-180 in favour of in-line engined aircrafts. (Lagg-3, Yak-1).

It is a a reasonable conclusion that the Soviet airforce would have been better off with a fully developed design (I-180), rather than immature designs that were not ready, (MiG, Lagg & Yak), although the expected performance was slightly lower.

One noticeable difference is that the M-88 engines seem to have had better altitude capability than the M-105. (Full throttle height of 7000m v. 5000m?) (The tactical significance is beyond my knowledge).

The irony is that it seems that the factory (No 21 in Gorky) ended up producing +- 1000 I-16, type 24 & 29 fighters in 1940/1941. Why?

Could engine availability be the determining factor? It seems that in mid-1940, there where awful lot of applicants for the utilisation of the M-88 engines, (Ilyushin´s DB-3M bomber, Sukhoi´s BB-2 attack bomber, Tairov´s twin engined fighter, as well as Yatsenko´s I-28 project.) Was production-capacity awailable for the required engines. (As contrasted to great supply of Cyclone-derivatives from Perm, lacking applications.)

Anyone care to comment?

Birgir Thorisson

[Dénes Bernád]

Originally Posted by Birgir Thorisson

Sukhoi´s BB-2 attack bomber...

Wasn't that in fact the Su-2?

[Arsenal VG-33]

Hello Birgir,

There is a lot of questions, inside your post:

The wikipedia entry for the Polikarpov I-180, which is well sourced, names a number of projected developments of the I-16, that I have never seen mentioned before. As I understand it, these were attempts to re-engine the basic design with 14 cylinder, two-row radial engines. derived from the Gnome Rhone Mistral-Major (14K I presume). The are called I-161, I-162, I-163, I-164, and I-165.

Not exactly
http://i16fighter.narod.ru/mods/exp1.htm

The first I-161 (1935) was an experimental tip 4 plane with the M-22 engine intended to carry four ShKaS machines guns and four 20 kg bombs. Finaly the decision was made to use 20 mm canons instead.

The second I-161 (1937) was a lighter version intended to have a M 88 engine, but this work was nerver achieved

The number I-162 was never used

The first I-163 (1937) was a lightened version with a M 25 E engine and flaps instead of full lengh ailerons that could be lowered simultaneously on the serial I-16 tip 5 on that time.

The second I-163 had an oleo-pneumatic undercarriage retraction system instead of the standart hand-krank one.

The I-164 or I-16s was a long range escort fighter with extra tanks and a M-25V

None of the two I-165 escort fighter with the M-62 engine an all metalic wing and modified fuselage shape were never flown.

The I-166 was an extra light version (1383 kg at Take Off) with a M-25V engine and a modified NACA coml with adjustable rear slots. Trials were made in 1939

All theese versions were to remain purely experimental

These seem to be precursors to the second variation of the I-180, (mixed construction), represented by the second prototype. (I-180-2).

Does anyone have any info on these planes? or know of websites with more information about them?[/quote]

In russian only: http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fww2/i180.html
Try with google translater

A related topic. The wikipedia authors relate M. Maslovs conclusions that the I-180 was cancelled for "irrational" reasons. That, over-awed by the Bf 109, the soviet high command cancelled the radial engined I-180 in favour of in-line engined aircrafts. (Lagg-3, Yak-1).
It is a a reasonable conclusion that the Soviet airforce would have been better off with a fully developed design (I-180), rather than immature designs that were not ready, (MiG, Lagg & Yak), although the expected performance was slightly lower.

In fact the MiG fighter (I-200) was a Polikarpov design too. It was designated “Samolet Kh” by Polikarpov before he was banished from its own design bureau OKO by Mikoyan and Gurevitch, when Polikarpov was outside during his travel with the soviet delegation in Germany. A great surprise when he came back...

One noticeable difference is that the M-88 engines seem to have had better altitude capability than the M-105. (Full throttle height of 7000m v. 5000m?) (The tactical significance is beyond my knowledge).

In the eastern front, this is a marqued disavantage, virtually all fight took place under 4000m.

The irony is that it seems that the factory (No 21 in Gorky) ended up producing +- 1000 I-16, type 24 & 29 fighters in 1940/1941. Why?

Could engine availability be the determining factor? It seems that in mid-1940, there where awful lot of applicants for the utilisation of the M-88 engines, (Ilyushin´s DB-3M bomber, Sukhoi´s BB-2 attack bomber, Tairov´s twin engined fighter, as well as Yatsenko´s I-28 project.) Was production-capacity awailable for the required engines. (As contrasted to great supply of Cyclone-derivatives from Perm, lacking applications.)

