Having written an article about domestic piston aircraft engines at the beginning of the summer, I was somewhat surprised by the reaction of readers. To my deepest regret, a greater number of readers are more interested in assessing not the history of aircraft engines, but AvtoVAZ.
Combat aircraft. About aircraft motors, their own and not so much.
But for those who did not deviate from the topic and raised very interesting questions, I devote the second part. It took me a long time to study.
So, in the beginning I will say that I am somewhat sorry that the bulk of the readers did not at all understand the message of the first article.
There is nothing wrong with the fact that our motors were based on foreign-made motors. That is why I gave the example of Fiat-124 and VAZ-2101. The whole problem is how to interpret it.
I interpret it simply. In a country that did not produce aircraft engines at all until 1917 (several dozen licensed "Gnome-Ron" does not count at all), it was more than problematic to independently invent and put on stream engines.
So there is absolutely nothing wrong with the fact that the representatives of the USSR bought everything they could around the world, no. And we bought a lot. Including the Hispano-Suiza 12YB that I indicated, which was sold to us with the right to issue under license.
The engine was not only good in itself (otherwise the D520 Dewoitine would not have been a competitor to the Messerschmitt Bf.109), but it also had a modernization potential. This is what our designers have used.
So, in fact, the evolution of Klimov's motors began.
Actually, by the turn of the 30s, a design school had already developed in the USSR. How can this be seen? It's simple. If there is no school, then only licensed production is available without any frills. But if there are constructors …
Then the ruler will look like this:
The first stage: licensed production and study of the base.
Second stage: modernization of the base motor. In our case, this is the M-100.
The third stage: creation of your own engine, which is different from the base model.
In general, this is the M-103.
And if the M-100 is in fact "Hispano-Suiza", then here is the M-103 … Another piston diameter. Moreover, less than on the original (148 instead of 150 mm), a different stroke and size of the valves, in general, very much changed the gas distribution mechanism. For domestic gasoline, which, as everyone knows, we had, to put it mildly, not very much.
Accordingly, the revs and power have changed. Moreover, pretty much so, because if the M-100 gave out the same 860 hp as the original, then the M-103 already produced almost 1000 hp.
In general, if the modernization, then well, very deep. Okay, I'm not an engine manager, but we have smart ones, so let them say that it was actually a modernization or actually another engine.
Move on. Then there was the M-104, which would not have been better. Therefore, I will go straight to the M-105.
How did the M-105 differ from the M-103?
Two-speed supercharger, two exhaust valves instead of one, and even increased their diameter by 15%. New floatless carburetor that allowed negative G-flight and upside-down maneuvers. This is M-105A.
With regards to power. The M-105 produced up to 1050 hp. When they were able to increase the boost, the M-105PF had 1150 hp, the next modification M-105 PF2 - 1310 hp.
Then there was the M-107.
Another block of cylinders. Completely different. 4 valves per cylinder, not 3 like the M-105 and not 2 like the original. That is, a completely different gas distribution system. Drill a hole for the valve is definitely not drilled, a different approach.
Actually, another block gave rise to other crankshafts, connecting rods, pistons. Even the principle of creating the mixture was somewhat different (and, in my opinion, perverted): part of the air went through the carburetor, and the output was highly enriched, and part came directly from the supercharger and diluted the enriched mixture. In general, it is somehow two-stage and not entirely clear, to be honest.
But the output was already 1650 hp. against 860 at the "Hispano-Suiza". Yes, and the weight has increased. The original weighed 500 kg, and the M-107 - 870 kg.
If you do not pay attention to the conditionality of the M-107's suitability for operation (constant overheating and scanty motor life), we can say that the similarity with the original is minimal.
Farther. Next we have Mikulin's works.
Everything is about the same as in Klimov's. First there was business, and business was the M-17 engine, which is the BMW VI.
We bought motors from a Bavarian company in the 1920s with pleasure, fortunately, the Germans sold them without any problems. And since 1925, the BMW VI has become our main engine. Then the M-17 appeared, everything is canonical. But then …
M-17 became the base for two engines at once. AM-35 and AM-38 (forgive those in the know. I'll jump to the “new” marking). The AM-35 flew the MiG-3, the AM-38 - the Il-2. Point. She's so fat.
By the way, contrary to logic, unlike Klimov's engines, disputes about whose engines the Il-2 flew on does not subside even today. On the one hand, it is clear how not to poke these "patriots" with the fact that their attack aircraft flew on a German engine?
We go from the other side and beat from all the trunks. Many thanks here to Dmitry Alekseevich Sobolev and Dmitry Borisovich Khazanov, the creators of the book "The German Footprint in the History of Soviet Aviation". Very informative and helpful, I recommend it.
Yes, the BMW VI engine was indeed purchased with a license, and its production was launched in the USSR under the name M-17. Exactly the same as the previous versions of BMW with 6 and 8 cylinders were bought before. And they were produced in the same way, tried to improve, that is, they gained experience for designers.
And then everything is the second step. That is, not the M-17, but the M-17F. How exactly it was forced is not really said anywhere, but in numbers it looks like 800 hp. instead of 600 for M-17 / BMW VI. Yes, the motor became heavier, but there is such an interpretation: unlike the Germans, we could not afford to save on metal and immediately strengthened the "weak" points.
By the way, the engine completely "went", and regularly carried on itself until the end of the war not only aircraft (TB-1, TB-3, R-5, MBR-2), but also tanks (BT-7, T-28, T -35 and even at the beginning of production, when there was not enough diesel engines, V-2, KV and T-34).
Why not move on?
And let's go. And this is where miracles begin. Especially if you look at the M-17 and M-34, hypothetically placing them side by side.
