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

[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.

[Graham Boak]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

I initially thought that several Soviet decisions were irrational, but this turned untrue, when my knowledge deepened.

Not just Soviet, I'd like to add. The more study that is made of the wartime decisions, and all the factors acting on the decision makers, the more understandable and reasonable their decisons become. Not always right, no, but very rarely (if ever) irrational. Certainly the "bureaucrats and politicians" come out much better than enthusiasts for given types rush to claim.

Which isn't meant to claim that the I-180 decision was necessarily right.

One point that could be made, following on from comments earlier. It was suggested that the Russians would have been better off with an interim type, of known limitations, than waiting for something that promised to be better. When this is done, the interim type tends to stay in production for too long and the better type may never appear. It is all too often assumed that more of the same is better than the loss of production from the changeover to the superior type. The decision point for such a changeover must always have been one of the most difficult in military procurement. I doubt whether many cases could ever be proved either way, but they do provide lots of discussion points for we who follow on!

[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.

[Arsenal VG-33]

Hello Birgir

Sorry for being so late, a lot of job here!
Happy new year anyway!

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.

Avoid it as much as you can, a very low level of knowledge, too much errors. The same for Polikarpov Fighters in action, squadron signal n° 162.
Polikarpov I-16 Fighter from Gunston and Dexter, is a little better but less than average in all and...quite boring.

In my opinion the best book for the I-16 in english translation would be the J Kytka editions one, because il’s the closest to the original Mikhail Maslov’s book:
http://www.aerostories.org/~aerobiblio/article18.html
but there is a very little information about the I-18/185.

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.

AFAIK, the M-88 was "put in production" again on automn 1940, after it had passed with success the second batch of state tests on previous summer. In fact, no production was stopped, only deliveries during the state investigation due to numerous complaints from VVS units.

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

)
M-88, was different since soviet engeeners ware ambitious and developped it on a different way. Even too much ambitious... Blum governement idea was to exchange french technology against soviet production in 1936. Not a bad idea, but unfortunatly with no continuation.

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?

I only know that zavod 301 in Khimki was preparing (slowly) the Caudron 690 production in Russia (and about the high opinion of Yakovlev for french wood designs) , when it was roughly occupied by Lavotchkin bureau and quckly turned to the LaGG production. But the later was rather a composite plane, than a wood one because of the delta D materials.

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?

In fact I-18 was tremendously small, see its dimensions. Even with an equivalent or slightly worse Cx value it would be faster. Moroever, it was light: there is no interest in the “modern” or “obsolete” definition, but only on the strenth vs weight ratio. The highly stesses stainless steel 30Kh GSA used on the I-18 airframe (120-140 kg/mm²) was very effective on that way. “Modernity” is a kind of industrial problem, and technically not always the best. In 1939, light alloys were giving 40 kg/mm² resistance, at best. And they were riveted, not glued or welded, with certain loss of resistance on stress lines.

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.

There is nothing to discuss about, it’s only physicall measurements. As for the Eiffel tower lengh or weight. I don’t understand your question. Furthemore, The plane was equipped with the M 88 R (R for reductor) engine that was calculated for 3.6m propellers. The use of propellers less than 3.2m was generating an important loose of the output.

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

There is nothing specially wrong with the MB-152, it was not worse than the american curtiss H-75 (P-36). Of course, it had some developpement problems as for all planes in the world but finally it could withstand without substantial modification the powerfull 1500-1700 hp Gnome le Rhone engine (MB 157).
Polikarpov, was obliged to design a new plane for the use of M 82 and M 71 engines: the I-185.
I-180 itself, had no no more developpement opportunities, except for the Shvetsov M-89 engine.

Best wishes