Unfortunately those engines (Gnome Rhone and derivatives) we suffering numerous problems and were poorly operational, even in France but they were all pratically resolved in late 1939 versions GN 14N. In the same time, russian leading engeeners of the zavod 29 working on the licenced M-87 and 88 were prosecuted and arrested due to the unsatisfactory work of the french engine. This decision on its turn dit not accelerate the devellopement of the soviet version.
Moreover, when Polikarpov was banished from the powerful state factory n°1 to the experimental factory n°51 (a simple empty hangar in the vicinty of the Khodinka airport) with a very reduced team wich, he had lost his experimental production facilities. Pre-series machines were build at very slow rate in factory 21 at Gorki, when despite official requests, the directors were trying as much as they could to help to the Pashinine I-21 fighter project, due to a local cheef ingeneer.



Sources :
http://i16fighter.narod.ru/index.htm

Polikarpov ‘s I-16 Fighter yefim Gordon and Keith Dexter

Polikarpov I 16, Maslov Armada Moscow, and its french version by José Fernandez Kytka editions

Last Polikarpov Fighters I 180 and I-185 Youri Gouglya Arkhiv-Press Kiev 1998


My opinion: Considering that I-18 reached 575 km/h without canopy and a wrecked unsatisfactory fuselage:
Yes, the virtual speed of 600 km/h was virtualy attained and considering the plane astonishing agility it was probably the best fighter in the world in 1940! But its developpement was too slow and it had no other improvement opportunities.
Polikarpov itself was working on the I-185 project since mid 1939.

Best regards

[Birgir Thorisson]

Thank you "Arsenal VG 33" for your detailed response. The Russian websites look very informative, but unfortunately for me, I have not mastered the use of translation programs.

About sources in other languages. How good is the french Polikarpov I-16 book by LELA press? (Cony, Ledet, Cerda, Louie & Kulikov). I guess sources have become rapidly outdated recently, so you should always look for the latest.

Now, specific topics that you might be able to shed further light on. Re. the M-88 engine. Had the problems been solved in the USSR, at say, decision-time of july 31 1940, (or november for that part.) That is to say, did engine supply questions affect (or determine, if you want to word it more strongly) the aircraft production plans in late 1940/early 1941.
Do you know if the M-88 was a copy of the Gnome-Rhone 14N or a seperate line of development of the 14K. Bearing in mind, the strength of the french communist party, and the fertile ground for soviet espionage in France, either direct official technology transfer, or "industrial espionage" could easily have passed information from France to Russia. (And, yes, let no-one hijack this thread to discuss interwar french politics ).

And on a similar theme, and prompted by your nom-de-plume, Do you know if there is any connection between the french interest in "non-strategic materials", (wood), which produced among others the Arsenal VG series in France, and the soviet efforts that led to the Lagg series? Was there anything common in either material, or process of production between the wooden aircraft projects?

A third point of interest. If you compare two designs with a common(?) engine, the Polikarpov I-180, and the Bloch MB 152, the I-180 is much superior in every respect (except, arguably, firepower). Yet the Bloch is a "modern" all-metal monocoque design, the I-180 an obsolete mixed construction. How could that be? How credible are the I-180 performance figures? In Gordon and Khazanov´s book, Soviet Combat Aircraft, the tables at the end give the preproduction 180s superior performance to the third prototype, (albeit with no range information). Yet it seems the pre-production planes were closer to the second prototype than the third.

(I must confess that I have never been able to figure out just what was so wrong with the MB 152).



(And Denes Bernad, yes BB-1 = Su-2, just my flawed memory).

Birgir Thorisson

[kurlannaiskos]

in one case you might be confusing the I-180 with the I-185.
the I-185 was authorized for series production and a few were used by the 728 IAP.
the reason for their cancellation was made by Josef Stalin because he felt that Polikarpov had 'fallen out of favor'- a decision mostly based on the political mechanizations of A.S. Yakovlev. (I'm sorry to say)
I'm actually not sure of the reason for the I-180 cancellation , most likely that the development wasn't going anywhere.

in December 1940 the designation system in the USSR changed to what we recognize in more recent times.
BB-1 stood for Blizny Bombardarovshik or short-range bomber.
it was changed to Su-2 in favor of it's principle designer Pavel Sukhoi.

[Birgir Thorisson]

No, I am not confusing the I-180 prototypes with the related I-185. Indeed, I would be interested in knowing just how "new" the I-185 was. As far as I can discern, the I-180 was originally conceived as an all-metal aircraft, but never built as such. Maybe, the I-185, (started in 1939) was the all-metal I-180 with the most powerful engine, and with other modifications that came along in those years. They certainly share a very similar general configuration.

Over the last few hours I have been trying to use Google translation on the links provided by Arsenal VG 33. Unfortunately, the program only translates (rather blindly as you undoubtedly know), about half of each page.

