Yatsyenko DI.5
- Thread starter Maveric
- Start date
- Joined
- 25 July 2007
- Messages
- 4,165
- Reaction score
- 3,823
So TsKB-2's DI-5 was an unbuilt rival to TsKB-11's built DI-6?
igor-mich: do you know anything about the M-32 engine?
I presume that the DI-5 was felled by the same M-32 development problems with led to the Polikarpov I-13 being abandoned in favour of the I-14/I-15 line. (I've also seen online references to I-16 Type 1s being M-32 powered which I assume is a typo for M-22 Jupiters).
igor-mich: do you know anything about the M-32 engine?
I presume that the DI-5 was felled by the same M-32 development problems with led to the Polikarpov I-13 being abandoned in favour of the I-14/I-15 line. (I've also seen online references to I-16 Type 1s being M-32 powered which I assume is a typo for M-22 Jupiters).
Information about the engine is very small. M-32 was a water-cooled, designer VM Yakovlev draft motor row V-16 takeoff power of 600 hp 1930 1932gg development .. Regarding the M-22, the engine was air-cooled, that is, they were different types of engines
- Joined
- 7 June 2009
- Messages
- 529
- Reaction score
- 141
Apophenia said:
"TsKB-2" and "TsKB-11" are designations of particular aircraft, not of design organizations - it isn't the case of later "TsKB-29 NKVD"
. At that time, in mid-1930s, there was only one TsKB (Central design bureau) in Soviet Union.If both designs were Yatsenko's, they hardly could be rivals to each other - only alternative designs. But I understood that built DI-6 was further development of unbuilt DI-5. Maybe we can say that DI-5 was "missing link" between LR and DI-6.
Apophenia said:
To my mind, the word "abandoned" isn't correct for this situation: I-13 project evolved into I-14a (later renamed I-15) when M-32 inline engine was replaced by radial Cyclone / M-25. I think the same story could be with DI-5 and DI-6.
The plane was the development of LR Polikarpovskogo P-5 only lower dimension. If we compare the DI-6 with LR, the most likely DI-6 is closer to I-15 Polikarpov.
They worked in one organization the plane I-15 was built earlier, and quite possibly Yatsenko used the scheme of I-15 to DI-5.
They worked in one organization the plane I-15 was built earlier, and quite possibly Yatsenko used the scheme of I-15 to DI-5.
- Joined
- 7 June 2009
- Messages
- 529
- Reaction score
- 141
igor-mich
As for me - the layout of DI-6 is much closer to LR than to I-15. Although I-15 is closer in size, of course.
The DI-5 with inline engine would look almost like downscaled LR.
Уважаемый Игорь! Как по мне - ДИ-6 похож на ЛР гораздо больше, чем на И-15. Хотя И-15, конечно, ближе к нему по размерам. А уж если его представить с V-образным мотором (а насколько я Вас понял, это и будет ДИ-5) - получится фактически уменьшенный ЛР.
As for me - the layout of DI-6 is much closer to LR than to I-15. Although I-15 is closer in size, of course.
The DI-5 with inline engine would look almost like downscaled LR.
Уважаемый Игорь! Как по мне - ДИ-6 похож на ЛР гораздо больше, чем на И-15. Хотя И-15, конечно, ближе к нему по размерам. А уж если его представить с V-образным мотором (а насколько я Вас понял, это и будет ДИ-5) - получится фактически уменьшенный ЛР.
Attachments
I agree and disagree at the same time, all three planes of one scheme, put another motor and it will be like one of them. With the same success for this concept fits the I-5. And then developed LR Kochergin. While not find project itself and the history of its creation is difficult to speculate on DI-5, is everything our assumptions, and no more.
- Joined
- 25 July 2007
- Messages
- 4,165
- Reaction score
- 3,823
redstar72: thanks for clearing my confusion.
igor-mich: thanks for the M-32 details. If it was a V-16, I'm not surprised that they had development problems! The M-32 being a liquid-cooled engine also confirms that the reference to M-32 powered I-16 Type 1s is a typo for M-22.
igor-mich: thanks for the M-32 details. If it was a V-16, I'm not surprised that they had development problems! The M-32 being a liquid-cooled engine also confirms that the reference to M-32 powered I-16 Type 1s is a typo for M-22.
