Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
LoooSeR

Models and pictures of Soviet MBT designs from 80s. Object 477A, Object 490 Buntar and Object 299.

Recommended Posts

Wow, great drawing!

I don't understand the whole "Armata doesn't have a real capsule" discussion, namely because I don't read Russian. Is the argument that it would require spacing in every direction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To clarify, this is a T-72 testing an Obj. 477 turret, yes?

It should be the 2A83 Gun TestBed,which would be mount on obj195. As we can see the two sides of this turret were covered by steel plates as clump weight. This construction only reflected in the obj 195's unmanturret.

Moreover,AFAIK there is not any exact information about the obj477A1 had equiped with 2A83 gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, great drawing!

I don't understand the whole "Armata doesn't have a real capsule" discussion, namely because I don't read Russian. Is the argument that it would require spacing in every direction?

 

T-14 have a real capsule, and it's crew is very good protected. Even better then M1 or other known now tanks, couse there is no contact between crew and ammo in any way. This idea was taken form LKZ from end of the 70s'.

 

In one think Armata is trully the best now - this tank was project to overcome top-attack anc NLOS and BLOS anti-tank munition. Armata protection from the top is glorious:

 

be871da9a291.jpg

 

and it consist 3 "layers" based on Afganit APS:

 

1st - multispectral granades in IR, thermal, and radar viev to "hide"tank (VLS luncher) 

2th - hard kill granades from this VLS luncher)

3th - EMP generator

All this together give a chance to defeat BONUS, SMART, CSS, and other "top attack" artilery  munition, the sam in case Javelin and Spike. 

What is important - Aramat APS have sensor based in UV and IR base, not radar active.

But form the other side - second APS efector - thos under turret can defeat APFSDS-T but they use acitve radar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) LKZ stuck whit "heavy universal chassis"in those years. It was needed to use GTD1250 turbine for lightweight resons. And looking for postong on Chlopotows blog armour idea- it was not so impresive:

6ZO7yC0.jpg

Only 228mm in main part and circa 780mm LOS in slopped upper-part. Of course - gas turbine and torsion will be aditional protection placed befor this, the same - slopped ERA blocks, but still - how can this be comparable whit 1300mm armour block in Molot/Nota or 1100mm thick in Boxer-Molot?

 

2)

477 was not enought becouse UWZ lobby in end of the 80's forced two smal changed:

-other 152mm gun (longer)

- posibility to use unitary 152mm ronuds (fucken imposible).

all was forced to delay Charkiv project. And it's important to notic that after Utinov ded and Roamnov fail LKZ was downgraded - the same stroy like after Breżniev ded and CHzTM downgraded. UWZ due to political conetion have a flow in and of the 1980's, but the most interesting projects where developed in ChzTM and LKZ.

 

BTW - You propably know that Ob.477A2 Nota was common Ukrainian and Russian project between 1993 and 2001. One form 3 final Nota prototypes and full documentation went to UWZ. And Ob.195 as again UWZ try to made their own IV gen tank - first prototype in 1999 second one in 2001 as I know. And Nota as common project was canceled in 2001...After that was started "Biala" (The "White") project - pure Ukrainian tank, and it was facked up doe to lack of money. 

What is the Biala project?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@UP

 

"Biala" ("The White") project (propably Ob.477A2/A3) was sucesor of the Nota (Ob.477A2) - so after colapse common Ukrianian-Russian tank in 2001 (Nota) Ukrianian industry start to developed pure Ukrainian IV gen tank - "Biala" (The White). IMHO it was just ended Nota without Russian componenets - nothing more. This tank is top secret now, and reson wyhy whole family Ob.477A1 Molot, Ob.477A2 Nota and Ob.477A3/(or 477A2b) Biala is secrest is that is the same tank whit diffrent aditional equipment.

Ask Ukrianian about "Biala" and wacht reaction - a lot of fun guaranteed! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) LKZ stuck whit "heavy universal chassis"in those years. It was needed to use GTD1250 turbine for lightweight resons. And looking for postong on Chlopotows blog armour idea- it was not so impresive:

6ZO7yC0.jpg

Only 228mm in main part and circa 780mm LOS in slopped upper-part. Of course - gas turbine and torsion will be aditional protection placed befor this, the same - slopped ERA blocks, but still - how can this be comparable whit 1300mm armour block in Molot/Nota or 1100mm thick in Boxer-Molot?

 

2)

477 was not enought becouse UWZ lobby in end of the 80's forced two smal changed:

-other 152mm gun (longer)

- posibility to use unitary 152mm ronuds (fucken imposible).

all was forced to delay Charkiv project. And it's important to notic that after Utinov ded and Roamnov fail LKZ was downgraded - the same stroy like after Breżniev ded and CHzTM downgraded. UWZ due to political conetion have a flow in and of the 1980's, but the most interesting projects where developed in ChzTM and LKZ.

 

BTW - You propably know that Ob.477A2 Nota was common Ukrainian and Russian project between 1993 and 2001. One form 3 final Nota prototypes and full documentation went to UWZ. And Ob.195 as again UWZ try to made their own IV gen tank - first prototype in 1999 second one in 2001 as I know. And Nota as common project was canceled in 2001...After that was started "Biala" (The "White") project - pure Ukrainian tank, and it was facked up doe to lack of money. 