These are completely different motors. On the M-17 / BMW VI, each cylinder is made separately, each has its own cooling jacket, the supply of lubricant and coolant to each cylinder is also made separately.
On the M-34 there is a single, cast cylinder block, with all fuel and oil lines, with all the nuances coming in and out of here. And then there were modifications, of which there were quite a few, and with each of them something was introduced into the motor.
Yes, the M-34R is the very engine that (again in different modifications, with and without a gearbox) brought the crews of Chkalov and Gromov to North America.
And the AM-34FRNV version (other crankshaft, gearbox, lubrication system, gas distribution mechanism, 4 carburetors instead of 1) is actually what went into the series under the name AM-35 …
Actually, the AM-38 differed from the AM-35 in that it was its low-altitude version. By reducing the altitude, it was possible to raise the rated power to 1500 hp, and takeoff - to 1600 hp. That is, the alteration of the centrifugal blower.
In fact, all Mikulin motors are Mikulin motors. AM-34, 35, 37, 38 and the AM-39 and 42 that appeared at the end of the war, I personally can hardly call the modernization of the BMW VI, which was bought in 1925. The full cycle of BMW VI - M-17 - AM-34 is available.
But let's move on. Let's take a look at the "airmen". Naturally, to Shvetsov, because the controversy there, too, has not abated for the past 20 years. And for good reason.
As usual, I wrote that first there was the Wright R-1820, which was bought and started to be produced under the name M-25.
Then modernization began, and the M-25A appeared. Then there were the M-62 and M-63, the crown of the line was the M-71.
With the M-62, everything is simple: "Cyclone", aka M-25 plus a centrifugal supercharger. Increased the compression ratio - here's the M-63 for you. Both (62nd and 63rd) regularly carried all the Polikarpov fighters across the sky, the 63rd was even more preferable, “went for gas,” as the pilots said about him. The ASh-62 still flies on the An-2, where the maize workers still remain. A kind of such a record for longevity, yes.
M-71 is two according to ASh-62.
That is, the motor is of a more advanced double-star design and the maximum that could be squeezed out of the Cyclone. It's a paradox, but the engine came out so-so, although in fact it was doubled American.
Foolishness and delirium begins in disputes over Shvetsov's motors, when the ASh-82 appears on the scene. I, too, in the first article, let's say, did not quite figure it out. It happens. That is, I could not correctly assess the degree of processing done by the engineers of the Mikulin Design Bureau.
I am getting better.
That is, now the words will be the same as in the first article, but the meaning behind them will be somewhat different.
So, ASh-82 and ASh-62.
"Double stars", but the 82nd has 4 cylinders less. 14 and 18 (2x9) respectively. These figures indicate that in fact the ASh-82 is a completely different engine. Just take and throw out 4 cylinders - no, it's not just that.
The ASh-82 was indeed “created using the elements of the ASh-62”, but here it is for sure that it is not “based on”. A different number of cylinders led to a different gas distribution scheme, lubrication, the piston stroke decreased, which reduced the diameter of the motor, which means improved aerodynamics.
Well, when ASh-82FN received (the first, by the way) direct fuel injection … And, yes, the injection was copied from the German BMW-801 engine, which was on the FV-190. Agree that the idea itself was copied, and the fact that the Shvetsov Design Bureau adapted the German injection to a seemingly copy of the American engine already testifies to very strong engineering work.
And now very strange things turn out: M-71, which is two according to M-25, which Wright "Cyclone" does not go, at least remelt, but ASh-82, which is from the elements of (some) ASh-62, but with a modified to unrecognizable configuration - a very motor. Considering how much he plowed after the war - one of our best piston engines.
And here it is definitely not in the source code. And in their own minds and hands.
Let me quote myself in the first article:
"But, alas, it is hard to deny that in fact ALL Soviet aircraft engines were copies of imported designs."
I agree, not entirely correct. Now this phrase should sound like this:
"But, alas, it is hard to deny that in fact ALL Soviet aircraft engines were based on imported engines."
The key word is "at the core".
And, in fact, there is nothing like that in this. Normal practice. Take the best of your neighbor and use it for your own good. And they copied everything: BMW, Rolls-Royce, and Hispano-Suiza. It turns out as with the gene pool. At the origins were some motor Adam and Eve, everything else …
So I will allow myself one more quote. From the same place.
“The purpose of this article is not at all a kind of humiliation of our industry or the work of Soviet designers, rather, on the contrary. This is a demonstration in figures and facts of how out of nothing turned out what was needed."
Yes, indeed, in the early 1920s we had nowhere to take aircraft engines. There were none, and this is a well-known fact. They took strangers, yes. Where they could, they mined there.
However, over time, namely by the mid-30s, we had a real design school, and Soviet designers could already afford to move from simple copying not only to modernizations that were significantly ahead of the basis, but also to the creation of completely new engines. ASh-82FN is the best example of this.
This is exactly what I said in the first article. Out of nothing came what was required.
At the turn of 1920, we had nothing in terms of aircraft engines. After 20 years, we already had our own motors, which, if inferior to the motors of allies and enemies, are very weak.
Today, many say that our designers have not been able to afterburner. Good. There is such a thing. Neither the MW-50 nor the GM-1 in analogues could be created in our country. Was it necessary? The same ASh-82F could work quite normally in the so-called "take-off" mode as long as was needed. What is not a substitute for afterburner?
And in the end? As a result, it was not the Red Army Air Force that was brought to the root, but the Luftwaffe.
However, so much has been written on this topic that it remains only to summarize: after 1940 in the Soviet Union there were aircraft engines developed by the Soviet school of designers, based on foreign-made motors, but so different from the basis that one can safely conclude that these were engines of our own design.