- Joined
- 7 June 2009
- Messages
- 529
- Reaction score
- 141
Apophenia
The designation "I-16 type 1" is very doubtful anyway. The matter is that all these "type" numbers (Type 18, 24 etc.) weren't given by Polikarpov, but by Zavod No.21 in Gorky city (Nizhny Novgorod) which produced I-16 in series. This was their internal system of factory designations, in which some "types" weren't I-16s at all! For example, "type 7" was their own design of biplane fighter by Borovkov and Florov - that first, "short" pre-I-207 tested in 1937, more known as Aircraft "7211". Actually 7211 was its serial number - Type 7, Zavod 21, 1st built! "Type 6" was UTI-1 - two-seat trainer version of Polikarpov I-5; so there was no I-16 Type 6, despite some sources mention it. "Type 25" was I-180, and "type 30" was LaGG-3! And what's important for us: I-16 was fourth aircraft type produced by Zavod 21 from its establishment, therefore its first production version became Type 4. (For Zavod 21, it was simply "Type 4" not "I-16 type 4"!) And the first aircraft produced there, the Type 1 was Polikarpov I-5! Type 2 was for Tupolev/Sukhoi I-14 - yes, the I-16 main rival: it was planned to be produced at the same place, though no one was built when it was decided to transfer it into Irkutsk. Type 3 was Nieman KhAI-1 (only 3 were built in Gorky, all the rest in Kiev by Zavod No.43). So, there was no I-16s with these "type" numbers - I-16 type 1 never existed.
Of course it's very hard to imagine I-16 with inline engine (especially with V16 ). It would no more be the Little Donkey we all know, but something VERY different.
Nevertheless, Polikarpov actually projected a monoplane fighter with M-32 engine - but earlier, and not directly connected with I-16. It was named I-9, and the first sketches of it were drawn by Polikarpov in Summer 1929. The project discussion began in November 1929, and the work was continued by Kocherigin (because of Polikarpov's arrest). In 1930 spring, the VVS administration (UVVS) issued the project specification for single-seat I-9 fighter with 600-hp M-32 engine. The requirements were:
Maximum speed (5000 m altitude) - 330 to 350 km/h;
Climbing to 5000 m - 5 to 7 minutes;
Service ceiling - 8000 to 10 000 m;
Landing speed - 95 km/h;
Armament - two 7.62-mm PV-1 machine guns (plus two additional when overloaded) or one cannon (20 to 30 mm);
Flight range - 700 to 800 km (5000 m altitude).
But the impossibility to get M-32 in terms became more and more clear, and on March 16, 1930 the UVVS Scientific committee sent a revised specification - this time for Curtiss Conqueror engine. Later the rough aerodynamical calculations were done for I-9. The results weren't amazing:
Maximum speed - 275.4 km/h (at sea level), 264.7 km/h (3000 m altitude), 261 km/h (5000 m altitude)
Climbing to 3000 m - 6.4 minutes; to 5000 m - 14.3 minutes
Service ceiling - 7530 m
Flight range - 1030 m
The next events show that neither I-9 layout, nor the engine type were still uncertain. When on July 1, 1930 the commission of experts discussed I-9 mockup, it got M-19 engine and turned into biplane (!). The design works continued at Zavod 25 until middle summer; Kocherigin was chief designer, his "sidekicks" were Sutugin and Yatsenko. In autumn 1930, I-9 was definitely de-scheduled from the prototype aircraft construction plan.
(Source for the I-9 info: Maslov M. The King of Fighters: Polikarpov's warplanes. - Moscow, 2009 (ISBN 978-5-699-30998-6). - P.86-88).
The designation "I-16 type 1" is very doubtful anyway. The matter is that all these "type" numbers (Type 18, 24 etc.) weren't given by Polikarpov, but by Zavod No.21 in Gorky city (Nizhny Novgorod) which produced I-16 in series. This was their internal system of factory designations, in which some "types" weren't I-16s at all! For example, "type 7" was their own design of biplane fighter by Borovkov and Florov - that first, "short" pre-I-207 tested in 1937, more known as Aircraft "7211". Actually 7211 was its serial number - Type 7, Zavod 21, 1st built! "Type 6" was UTI-1 - two-seat trainer version of Polikarpov I-5; so there was no I-16 Type 6, despite some sources mention it. "Type 25" was I-180, and "type 30" was LaGG-3! And what's important for us: I-16 was fourth aircraft type produced by Zavod 21 from its establishment, therefore its first production version became Type 4. (For Zavod 21, it was simply "Type 4" not "I-16 type 4"!) And the first aircraft produced there, the Type 1 was Polikarpov I-5! Type 2 was for Tupolev/Sukhoi I-14 - yes, the I-16 main rival: it was planned to be produced at the same place, though no one was built when it was decided to transfer it into Irkutsk. Type 3 was Nieman KhAI-1 (only 3 were built in Gorky, all the rest in Kiev by Zavod No.43). So, there was no I-16s with these "type" numbers - I-16 type 1 never existed.