   You posted just a crew capsule schematics. Also, that tank was not finished in any kind of working prototype, so it is hard to be sure what kind of protection it would had. But again, vehicle had separated crew from machinery, which allow to make autoloader (for example) more compact, or upscale it for bigger rounds without changing overal size much. In Boxer/Molot that was not a case, as autoloader was made in such way, that seriously complicated futher upgrades. Which mean that those tanks would have become obsolete relatively fast. While part of Object 299 design is still alive in Armata UTHP.

   Basically, i think that Kharkov tanks would have been less impressive than T-64 when it was accepted to service and will run out of easy-to-upgrade-for-good-effect options even faster than T-64. 

 

T-14 have a real capsule, and it's crew is very good protected. Even better then M1 or other known now tanks, couse there is no contact between crew and ammo in any way. This idea was taken form LKZ from end of the 70s'.

 

In one think Armata is trully the best now - this tank was project to overcome top-attack anc NLOS and BLOS anti-tank munition. Armata protection from the top is glorious:

 

be871da9a291.jpg

 

and it consist 3 "layers" based on Afganit APS:

 

1st - multispectral granades in IR, thermal, and radar viev to "hide"tank (VLS luncher) 

2th - hard kill granades from this VLS luncher)

3th - EMP generator

All this together give a chance to defeat BONUS, SMART, CSS, and other "top attack" artilery  munition, the sam in case Javelin and Spike. 

What is important - Aramat APS have sensor based in UV and IR base, not radar active.

But form the other side - second APS efector - thos under turret can defeat APFSDS-T but they use acitve radar.

   It depends how you look at what is "real capsule" as there is no clear official definition/requirements to which we can compare and declare capsule to be "real" or not.

 

   If you look at crew capsule as just a crew not having HE rounds between their legs and their pants being not drenched in fuel, than Merkava and Abrams have crew capsules. If you think that crew capsule should provide certain level of protection from all directions, that Armata probably fails at having "real capsule", as rear plate is likely to be 5mm thick. Compare T-14's capsule to Object 299's - difference is noticeable.

 

   Armata protection would have been better if it had APS that could intercept top-attack ATGMs.

 

 

@UP

 

"Biala" ("The White") project (propably Ob.477A2/A3) was sucesor of the Nota (Ob.477A2) - so after colapse common Ukrianian-Russian tank in 2001 (Nota) Ukrianian industry start to developed pure Ukrainian IV gen tank - "Biala" (The White). IMHO it was just ended Nota without Russian componenets - nothing more. This tank is top secret now, and reson wyhy whole family Ob.477A1 Molot, Ob.477A2 Nota and Ob.477A3/(or 477A2b) Biala is secrest is that is the same tank whit diffrent aditional equipment.

Ask Ukrianian about "Biala" and wacht reaction - a lot of fun guaranteed! :)

Almost nobody knows about this project, so they will not deliver the fun. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

   You posted just a crew capsule schematics. Also, that tank was not finished in any kind of working prototype, so it is hard to be sure what kind of protection it would had. But again, vehicle had separated crew from machinery, which allow to make autoloader (for example) more compact, or upscale it for bigger rounds without changing overal size much. In Boxer/Molot that was not a case, as autoloader was made in such way, that seriously complicated futher upgrades. Which mean that those tanks would have become obsolete relatively fast. While part of Object 299 design is still alive in Armata UTHP.

   Basically, i think that Kharkov tanks would have been less impressive than T-64 when it was accepted to service and will run out of easy-to-upgrade-for-good-effect options even faster than T-64. 

 

   It depends how you look at what is "real capsule" as there is no clear official definition/requirements to which we can compare and declare capsule to be "real" or not.

 

   If you look at crew capsule as just a crew not having HE rounds between their legs and their pants being not drenched in fuel, than Merkava and Abrams have crew capsules. If you think that crew capsule should provide certain level of protection from all directions, that Armata probably fails at having "real capsule", as rear plate is likely to be 5mm thick. Compare T-14's capsule to Object 299's - difference is noticeable.

 

   Armata protection would have been better if it had APS that could intercept top-attack ATGMs.

 

 

Almost nobody knows about this project, so they will not deliver the fun. 

 

1) In Ob.299 there was the same problem like in other tanks whit poer-pack in front of the vehicle - mass balnace. To heavy front whit engine and armour. In result gas turbine (lightweight) must be placed and...not very impressive main armour. In case autoloader in Ob.299 - LKZ choose this abnormal hight one-line casttes: 

0010.jpg

tank_009.jpg

OK - bonus is obvious - two times more 152mm ammo. But there is sucht disadvantage of sucht solution - end of catrige is placed above vehicle hull and rurret need very big and thick protection to cover this part. It was obvious problem.

