Chinese re-engined IL-10 projects

[Hawker Nut]

Sorry if this is off-topic, but upon scrowlling down through the page posted above, I saw a nice rendition of what seems to be a turboprop Il-10 conversion. Was this actually considered or even built?

Answer:
The Il-10-re-engineing proposal came into being during 1969 when the CMC requested a new engine to replace the Tu-4's ASh-73TK piston engines. As a result the Ivchenko AI-20 was chosen for a few Tu-4 (the KJ-1 AWACS demonstrator and the Tu-4 UAV-carrier). In line with these the proposal was made also to replace the Il-10's Mikulin AM-42 by the same engine.

Deino

 

[Deino]

Yeppp ... (will be included in the book too : ), ... following the latest information I got two aircrfat were converted and at least one also flown. Sadly both were destroyed - one after an crash and the other during an engine-fire - and later on that project was canceled esp. after the Q-5 made some progress.

Deino


PS: regarding the photo's title "re-engined real maybe" ... when I first found it I was not sure if simply psed, but it is real.

 

[Arjen]

Ugh.

 

[Hawker Nut]

Thanks Deino! Amazing stuff. I am sure the Czech and Russian authors that penned the latest works on the Il-10 didn't have such info available just a few years ago. Heavy COIN is the only role I can envision for such an obsolete design at such a late date. It reminds me of the Piper PA-48 Enforcer (especially the photo you posted - thank you). Do you have a release date for your book or is it still early to ask for it?

 

[famvburg]

Veering away from the original topic, but regarding the turbo Il-10, do we know what engine it uses? I had considered a Whif Turbo Il-10 developed in the '60s for the N Vietnamese AF as a counter to the USN /USAF Skyraiders & darned if this real one looks like what I imagined! especially all the extra hardpoints & assorted weapons surely make me think 'Chinese Skyraider'. Anyway, my question. They put turbo props on just about everything that was piston-powered, Tu-4s, Be-6s, (some smaller a/c?) & even the Mi-4 helo, (Z-6?) which IIRC, looked kinda like an Mi-8, now the Il-10 has come to light. Do we know if they converted any Tu-2s & Li-2s ? IIRC, they used the Tu-2s well into the '60s & Li-2s even later..

 

[famvburg]

The Il-10-re-engineing proposal came into being during 1969 when the CMC requested a new engine to replace the Tu-4's ASh-73TK piston engines. As a result the Ivchenko AI-20 was chosen for a few Tu-4 (the KJ-1 AWACS demonstrator and the Tu-4 UAV-carrier). In line with these the proposal was made also to replace the Il-10's Mikulin AM-42 by the same engine.

Deino

Wow! 2 1/2 times the HP. I wonder if it was de-rated any or it had it all available. It doesn't seem it was exactly underpowered with its 1700+ HP.

 

[Jemiba]

...In line with these the proposal was made also to replace the Il-10's Mikulin AM-42 by the same engine.

I simply added an engine of the KJ-1 AWACS to the Il-10, but I think, it looks quite large,
especially as compared to the photo, doesn't it ? ???

 

[famvburg]

Assuming you have them to the same scale as I'd expect, it doesn't look too big, as in being out of proportion or distorted. I had suspected an AI-24 engine & for my Whif model I mentioned, that's what I would have used for both size & power. Isn't the AI-24 what they installed on their Be-6s, rather than AI-20? Thanks for making it.

...In line with these the proposal was made also to replace the Il-10's Mikulin AM-42 by the same engine.

I simply added an engine of the KJ-1 AWACS to the Il-10, but I think, it looks quite large,
especially as compared to the photo, doesn't it ? ???

 

[Stargazer]

...In line with these the proposal was made also to replace the Il-10's Mikulin AM-42 by the same engine.

I simply added an engine of the KJ-1 AWACS to the Il-10, but I think, it looks quite large,
especially as compared to the photo, doesn't it ? ???

Well it DOES look big in the photo here, doesn't it? Rhe prop even seems bigger in the photo than in your artwork!

 

[Jemiba]

I modified the prop and reduced the diameter of it in the 45° position.
So, in the perpendicular position, there's still some ground clearance left,
which wouldn't have been there in the first drawing.But indeed, this plane
needed a smooth runway !

 

[famvburg]

Well, like many highly modified air racers & some tail wheel a/c in general, it could have been SOP with this mod to only do 3 point takeoffs & landings. I would imagine with the amount of torque generated a locking tailwheel would be most helpful during takeoff.