Of course it's very hard to imagine I-16 with inline engine (especially with V16
). It would no more be the Little Donkey we all know, but something VERY different.Nevertheless, Polikarpov actually projected a monoplane fighter with M-32 engine - but earlier, and not directly connected with I-16. It was named I-9, and the first sketches of it were drawn by Polikarpov in Summer 1929. The project discussion began in November 1929, and the work was continued by Kocherigin (because of Polikarpov's arrest). In 1930 spring, the VVS administration (UVVS) issued the project specification for single-seat I-9 fighter with 600-hp M-32 engine. The requirements were:
Maximum speed (5000 m altitude) - 330 to 350 km/h;
Climbing to 5000 m - 5 to 7 minutes;
Service ceiling - 8000 to 10 000 m;
Landing speed - 95 km/h;
Armament - two 7.62-mm PV-1 machine guns (plus two additional when overloaded) or one cannon (20 to 30 mm);
Flight range - 700 to 800 km (5000 m altitude).
But the impossibility to get M-32 in terms became more and more clear, and on March 16, 1930 the UVVS Scientific committee sent a revised specification - this time for Curtiss Conqueror engine. Later the rough aerodynamical calculations were done for I-9. The results weren't amazing:
Maximum speed - 275.4 km/h (at sea level), 264.7 km/h (3000 m altitude), 261 km/h (5000 m altitude)
Climbing to 3000 m - 6.4 minutes; to 5000 m - 14.3 minutes
Service ceiling - 7530 m
Flight range - 1030 m
The next events show that neither I-9 layout, nor the engine type were still uncertain. When on July 1, 1930 the commission of experts discussed I-9 mockup, it got M-19 engine and turned into biplane (!). The design works continued at Zavod 25 until middle summer; Kocherigin was chief designer, his "sidekicks" were Sutugin and Yatsenko. In autumn 1930, I-9 was definitely de-scheduled from the prototype aircraft construction plan.
(Source for the I-9 info: Maslov M. The King of Fighters: Polikarpov's warplanes. - Moscow, 2009 (ISBN 978-5-699-30998-6). - P.86-88).
- Joined
- 7 June 2009
- Messages
- 529
- Reaction score
- 141
It is "I-15 development" only in the fact that it's a biplane. Otherwise, it looks more like a missing link between I-17 and I-200 / MiG-1 .
Of course it's not totally impossible to imagine an I-16 with water-cooled engine. I can imagine it looking much like Japanese Ki 12.
A member of this forum, Stephane Beaumort aka Stargazer2006, posted at http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,26120.msg394589.html#msg394589 his own vision of fictional inline "I-116".
But there is one trouble: going this way, we can turn far aside the I-16 main idea - a maximally compact aircraft, with minimum spread of weights. On the one hand, it still would be I-16; on the other hand it would be not!
P.S. I-17 was designed just after I-16, and they had a lot of common features. So, maybe, looking at I-17 we can see Polikarpov's own vision of "inline I-16"...
.Of course it's not totally impossible to imagine an I-16 with water-cooled engine. I can imagine it looking much like Japanese Ki 12.
A member of this forum, Stephane Beaumort aka Stargazer2006, posted at http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,26120.msg394589.html#msg394589 his own vision of fictional inline "I-116".
But there is one trouble: going this way, we can turn far aside the I-16 main idea - a maximally compact aircraft, with minimum spread of weights. On the one hand, it still would be I-16; on the other hand it would be not!
P.S. I-17 was designed just after I-16, and they had a lot of common features. So, maybe, looking at I-17 we can see Polikarpov's own vision of "inline I-16"...
Attachments
- Joined
- 26 May 2006
- Messages
- 33,532
- Reaction score
- 13,614
Can I ask about this;
in the Alternathistory site,they spoke about Plikarpov RL-400V as DI-5
fighter,I can't judge,I don't know that's right or wrong ?.
http://alternathistory.org.ua/proekty-dvukhmestnykh-istrebitelya-di-5-i-istrebitelya-razvedchika-rl-400v-sssr
in the Alternathistory site,they spoke about Plikarpov RL-400V as DI-5
fighter,I can't judge,I don't know that's right or wrong ?.
http://alternathistory.org.ua/proekty-dvukhmestnykh-istrebitelya-di-5-i-istrebitelya-razvedchika-rl-400v-sssr
Attachments
- Joined
- 26 May 2006
- Messages
- 33,532
- Reaction score
- 13,614
Also from, Маслов М.А. - Утерянные победы советской авиации.(OCR).