 

2) I have Boxer-Molot autolader plans and ok, it was complicated but really? Part placed in turret between Tk and Gunner was in shape and idea like AZ autolader but on only 45 degree angle and ~8 rounds capability. It wasn't mucht more complicated the typical AZ. Main part in saparate compare was like two Leclerc autolader one aboe second - top whit round bottom whit aditional charge.  Of course this autolader have flaws -in fact it was 3 separate autoloaders in one system. This project was rejected couse GRAU needed new longer gun and posibilities to use unitary 152mm rounds or rounds whit much longer penetrator (sources are diffrent here - Apuchtin claims ones, other guys from Charkiv -others)...

 

3). Yes, definition of the "capsule" can be fluent, but in fact T-14 have crew completly separate form flammable factors. In Abrams you have gunner and open turret bustle rack whit 18 rounds for 4s during loading the gun. It is always danger for crew. In Merkava is even worse - you have this stupic ammo conteiner in whole crew comparment, and even in MK.IV you have 4 rounds in conteinter after the bulkhead between anegine and crew comparment. OK, those conteiners are fireproof and scharpnel proff but you know this photo:

http://media.moddb.com/images/groups/1/3/2074/26.1.jpg

ATGM hit in rear main ammo rack.

No, defiently i would preffer to sit in T-14 or at least Abrmas then in Merkawa or other tank - like Leopard-2, or T-72 :)

 

4) Armata APS can NOW intercpet top-attack ATGMS and others. It's more then sure.

 

5) In case asking about "Biala" project - I was thinking about asking ChzTM un Ukrspecexport seales on internatinal exibiotion and others. Really - fun guaranteed :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my view,the autoloader of 477A/A1/2 which was consisted by three carousels is incomprehensible .

The crews in tank should be very unsafe....

So,I think the original 477's AZ was better than the later one,at least the most of ammunitions were separated from crews..

By the way,I am very curious about the loading system's structure of 477,especially the part in the turret basket. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

   1) The reason for rear-placed unamanned turret/gun mount was gun barrel, it is too damn long to be mounted in the center of this vehicle. Also, this general schematics doesn't show armor very well, espeically for vehicle that didn't got trhough all design work, but i am sure that LKZ would left it without armor. Rear part was pretty heavy because of turret ring protection, gun breach and big autoloader. 

 

   2) So if you need to upgrade it, you need to change parts of 3 autoloaders... I don't even speak about how reliable this chain of mechanized ammorack-8 shot autoloader-gun loading mechanism would have been... And even GRAU saw how limited upgrade of this system was. 

 

   4) No, it can't hard-kill top attack ATGMs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In turret comparment autoloader looks like oversized T-72 style autoloader whit two "arms" to lifted up amunition:

one for catrige only and second for aditionall propelant  charge. In fact those 8 rounds (in 16 parts) was separated too, only two "lifted" arm for amunition was in open space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EDIT:

 

@

Lightning

 

better way to explain - this is Ob.477 casette:

az477.jpg

 

Upper for aditional propelant charge, bottom -for catrige.

Imagine AZ autoloader mechanism but not whit upper partf from bottom carusele but whit "cran" (rader metal  "frame") who lift it from upper part of autoloader.

It looks like AZ mehanism but roled :)

 

edit -circa like this:

U0nIaGY.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW- to reload "redy autoloader" turret must be in "0" position and both chain autoloader in both rack (upper and down) are in the same time loaded one casette in "ready autoloader". After reload all 8 casettes turet can be "free" in andy position couse separate autoloader is used to chose casette and loaded gun.

 

And in normal work this "redy autoloader" have 8 casettes whit propelant charge (up) and round (down). And autoloader arm can "rotate" from edge to edge of this rack in turret comparmetn to "chose" casette whit chosen type of round and after that lift it to loading position. And thats all :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember an Armata dev. (or MOD official) claiming the crew could survive ammunition detonation. I take their word with a grain of salt but it would suggest more than 5mm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember an Armata dev. (or MOD official) claiming the crew could survive ammunition detonation. I take their word with a grain of salt but it would suggest more than 5mm.

Detonation and propelland fire are different things  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is better ones:

 

erYe9KL.jpgAs you can see - I marked better both chine type main rack whit ammo - uper one whit propelant charge and bottom whit round. Both are in the same separate comparment whit blow-out plate in top. This rack must be slighty higher then in turret couse reloding process. The redy use atuloader in turret have eight casettes on bottom of the turret floor -as on draw beloow - idea of the placment is like in AZ in T-72. But... to reloade casette is raise slightu up to have one level whit both chain main rack (autoloaders). I marked all 3 position of casettes - top for gun loading, middle for reloade redy autoloader (frist use) and bottom - when this 8 casettes are placed. The "elevator" for casettes is like rolled AZ autoloader arm, and it cane rotate from edge to edgge of the first use autoloader (rack) to "chose" casette whit propper round.

I hope this draw can explain most of You questions :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes exatly this idea - but "elevator" for casette is on middle position not on turret floor. Apart this - picture is correct about idea how it work :)

 

bottom part is not correct - chine autoloader is above in second compertment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • By LoooSeR
      T-14 ARMATA 
      (edited)
              This thread is about glorious russian MBT T-14, known as "Armada", "T-95", "black eagle", "T-99" and other stupid Western names given to Object 148 (T-14 in some recent documents). Here is number of images connected to that vehicle.
       

