Tupolev's dive-bomber ANT-57

[borovik]

ANT-57 aka "57";PB 4M-105;"101";"Polit Byuro"
May 1939
span 26m, wing area 76,5 m2 (nearly as beside Er-2)
engines 4 x 105TK (1050 hp)
max speed 570-600 km/h at 8000-10000m
ceiling max. 12500m
range 1500km (max. 4000km)
bombs 3000 kg
armament 3 x 2 Ultra ShKAS (7,62)
Bibliography:A.Medved, V.Perov "Four engines dive-bomber by A.N.Tupolev" Planes of the world #3-4 1997
M.Maslov "Dive-bomber for Lavrentiy Beriya's" As magazine #2 1993

 

[raravia]

Awesome!

But I think it´s too big to be a dive bomber.

 

[Jemiba]

The irony of this design and the comparison drawing with the He 177 is, I think,
that Heinkel was forced to use coupled engines, because a conventional 4-engined
bomber was thought, not to be capable of dive bombing !

 

[Nick Sumner]

Fascinating - but I have to ask, remote control turrets? That looks like a radar in the nose - can we be sure its a 1939 design?

 

[Jemiba]

It's a kind of ball-turret in the nose, I think. The weapons systems looks very adanced for
1939, indeed. I don't know, when the first electrically/hydraulically operated turrets were
introduced, but for example the NA B-25C was ordered in 1940 and delivered at the beginning
of 1942 and was fitted with a remotely controlled Bendix ventral turret. So such systems
probably were already under development in 1939 in the US. And in the SU ? Don't know,
but a design don't say, that all of the planned equipment is already on a workable standard
and AFAIK, at least the mentioned Bendix turret was removed from many aircraft, because
of it's "usefulnes" ... ;D

 

[Artie Bob]

IMHO, the use of coupled engines was not forced upon Heinkel for the 8-177. The other "A" bomber design I am aware of did not use coupled engines. I believe the powerplant configuration owed its origins to the He 119 design and was an attempt by the Heinkel designers to achieve a "cleaner" package. This I believe was done before the dive bombing requirement was added to the specifications In the end, it appears neither the aerodynamic or mechanical goals were achieved, at least not in time for the aircraft to perform the role for which it had originally been intended.

Best Regards,

Artie Bob

 

[Pepe Rezende]

IMHO, the use of coupled engines was not forced upon Heinkel for the 8-177. The other "A" bomber design I am aware of did not use coupled engines. I believe the powerplant configuration owed its origins to the He 119 design and was an attempt by the Heinkel designers to achieve a "cleaner" package. This I believe was done before the dive bombing requirement was added to the specifications In the end, it appears neither the aerodynamic or mechanical goals were achieved, at least not in time for the aircraft to perform the role for which it had originally been intended.

Best Regards,

Artie Bob

Heinkel engineers choice coupled engine to reduce risks on dive attack. They pester Hitler, until 1944, to use uncoupled engines without success. Then they built He277 in an almost clandestine form.

Cheers

Pepe

 

[Jemiba]

According to my issue of "the Kens/Novarra" (although not regarded as always
credible anymore, I think !), Artie is right, as the use of coupled engines was just
a result of the experiences with the He 119. It was an attempt, to reduce drag
considerably. Then, in 1938, driven by Ernst Udet, the RLM demanded dive bombing
capabilities for all bomber aircraft, and the standard opinion in these times in germany
were, that they couldn't be achieved with a four engined aircraft .

 

[borovik]

Awesome!

But I think it´s too big to be a dive bomber.

This plane was designing at TsKB-29 NKVD in the Special Technical Department /Spetsial'ny Tehnichesky Otdel/ (STO) where Tupolev was under arrest.
Detailed about TsKB-29 NKVD here- http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1975.0/
Tupolev himself supported two-engined plane and was working under PB-2M-120 (ANT-5, "FB", "103") project during the same time, but 4-engined plane wasn't his initiative. So sometimes he had to embody an absurd and mutually exclusive requirements.
The two-engined "103" (fither/later Tu-2) was in mass production.
Besides the ANT-57 and TB-7 (Pe-8) during prewar period, there was at least
one more 4-engined project "D" by V.Bolkhovitinov. It was with 2 engines (M-105) in
pair on each wing (with pulling and pushing propellers), having clean
spindle-like fuselage with projecting gondola. There was another variant
with suddenly unclassified M-40 Diesel engines.
1) "FB" (ANT-58)
2) "103"(ANT-58) from Bastion Vol.2

Fascinating - but I have to ask, remote control turrets? That looks like a radar in the nose - can we be sure its a 1939 design?

To Nick Sumner :
This is hydraulically operated turret. (Thanks U , Jens )
Radar wasn't planned in the project /originally/
Though it is required to remark that at the same TsKB-29 NKVD engineer K.Polischuk
was developing radar plant designated for "114R" Bartini's
interceptor ("zenitny samolet" in Russian)

 

[Rickshaw]

The irony of this design and the comparison drawing with the He 177 is, I think,
that Heinkel was forced to use coupled engines, because a conventional 4-engined
bomber was thought, not to be capable of dive bombing !