Nevertheless, I think that I have gleaned the information, that the M-88 engine failed its tests, in summer 1940, leading to a hiatus, until it was re-certified at the end of the year. There seems to be a record of a) something called "narkomata" deciding that radial engines had no future, and b) that Yakovlev abused his position to further the fortunes of his (inferior) design, the I-26. As result, the I-180 was cancelled. But the case is made, that because of it´s family relationship with the I-16, hundreds could have been made in early 1941, and that the I-180, unlike the Lagg, Yak, and MiGs, would have been bon-de-guerre, as the french would say.

Birgir Thorisson.

[kurlannaiskos]

http://www.online-translator.com/Default.aspx/Site

I prefer this one as it works much better and it it goes to the bottom of this particular web-page.

[Graham Boak]

"It is a a reasonable conclusion that the Soviet airforce would have been better off with a fully developed design (I-180), rather than immature designs that were not ready, (MiG, Lagg & Yak), although the expected performance was slightly lower."

It would be a reasonable conclusion if the I-180 was indeed a fully-developed design: I'm not convinced that is a fair description. As an aero engineer, the Polikarpov designs (and the MiG 3 is little better) all look to be lacking in longitudinal and directional unstablity, something confirmed by pilots' and engineers' comments on the difficulty they presented to inexperienced pilots. Arguably dead novices are a fair trade-off against agility.

Whether the airframe could have been in production, in the numbers and timeframe you suggest, I leave to others to judge. I'm sceptical. However, if there are no engines it doesn't matter how good the airframe.

On the other matter, as far as I know the VG.33 used conventional wood/plywood construction, and not the Russian resin-impregnated birch. Interior structures can be expected to be similar, although the types of wood used (and hence the details) may be different, depending upon the sources available to each nation. I believe the balsa/spruce sandwich construction of the Mosquito was completely different.

[Birgir Thorisson]

This is what the russian website has to say about the status of the I-180 in May 1940, as translated by Google.

May 20, Polikarpov sent a memorandum Shahurinu, which reported that in the immediate deployment of serial production I-180 plant in 1940, may issue 100 vehicles, including, in September - 10 October - 20 November - 30, December - 40.
In January 1941, the rate of release could amount to 100-120 fighters in a month. Nikolay suggested many changes I-16 remain in production only type 29 and presented a list of activities aimed at ensuring the release of such a program I-180.
At the same time (May 18) completed the second phase of the factory test I-180-3. Unlike the first test machines, at the initiative of Polikarpova on the plane intensified weapons: two 12.7 mm machine gun BS and two 7.62 mm ShKAS were collected into a single battery for the first time in the world mounted on lafete, which simplifies assembly and maintenance. For adjustments "thermal engine hood provided" yubkoy. " Construction I-180-3 was carried out without concessions batch plant, using pressed profiles, stamping, casting.
Already in the first phase of flight tests showed good results: speed - 575 km / h time climb 5000 meters-5.6 min. "According to maneuver the plane was very close to I-16, but more stable and better at superelevation, landing - wrote in a report Ulyahin. - At speeds of less than 350 km / h to 160 km / h, the aircraft has no tendency to stall in tailspin ... With adjusted trimmerami thrown administration remains set to flight. Longitudinal sustainable while centering 24% of SAH good lateral stability and sustainability of the road-good ".
There have been and disadvantages: the lack of lamp cabin, poor adjustment mechanism for cleaning tail wheel, poor design of the screw, poor quality of surface finish. It was expected that after removing the maximum speed reached 600 km / h. Soon the aircraft found the lamp, ordered a new screw, increased V-wing cross. In such a fighter handed over to gosispytaniya in NII Air Force, which took place in a generally successful.

The translation is not very clear, but it seems to indicate that unresolved issues regarding debugging the prototype were rather minor. So compared with the other russian fighters, it was a mature design. (Lamp in cabin, cleaning tailwheel? real problems or mistranslations?)
Also the production programme is not unreasonable, in view of the fact that the factory changed over to producing Laggs, using totally different technology, and still produced several hundred machines in the first half of 1941. The proplem of engine supply could have been tackled the same way as the Germans did with the 109E, when the DB601 was delayed, that is, airframes were produced, and stockpiled until the engines became available. This allowed the Luftwaffe to change over to 109E in a short period in 1939. It seems that the M-88 was only in hiatus for 4-5 months in 1940.

Birgir Thorisson

[Franek Grabowski]

Originally Posted by Arsenal VG-33

In the eastern front, this is a marqued disavantage, virtually all fight took place under 4000m.

In aircombat altitude is always an advantage! Combat altitude on the eastern front was so low because Soviets had no aircraft able to fly higher.
I would look for a rational reason in regard of canceling I-180. Possibly they have realised they would not have engines in quantities, or the aircraft was too expensive/time consuming. I initially thought that several Soviet decisions were irrational, but this turned untrue, when my knowledge deepened.