      Official model of unknown "artillery vehicle". Yeah, Putin, we know that this is T-14. Note Gatling gun on turret right side.
       
      Artist impression of T-14 based on known model, by Fyodor Podporin. 
       

      T-14 will use Relikt ERA, which is considerable improvement over Kontakt-5 in resisting to tandem HEAT warheads and EFPs.

       
      Side skirts would be thicker on a real vehicle, i think. Relikt have AFAIK bigger size than Kontakt-5 ERA build-in blocks.

       
       
       
       
       
      Whole album with renders: 
      http://imgur.com/a/8Tn9b
       
      Video of same render from same artist:

       
       
            People expect that tank would have turret weapon system like what you see on the BMP-3 "Bakhcha-U" turret - a lot of weapons in one turret for one gunner to work with. T-14 is rumored to be equipped with 30 (or even 57) mm autocannon, 4-6 barrel gatling type MG/HMG, new 125 (2A82) or even 152 mm (2A83) smoothbore cannons. Turret is unmanned, crew of 3 would be located in frontal part of hull, behind very serious frontal armor inside of compartment, well protected from all directions. Cannon would be loaded by new autoloading device. I hope that Burevestnik is working on them, those guys managed to make 100 mm Naval gun with RoF of 300 shots per minute.
       
            I really like how turret looks, but i don't understand why there is such a big turret "busket" for unmanned turret with all ammo placed inside of hull in special armored housing. Also, i don't see gunner sight and proposed FSC radar on 3D model (i assume that panoramic sight is for commander). Laser sensors on 3D model are from T-90A variant of "Shtora".
       
            Some officials mentioned works on new active protection system, that consist of powerfull radar station, that can work on "long ranges" and engage incoming projectiles (missiles) with that gatling MG. Will this system survive development stage and be presented on serial tanks is unknown. Although turret for T-15 Armata-based IFV already was shown with new APS "Afganit".
       
            If you pay attention you may see that artist used T-80 rollers for Armata chassis, and this is not a mistake - according to some sources Armata heavy chassis will use T-80 or T-80-like rollers to save weight. And looking at rear part of that tank you may notice a engine deck from gas-turbine equipped version of the T-80, which can be mistake becuase MoD want Armata with new ~1500 HP diesel engine. 
    • By Collimatrix
      At the end of January, 2018 and after many false starts, the Russian military formally announced the limited adoption of the AEK-971 and AEK-973 rifles.  These rifles feature an unusual counterbalanced breech mechanism which is intended to improve handling, especially during full auto fire.  While exotic outside of Russia, these counter-balanced rifles are not at all new.  In fact, the 2018 adoption of the AEK-971 represents the first success of a rifle concept that has been around for a some time.

      Earliest Origins


      Animated diagram of the AK-107/108
       
      Balanced action recoil systems (BARS) work by accelerating a mass in the opposite direction of the bolt carrier.  The countermass is of similar mass to the bolt carrier and synchronized to move in the opposite direction by a rack and pinion.  This cancels out some, but not all of the impulses associated with self-loading actions.  But more on that later.

      Long before Soviet small arms engineers began experimenting with BARS, a number of production weapons featured synchronized masses moving in opposite directions.  Generally speaking, any stabilization that these actions provided was an incidental benefit.  Rather, these designs were either attempts to get around patents, or very early developments in the history of autoloading weapons when the design best practices had not been standardized yet.  These designs featured a forward-moving gas trap that, of necessity, needed its motion converted into rearward motion by either a lever or rack and pinion.
       

      The French St. Etienne Machine Gun
       

      The Danish Bang rifle
       
      At around the same time, inventors started toying with the idea of using synchronized counter-masses deliberately to cancel out recoil impulses.  The earliest patent for such a design comes from 1908 from obscure firearms designer Ludwig Mertens:


       
      More information on these early developments is in this article on the matter by Max Popenker.
       
      Soviet designers began investigating the BARS concept in earnest in the early 1970s.  This is worth noting; these early BARS rifles were actually trialed against the AK-74.
       

      The AL-7 rifle, a BARS rifle from the early 1970s
       
      The Soviet military chose the more mechanically orthodox AK-74 as a stopgap measure in order to get a small-caliber, high-velocity rifle to the front lines as quickly as possible.  Of course, the thing about stopgap weapons is that they always end up hanging around longer than intended, and forty four years later Russian troops are still equipped with the AK-74.

      A small number of submachine gun prototypes with a BARS-like system were trialed, but not mass-produced.  The gas operated action of a rifle can be balanced with a fairly small synchronizer rack and pinion, but the blowback action of a submachine gun requires a fairly large and massive synchronizer gear or lever.  This is because in a gas operated rifle a second gas piston can be attached to the countermass, thereby unloading the synchronizer gear.