The problem is not the number of engines but the size of the aircraft and how strong its structure could be built to withstand the stresses of pulling out of a dive. The He177 was actually quite capable of dive bombing but it depends how you define what "dive bombing" is. If you think its the classic Stuka stereotype of a 70+ degrees dive then obviously it won't survive the pull out, whereas if its much shallower, such as under say 20 degrees, then even the He177 could do that without too much trouble. Interesting, the largest successful dive bomber could perhaps be said to have been the Lancaster - they often executed their bombing attacks in shallow dives because it imparted slightly greater speed on them and also complicated the defences' task of trying to predict their flight for anti-aircraft gunnery.

 

[blackkite]

Hi!

Source :
https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=LXlpAAAAQBAJ&pg=PT64&lpg=PT64&dq=%D0%A2%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B2+%D0%90%D0%9D%D0%A2-11&source=bl&ots=NhJUbDl6Qv&sig=e1mRK2EwRrgum2W3t-moPOgOohY&hl=ja&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiHkryXwZnRAhVGxbwKHZr4DDw4ChDoAQg4MAQ#v=onepage&q=%D0%A2%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B2%20%D0%90%D0%9D%D0%A2-11&f=false

And
http://alternathistory.com/pb-4m-105tk-ant-57-pikiruyushchii-bombardirovshchik-s-chetyrmya-motorami-proekt-tupolev-sssr1939g

 

[Avimimus]

Interesting design. With that speed it would have been hard to intercept. Later war variants would have had more powerful engines (at least 10% more power - and that is excluding use of the VK-107). The front turret could be deleted and replaced with a fixed gun as no fighter could reliably attack such a fast plane from the front quarter. The weight saving could be used to increase range/payload, lighten the design, or add a very cramped navigator/bombardier position.

So despite the expense and apparent unreasonableness, such a design likely could've put the Mosquito to shame.

Fascinating - but I have to ask, remote control turrets? That looks like a radar in the nose - can we be sure its a 1939 design?

I believe the use of Ultra-ShKas in the design suggests it is 1941 or earlier.

 

[redstar72]

The problem is not the number of engines but the size of the aircraft and how strong its structure could be built to withstand the stresses of pulling out of a dive.

The ANT-57 wasn't too big. Its wing was about the size of the Wellington, while the fuselage was about 5 meters shorter. It would be one of the smallest four-engined bombers if it would be built (only the Bloch MB.135 was lighter and a bit smaller). While four-engined, ANT-57 was medium bomber, not heavy.

By the way, DB-3 was used for dive bombing experiments in the USSR (the aircraft not much smaller than the ANT-57, and which wasn't designed for dive bombing at all) - and it turned out that its strength is quite enough, but it wasn't good for dive bombing by other reasons (mainly, the pilot's observability was too bad).

 

[blackkite]

Hi! M-105P engine. I can't find M-105TK engine picture or specification.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klimov_M-105

OKB TOPOLEV(ISBN 1-85780-214-4) page82.
"Tupolev and his colleagues also worked on a twin-engined version with 24-cylinder Dobrynin M-120TK engines.(precursor of Tu-2)"
I can't find Dobrynin M-120TK engine picture and specification, too.

 

[blackkite]

Almost same but little different drawings.

http://samlib.ru/p/polikarpowich_s_i/sekr54-57ant.shtml

 

[iverson]

Hi! M-105P engine. I can't find M-105TK engine picture or specification.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klimov_M-105

OKB TOPOLEV(ISBN 1-85780-214-4) page82.
"Tupolev and his colleagues also worked on a twin-engined version with 24-cylinder Dobrynin M-120TK engines.(precursor of Tu-2)"
I can't find Dobrynin M-120TK engine picture and specification, too.

The M-105TK was the Klimov M-105 with two TK-3 turbo-superchargers and a modified reduction gear. It was in prodcution from 1939-40. It was used in the Petlyakov VI-100 high-altitude fighter.

The M-120 was another Klimov engine that combined three M-103 blocks (18 cylinders rather than 24) spaced 120-degrees apart on a shared crankcase. The M-120TK was the same engine with turbo-superchargers. It was rated at 1400/1600 hp and weighed 950 kg. It never entered service because of reliability problems and, no doubt, the success of higher-powered versions of the lighter 12-cylinder engines.

Source: Russian Piston Aero Engines by Vladimir Kotelnikov (Crowood, 2005).

The attached photos of the M-105TK in the VI-100 are from somewhere on the internet.

 

[iverson]

I just found two pictures of the M-120 in my collection (ultimate source again unknown).

 

[blackkite]

Thanks a lot iverson-san. Amazing pictures.

 

[Stenda G]

comparision sizes ANT-57 vs ANT-58

via Andrey Firsov livejornal

 

[borovik]

side view comparisons

 

[Stenda G]

First Tupolev`s scetch of "103"