I modified the prop and reduced the diameter of it in the 45° position.
So, in the perpendicular position, there's still some ground clearance left,
which wouldn't have been there in the first drawing.But indeed, this plane
needed a smooth runway !

 

[Jemiba]

Indeed, but that would render the use of such an aircraft by standard crews
a little bit doubtful. But maybe the accidents just proved that.

 

[famvburg]

Standard crews flew P-51s & it was SOP to do 3 point takeoffs in them. A lot of airplanes have very strange, demanding characteristics that the standard crews are trained to deal with because 'that's just the way it works'.

Indeed, but that would render the use of such an aircraft by standard crews
a little bit doubtful. But maybe the accidents just proved that.

 

[CostasTT]

Another artist's impression of the turboprop Il-10 here: http://iask.sina.com.cn/b/18773500.html

 

[famvburg]

"Another"? That's the same one shown in the link in the first post.

Another artist's impression of the turboprop Il-10 here: http://iask.sina.com.cn/b/18773500.html

 

[boxkite]

"Another"? That's the same one shown in the link in the first post.

You have to scroll down to see the second artist's impression with the aircraft showing its belly side .

 

[famvburg]

Duh! I reckon I'll have to do just that. Thanks.

"Another"? That's the same one shown in the link in the first post.

You have to scroll down to see the second artist's impression with the aircraft showing its belly side .

 

[Stargazer]

Thanks, boxkite! I had made the same mistake, not scrolling the page down...

 

[Avimimus]

I simply added an engine of the KJ-1 AWACS to the Il-10, but I think, it looks quite large,
especially as compared to the photo, doesn't it ? ???

Well it DOES look big in the photo here, doesn't it? Rhe prop even seems bigger in the photo than in your artwork!


Does anyone know what type of rocket pods those are?

Some does look 'off' about the picture btw.

 

[Aardvark]

Hi, all!
Here and haven't come to a common opinion, truth it or fiction!
http://scalemodels.ru/modules/forum/viewtopic_t_26766.html
B.R. Serge

 

[Deino]

Wow! 2 1/2 times the HP. I wonder if it was de-rated any or it had it all available. It doesn't seem it was exactly underpowered with its 1700+ HP.

2 1/2 times the HP ??? ... the info I have is:

Mikulin AM-42: power: 1,770 hp continuous (three-blade propeller AV-5L-24 of 3.6 m diameter).
Ivchenko AI-20: power 2,600 hp continuous (?) ... that would be "only" a factor of 1.47 ! Anyway still not bad ... or are my data wrong ?


Deino

 

[famvburg]

IIRC, the AI-20 is rated at over 4000 hp. 2600 is awfully weak for the a/c it powers.

Wow! 2 1/2 times the HP. I wonder if it was de-rated any or it had it all available. It doesn't seem it was exactly underpowered with its 1700+ HP.

2 1/2 times the HP ??? ... the info I have is:

Mikulin AM-42: power: 1,770 hp continuous (three-blade propeller AV-5L-24 of 3.6 m diameter).
Ivchenko AI-20: power 2,600 hp continuous (?) ... that would be "only" a factor of 1.47 ! Anyway still not bad ... or are my data wrong ?


Deino

 

[Deino]

IIRC, the AI-20 is rated at over 4000 hp. 2600 is awfully weak for the a/c it powers.

Hmmm ... You are correct ! 3,149 kW (4,250 hp) for take off !

 

[SovietPotatoes]

I hope my message isn't too late. I've been doing a bit of my own research on this aircraft, mainly with Chinese books regarding Chinese aviation.

It would appear that the Il-10 project's engine conversion was done with a HS-8 radial engine (locally produced ASh-82 radial engines), not a turboprop. This was done due to the Sino-Soviet Split's negative effects on the PLAAF due to the lack of new AM-42 engines and other parts.

Contrary to many Western sources, I believe this information more likely for a variety of reasons. The book I've been reading on this is 中国飞机全书: 第2卷 written by a former PLAAF official model maker / artist, a current PLAAF officer and a well respected magazine writer in China who specialises in aviation.

 

[jasonyl714]

this is the new photo

 

[KUMA]

A few days ago I drew an drawing based on the newly discovered photo.(I have uploaded it to Weibo before.)

 

[blockhaj]