      There are three BARS designs of note from Russia:

      AK-107/AK-108
       


      The AK-107 and AK-108 are BARS rifles in 5.45x39mm and 5.56x45mm respectively.  These rifles are products of the Kalashnikov design bureau and Izmash factory, now Kalashnikov Concern.  Internally they are very similar to an AK, only with the countermass and synchronizer unit situated above the bolt carrier group.


       

      Close up of synchronizer and dual return spring assemblies

      This is configuration is almost identical to the AL-7 design of the early 1970s.  Like the more conventional AK-100 series, the AK-107/AK-108 were offered for export during the late 1990s and early 2000s, but they failed to attract any customers.  The furniture is very similar to the AK-100 series, and indeed the only obvious external difference is the long tube protruding from the gas block and bridging the gap to the front sight.
       
      The AK-107 has re-emerged recently as the Saiga 107, a rifle clearly intended for competitive shooting events like 3-gun.
       

       
      AEK-971

      The rival Kovrov design bureau was only slightly behind the Kalashnikov design bureau in exploring the BARS concept.  Their earliest prototype featuring the system, the SA-006 (also transliterated as CA-006) also dates from the early 1970s.



      Chief designer Sergey Koksharov refined this design into the AEK-971.  The chief refinement of his design over the first-generation balanced action prototypes from the early 1970s is that the countermass sits inside the bolt carrier, rather than being stacked on top of it.  This is a more compact installation of the mechanism, but otherwise accomplishes the same thing.


       

      Moving parts group of the AEK-971

      The early AEK-971 had a triangular metal buttstock and a Kalashnikov-style safety lever on the right side of the rifle.



      In this guise the rifle competed unsuccessfully with Nikonov's AN-94 design in the Abakan competition.  Considering that a relative handful of AN-94s were ever produced, this was perhaps not a terrible loss for the Kovrov design bureau.

      After the end of the Soviet Union, the AEK-971 design was picked up by the Degtyarev factory, itself a division of the state-owned Rostec.



      The Degtyarev factory would unsuccessfully try to make sales of the weapon for the next twenty four years.  In the meantime, they made some small refinements to the rifle.  The Kalashnikov-style safety lever was deleted and replaced with a thumb safety on the left side of the receiver.


       
      Later on the Degtyarev factory caught HK fever, and a very HK-esque sliding metal stock was added in addition to a very HK-esque rear sight.  The thumb safety lever was also made ambidextrous.  The handguard was changed a few times.



      Still, reception to the rifle was lukewarm.  The 2018 announcement that the rifle would be procured in limited numbers alongside more conventional AK rifles is not exactly a coup.  The numbers bought are likely to be very low.  A 5.56mm AEK-972 and 7.62x39mm AEK-973 also exist.  The newest version of the rifle has been referred to as A-545.

      AKB and AKB-1


      AKB-1


      AKB


      AKB, closeup of the receiver

      The AKB and AKB-1 are a pair of painfully obscure designs designed by Viktor Kalashnikov, Mikhail Kalashnikov's son.  The later AKB-1 is the more conservative of the two, while the AKB is quite wild.

      Both rifles use a more or less conventional AK type bolt carrier, but the AKB uses the barrel as the countermass.  That's right; the entire barrel shoots forward while the bolt carrier moves back!  This unusual arrangement also allowed for an extremely high cyclic rate of fire; 2000RPM.  Later on a burst limiter and rate of fire limiter were added.  The rifle would fire at the full 2000 RPM for two round bursts, but a mere 1000 RPM for full auto.

      The AKB-1 was a far more conventional design, but it still had a BARS.  In this design the countermass was nested inside the main bolt carrier, similar to the AEK-971.

      Not a great deal of information is available about these rifles, but @Hrachya H wrote an article on them which can be read here.
       
       
    • By LostCosmonaut
      Something I haven't seen discussed on this site before; Soviet/Russian efforts to domesticate foxes by breeding for domesticated behavior. Article in Scientific American here; https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/mans-new-best-friend-a-forgotten-russian-experiment-in-fox-domestication/
       
      Interesting that there were physical changes correlated with the behavioral changes the Russians bred for.

       
      Buy one for only $7,000! https://domesticatedsilverfox.weebly.com/aquiring-a-tame-fox.html
       

      (not entirely unlike a dog I guess)
       
       
      It seems like a pretty cool idea to drunk me, though I don't have a spare 7,000 dollars laying around (thanks student loans!). Also, I don't think my cat would approve.
       
    • By LostCosmonaut
      Intro
       

      The MiG-3. All flying aircraft today have been re-engined with the V1710, and look slightly different.
       
      The MiG-3 was one of the first fighters developed by the famous Mikoyan-Gurevich design bureau. An improvement on the troubled MiG-1, the MiG-3 was designed for combat at high altitude. Introduced in 1941, it gained less fame than its contemporaries like the Yakovlev and Lavochkin fighters. Germany's virtually nonexistent strategic bomber force, and the low-altitude nature of combat on the Eastern Front meant the MiG-3 was forced out of its element, and its performance suffered. Combined with the MiG's difficult flight characteristics and the horrible strategic situation for the Soviets in 1941, this meant the MiG-3 achieved little success.
       
