Aviation of World War II |
Soviet Union | Lend - Lease | Facts | Forum | Germany | Japan | R A F | U S A A F | Other | Photos | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Aircraft | Combat Use | Armament | Bartini | Beriev | Ilyushin | Lavochkin | Mikoyan | Petlyakov | Polikarpov | Sukhoy | Tupolev | Yakovlev | Yermolaev | Other | People & Aircraft | Photos & Drawings | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Su-6Attack AircraftSukhoy
The Su-6 single-seat aircraft was designed in 1940 and built according to government orders, released in the spring of 1941 and handed over for testing just before the war. Evacuation and other circumstances made it impossible to test the aircraft in a timely manner. This was done only in 1942. But by this time, a two-seat version was already required. The Su-6 double armored attack aircraft with the M-71F engine was designed and built in 1942 and from June 20 to August 30, 1943 brilliantly passed state tests (A.V. Sinelnikov was the lead engineer, A.I. Kabanov was the lead pilot , P.M. Stefanovsky took part in the overflight of the aircraft). Despite the rather large wing load - 212.85 kg / m², this machine, thanks to an exceptionally successful combination of shapes, dimensions and careful layout, showed excellent flight data. In terms of maximum speeds, rate of climb, maneuverability, ceiling, range, armament and armor, the two-seat "dry" significantly exceeded the two-seat Il-2, which was in service with the Air Force. The Su-6 had excellent stability and controllability, was simple and pleasant to pilot. The aircraft was equipped with powerful wing mechanization (had automatic slats and Schrenk flaps), which allowed for stable maneuvers at high angles of attack. The latter was very important for a battlefield aircraft designed to operate at low altitude. For the pilot to attack in a limited space above the target, it was necessary to maneuver mainly in a vertical plane. It was possible to significantly improve the data of the Su-6 in comparison with the Il-2 without deteriorating maneuverability in the vertical plane by reducing the load on engine power. So, serial Il-2 with AM-38F with a wing load of 159 - 163 kg / m² had a vertical speed near the ground of about 7.2 m / s, and the Su-6 at a load of 212.85 kg / m²- 9.3 m / s. The armor of the Su-6 was much better than that of the Il-2. Thanks to a more rational distribution of sheet thicknesses, the total weight of the armor was only 683 kg — 18.3% of the weight of the empty aircraft. The thickness of the armor in the gunner's cockpit and in the area of the propeller group was chosen explicitly taking into account the influence of aircraft structural elements (fuselage skin, bomb bays, etc.) on the geometry of projectile impact with armor from the most probable directions of fire in a real dogfight. This approach made it possible to seriously reduce the weight of the armor with significantly better protection for the crew and vital structural elements of the aircraft than for the Il-2, in which, with a total armor weight of 957 kg, the air gunner had practically no protection, and the armored parts most vulnerable to enemy fire turned out to be of insufficient thickness. The armor of the Su-6 also had drawbacks, but it provided more effective protection against 12.7 mm caliber bullets and anti-aircraft shell fragments. The survivability of the attack aircraft was also increased by pressurizing the gas tank with exhaust gases and duplicating the control of the elevators and rudders. The armament of the aircraft included two 37-mm 11P-37 cannons (90 rounds of ammunition), two ShKAS machine guns (1400 rounds), a UBT defensive machine gun (196 rounds in four stores) in a BLUB blister mount, 200 kg of bombs (overloaded) and six RS-132 or RS-82. Two FAB-100 bombs could additionally be suspended on an external sling. By this time, Air Force specialists already had a large amount of statistical data to analyze the causes of losses of aircraft for various purposes, including attack aircraft. In the conclusions of the report of the 2nd Division of the Operational Directorate of the Air Force Headquarters on the analysis of aviation losses (August 1943), it was noted that of all flight performance characteristics, it is maneuverability that has a decisive influence on combat survivability when operating on ground targets. Similar requirements were put forward by specialists from the Air Force Research Institute. They paid special attention to the horizontal and vertical maneuverability of a promising attack aircraft, equipping it with an air-cooled engine, as well as to increasing the effectiveness of armor protection while reducing the share of armor in flight weight. Judging by the documents, the leadership of the Air Force believed that it was the Su-6 that was the machine that was lacking in Soviet aviation. In his opinion, the NKAP had the opportunity to put the M-71F engine and the Su-6 aircraft into series. At the same time, a decrease in the production of M-82F and M-82FN engines and aircraft equipped with them, as well as Il-2 attack aircraft, could not greatly affect the general situation at the front. In the rear (in the interior districts, in the Far East, in schools, at storage bases, etc.), a significant reserve of combat vehicles has accumulated - about 20% more than in the army, and at the front, an almost threefold superiority in forces over Luftwaffe. With the start of mass production of the M-71F, it would be possible to solve the issue not only of launching the Su-6 attack aircraft, but also of the production of the promising I-185 fighter. In this case, a situation would arise in which both attack and fighter aircraft would simultaneously be re-equipped with equipment that surpassed the enemy’s in all determining parameters, which would most favorably affect the overall course of the war. Meanwhile, the NKAP strongly resisted the production of the Su-6 and the M-71F engine, motivating its position with a great technical risk when deploying their mass production in wartime conditions. However, it seems that this was not the only issue. Relying on quantity rather than quality, the leadership of the People's Commissariat was terrified of making any more or less serious changes to the already well-established system for the production of combat aircraft. In addition, by agreeing with the proposal of the military, he would actually have to admit the fallacy of the adopted technical policy of the NKAP, starting from 1940. Su-6 (S2A) - two-seater with M-71F engine of 2200 hp. (up). The flight qualities of the experimental aircraft were outstanding (as in the single-seat version). The speed (single and double) near the ground is 510 and 480 km / h, at an altitude of 527 and 514 km / h, which is 100 km / h higher than the speed of the Il-2 attack aircraft. Maneuverability was excellent. It was tested in 1944 in test air battles at an altitude of 6000 m with the Yak-3 fighter. Here you can pay attention to the fact that the wing area of the Su-6 was one and a half times less than that of the Il-2 (26 m² and 38.5 m²), the mass is much less, and the power is - A bit more. Aerodynamically, it was more perfect, the chassis was completely retracted. This is the reason for its much better performance. As a Su-6 attack aircraft (especially a two-seater with an M-71F-type C2A engine), it had excellent stability and control characteristics, was simple and pleasant to pilot, but it appeared too late, and the engine was not serial. Therefore, the Su-6 was not put into production. Armament in a double version: two OKB-16 37 mm cannons or 11-P-37 long-barreled anti-tank guns (90 rounds), two ShKAS machine guns (1400 rounds) and one UBT machine gun (196 rounds) for the shooter. In addition, 200 kg of bombs could be suspended under the wing.
|
|