      While the MiG-3 did not spawn a successful series of fighters (like the Yak-1, Yak-9, and Yak-3, for instance), numerous variants were considered, and many of them were built in at least prototype form. However, for many reasons, such as lack of need or nTheonavailability of suitable engines, none of these variants entered large scale production.
       
       
       
       
      I-230/MiG-3U
       

      The resemblance to the baseline MiG-3 is easily seen. via aviastar
       
      The I-230 was one of the more straightforward developments of the MiG-3. Development on the I-230 (also known as the MiG-3U) began in late 1941, with the objective to correct numerous flaws identified in the MiG-3. First was the armament; the MiG-3 had only two 7.62mm ShKAS machine guns and a single 12.7 Berezen (BS) machine gun, firing through the propeller. On the I-230, these were replaced with two 20mm ShVAK cannons (again synchronized to fire through the propeller).
       
      Outwardly, the I-230 looked very similar to the production MiG-3, although the new aircraft was made mostly of wood instead of steel tubing and duralumin. The wing area and wingspan were increased (to 18 m^2 and 11 meters, versus 17.4 m^2 and 10.2 meters for the production MiG-3), and the fuselage was lengthened by .37 meters.
       
      Soviet engineers originally intended to fit the I-230 with the AM-39 engine. However, by the time the I-230 airframe was completed in early 1942, the AM-39 was not yet available. As a result, the first I-230 was forced to use an engine built from both AM-38 and AM-35 parts (designated AM-35A). This engine was roughly 40 kilograms heavier than the intended engine, but produced a respectable 1350 horsepower. Even with such an odd engine, the I-230 flew by the end of 1942, achieving a top speed of over 650 km/hr at altitude. (Some sources say the I-230 first flew in May 1943, this is likely for the machines with AM-35A engines). Four more prototypes were built with AM-35A engines. These aircraft would serve in defense of the Moscow region while undergoing flight testing. While the design showed promise, by this point the AM-35 was obsolete and out of production. Additionally, some other deficiencies were identified. The I-230 was found to be difficult to land (a flaw shared with the MiG-3), and the engine tended to leak oil into the rest of the aircraft at high altitudes. As a result, the I-230 was not built.
       
      I-231
       
      The I-231 was a further evolution of the I-230, using the AM-39 engine that had originally been intended for use in the I-230. One of the I-230 aircraft had its engine replaced with the more powerful AM-39. This required modification of the cooling system; the radiator was enlarged, with another secondary radiator installed. There were also a few other modifications, such as moving the horizontal tail surfaces downward slightly, the fuselage fuel tank was enlarged and some modifications to the radios. Armament was the same as the I-230; two 20mm ShVAK cannons.
       
      First flight of the I-231 was in October 1943. However, in early November, the prototype was forced to make an emergency landing after the supercharger failed at high altitude. Two weeks later, flight testing of the repaired I-231 resumed. The prototype, with the more powerful AM-39 (1800 horsepower), reached a top speed of 707 km/hr at an altitude of about 7000 meters. It also climbed to 5000 meters in under 5 minutes. Flight testing continued in early 1944, and in March, the I-231 was damaged after overrunning the runway during landing. The program suffered another setback when the repaired I-231 suffered an engine failure, damaging the precious AM-39 engine. Following this last mishap, work on the I-231 was discontinued.
       
       

      The similarities between the radial and inline engined models are still visible. via airvectors
       
      I-210/MiG-9 M-82
       

      I-210 with radial engine. via airpages.ru
       
      The I-210 was a more substantial modification of the MiG-3 which began in the summer of 1941. Production of the Shvestsov M-82 radial engine had recently begun, and many design bureaus, including MiG, were instructed to find ways to incorporate the engine into their designs. In the case of the MiG-3, this was especially important, as the Soviet government sought to discontinue the AM-35 to free up production space for the AM-38 used by the all-important Il-2.
       
      In theory, the M-82, with 1700 horsepower, would provide a significant performance increase over the AM-35. Soviet engineers projected that the M-82 equipped MiG-3 (now known as the I-210) would reach nearly 650 km/hr at altitude. It was also projected that performance would be massively improved at low altitude, important for combat on the Eastern Front. The new aircraft was received the designation “MiG-9 M-82”, denoting that it was a substantially new type (this designation would later be reused for a twin-jet fighter in the late 1940s).
       
      In addition to fitting of the M-82, there were several other differences between the MiG-3 and the I-210. Armament was increased to three 12.7mm UBS machine guns (two 7.62mm ShKAS were fitted initially, but soon removed). Several systems related to the engine, including the oil coolers and fuel system were also updated. The fuselage was widened slightly to accommodate the new engine.
       
      The I-210 first flew in July 1941. However, it became quickly apparent that it was not meeting its performance targets. The top speed at an altitude of 5000 meters was a mere 540 km/hr, far inferior to to projects (as well as the production MiG-3!). Part of this was due to having a different model of propeller installed than what was intended. However, wind tunnel testing and inspection showed that the engine cowling was poorly designed and sealed to the rest of the airframe, causing significant drag.
       
      Several months were required to correct the various defects, and it was not until June 1942 that three I-210s were ready for trails. During testing, the three aircraft were assigned to the PVO for use on the front. State trials began in September, and the I-210 fared poorly. Maximum speed was still only 565 km/hr, far inferior to existing types. Overall, the I-210 was judged to be unsatisfactory and inferior to the La-5 and Yak-7. The aircraft did not enter production, although the three completed prototypes would serve in Karelia until 1944.
       
      I-211/MiG-9E
       
      The failure of the I-210 was not the end of efforts to install a radial engine into the MiG-3 airframe. In late 1942, work on the I-211 began. A new Ash-82 engine, an improved variant of the M-82 installed on the I-210, was fitted. With the help of the Shvetsov bureau, the aerodynamics of the engine and its cowling were substantially improved. Further modifications reduced the empty weight of the “MiG-9E” by 170 kg. The three 12.7mm machine guns were replaced by two 20mm ShVAK cannons.
       
      Testing of the I-211 began in August 1942 (other sources variously say that testing did not begin until early 1943, my interpretation is that this is when state trials officially happened). Performance was markedly superior to the I-210; the I-211 reached a top speed of 670 km/hr, and was able to climb to altitudes in excess of 11000 meters. However, the La-5, which was already in production using the M-82 engine, had similar performance. Moreover, the La-7 was in development, and was felt to have better potential. In all, only ten I-211s were built.
       
      Interestingly, at least one source claims that a variant of the I-211 equipped with a Lend-Lease R-2800 engine was considered. There is no evidence that such an aircraft was actually built.
       
       
      I-220/MiG-11
       
      The I-220 (and the rest of its series up to the I-225) were substantially different from the production MiG-3, sharing little aside from the basic design and concept. These aircraft took the original mission of the MiG-3, interception of targets at high altitude, to the ultimate extreme.
       
      The initial request that led to development of the I-220 was issued in July 1941, in response to high-altitude overflights by Ju-86P reconnaissance aircraft. These aircraft, capable of operating at over 13000 meters, were outside the reach of almost any Soviet fighter. A few Ju-86Ps at slightly lower altitude were intercepted by MiG-3s before the start of the war, so the MiG-3 was a natural starting point for a high-altitude interceptor.
       
      Work on the I-220 prototype began in late 1942. Originally, it had been planned to install the AM-39 engine, but it was not ready at the time construction began on the prototype. Instead, one source (OKB MiG, Page 48) states anAM-38F engine was installed, which still provided more power (1700 hp) than the AM-35 on the MiG-3. However, it had the drawback of losing power at high-altitudes; the AM-38F would be an interim installation at best. A different source reports that an AM-37 was the first engine installed.
       
      In addition to the new engine, the wingspan was lengthened by .80 meters, with a slight sweep added to the outer portion of the leading edge. The radiator was relocated from the belly of the aircraft to inside the wing center section, with new air intakes added at the wing roots. Armament was increased to four ShVAKs, making the I-220 one of the heaviest armed Soviet fighters.
       
      The I-220 first flew in January 1943. Testing of the aircraft proceeded, as the AM-39 was still not yet ready. Despite being handicapped by the AM-38F engine, the I-220 prototype was still able to reach 650 km/hr during testing in January 1944. It was agreed that the aircraft had potential, but would need the AM-39 to reach its maximum performance. The second I-220 prototype was eventually fitted with the AM-39, but by that point it had been decided to substantially redesign the aircraft.
       
       
       

      I-220 vs. I-221
       
      I-221/MiG-7
       
      While the I-220 had done well, it had not been able to reach the altitudes its designers had hoped for. Numerous changes would be required to get the best possible performance out of the airframe.
       
      The most obvious area for improvement was the engine. Rather than the AM-38F, an AM-39A with a turbocharger was installed. Not only was the AM-39 more powerful than the AM-38, but the twin turbocharger would allow the engine to continue developing power at altitude. Additionally, the wingspan was increased further, to 13 meters. Armament was reduced to two ShVAK cannons, to save weight. Significantly, the I-221 was fitted with a pressurized cockpit, to allow the pilot to survive at extreme altitude.
       
      By the time the I-221 made its first flight in December 1943, the Ju-86 threat had disappeared. One of the high-altitude intruders had been intercepted by a Yak-9PD (a high-altitude version of the Yak-9 designed and built in three weeks), though it had not been destroyed, overflights ceased. Nevertheless, the Yak-9PD was very much an interim solution, armed with only one ShVAK and requiring 25 minutes to climb to 12000 meters. So, development of the I-221 continued.
       
      The test program of the I-221 was cut very short. On the eighth flight of the aircraft, in February 1944, the pilot bailed out at altitude, after seeing flames coming from the turbocharger and smoke in the cockpit. The pilot survived unharmed, but obviously the I-221 was completely destroyed.
       
      I-222/MiG-7
       
       

      Side view of I-222. via ruslet.webnode.cz
       
      The I-222 was a continued development of the I-221. Not only did it have several additional performance improvements, but it was the closest of MiG's high altitude fighters to a “production ready” aircraft. The AM-39A engine was replaced with a more powerful AM-39B, with twin turbo-superchargers, plus a new four-bladed propeller. An improved intercooler was also installed (clearly visible under the central fuselage). To improve the I-222's potential utility as a combat aircraft, 64mm of armored glass was installed in the windscreen, and the cockpit pressure bulkheads were reinforced with armor plate. The fuselage contours were also modified to give the pilot better rearward visibility. Armament was two B-20 cannons, replacing the ShVAKs.
       
      The I-222 made its first flight in May 1944. Relatively little testing was done before the aircraft went to the TSAGI wind tunnel for further refinement. It emerged in September and underwent further testing. Test flights proved that the I-222 had truly exceptional performance. A speed of 691 km/hr was reached, quite respectable for a piston-powered aircraft. The truly astonishing performance figure was the ceiling of 14500 meters, well in excess of any German aircraft (save for the rare and latecoming Ta-152H).
       
      Though the I-222 could likely have been put into production, Soviet authorities assessed (correctly) that by late 1944 there was little threat from high-altitude German aircraft. Nuisance flights by Ju-86s were of little consequence, and German bomber programs such as the He-274 universally failed to bear fruit. Testing of the I-222 continued through late 1945, when the program was cancelled.
       
       
      I-224/Mig-7
       

      As can be seen the I-224 is similar to the I-222. From OKB MiG by Butowski and Miller
       
      The I-224 was a development of the I-222 with an improved AM-39FB engine. Several other minor improvements, such as an improved propeller and modified cooling system. The new aircraft first flew in September 1944. After five flights, it was heavily damaged in an emergency landing. Difficulties continued after the aircraft was repaired in December; the engine had to be replaced in February due to the presence of metal particles in the oil.
       
      Like the I-222, the I-224 demonstrated very good performance at altitude, also climbing to over 14000 meters and recording speeds over 690 km/hr. But by now, it was October 1945, and the war was over. It was decided to fit the I-224 with a fuel-injected AM-44 engine. This was not completed until July of 1946, and by then the time of the piston-engine fighter had passed. Both the I-222 and I-224 programs were shut down in November.
       
      I-225/MiG-11
       

      From OKB MiG by Butowski & Miller
       
      The I-225 was born from the second I-220 prototype. Although the I-225 was still designed for operation at high-altitude, it was decided not to optimize the aircraft for such extreme heights as the I-222 and I-224. It was hoped that this would allow for a higher top speed and heavier armament, among other improvements.
       
      A turbocharged variant of the AM-42 engine (similar to that used on the Il-10 ground attack aircraft) was fitted, providing 2200 horsepower at takeoff. The pressurized cabin was deleted to save weight, and allow the cockpit to be optimized for better visibility. Armament was the same as the I-220; four ShVAK cannons. Armor was added to the windscreen, as well as the pilot's headrest. Improved instrumentation and a new radio system was also added.
       
      As predicted, the I-225 had exceptional performance. The aircraft was capable of speeds in excess of 720 km/hr, and demonstrated good handling characteristics. Unfortunately, the first I-225 prototype was lost after only 15 flights, due to an engine fire.
       
      A second prototype was completed with an AM-42FB engine, and first flew in March 1945. This second prototype was fitted with four B-20 cannons instead of ShVAKs, This prototype was also reported to be capable of over 720 km/hr, as well as able to climb to 5000 meters in under 4 minutes. However, due to continued vibrations, the AM-42 was replaced with an AM-44 in January 1946. This did not solve the issues though, and the I-225, like its predecessors, was not selected for production. All work on the I-225 was shut down in March 1947.
       
       
       
      Remarks
       
      While none of the advanced MiG-3 variants entered production, they did provide the Mikoyan-Gurevich bureau with valuable engineering and design experience. In a different world, one might imagine that some of their designs could have found a niche. The I-210/1 and I-230/1 would have little reason to be built in a world where Yakovlev and Lavochkin fighters exist in the way they did. However, if Germany or another enemy had a developed strategic bombing arm, then the I-220 series fighters could have found a use. Either way, by 1945, it was clear that jet aircraft were the future. Even the Soviets, who had a relatively late start on jet engines, quickly developed aircraft like the MiG-9 and Yak-15 whose performance exceeded any of the MiG-3 variants.
       
       
       
      Sources:
       
      OKB MiG, a History of the Design Bureau and its Aircraft, by Piotr Butowski and Jay Miller
       
      http://www.airvectors.net/avmig3.html
       
      http://www.aviastar.org/air/russia/a_mikoyan-gurevich.php
       
      https://ruslet.webnode.cz/technika/ruska-technika/letecka-technika/a-i-mikojan-a-m-i-gurjevic/ 
      (I-230, I-210, I-211, I-220, I-221, I-222, I-224, and I-225 pages)
       
      http://www.airwar.ru/fighterww2.html
      (I-230, I-231, I-210, I-211, I-220, I-221, I-222, I-224, and I-225 pages)
       
      http://soviethammer.blogspot.com/2015/02/mig-fighter-aircraft-development-wwii.html
×
×
  • Create New...