Airplane with horizontal take-off. Revival of a legend: how is the development of a new Russian vertical take-off and landing aircraft progressing? Vertical takeoff and landing photo

With the launch of American nuclear submarines armed with Polaris ballistic missiles on combat patrols in the early 60s, the USSR found itself virtually defenseless. Submerged boats approached our coast, could at any moment fire a missile salvo, cause colossal destruction and escape invulnerable. All this required an immediate and effective response. The fight against nuclear submarines in order to prevent nuclear missile strikes is becoming one of the priorities assigned to the Navy. In this regard, the role and importance of anti-aircraft defense aircraft, capable of effectively combating enemy submarines, is sharply increasing.
The “large anti-submarine direction” in the development of the Russian Navy made it possible to attempt to realize in metal such a revolutionary and unique aircraft as the vertical take-off and landing amphibian VVA-14.

The VVA-14 could be used in search-and-strike, search and strike variants. Three copies of the machine were to be designed and built, with factory testing of the first beginning in the last quarter of 1968.

The Bartini Design Bureau did not have its own pilot production, so the construction of the VVA-14 was planned to be carried out at the pilot plant No. 938 of the N.I. Design Bureau. Kamova. But since the Kamovites did not have specialists familiar with the specifics of heavy aircraft construction, in 1968 R.L. Bartini becomes the chief designer on the VVA-14 theme of the newly created OKB at the Taganrog plant No. 86. V.I. is appointed Bartini’s deputy. Biryulin.

At the same time, a decision was issued by the Presidium Commission of the Council of Ministers of the USSR on military-industrial issues No. 305 dated November 20, 1968 and MAP order No. 422 dated December 25, 1968 on the development technical project aircraft VVA-14 at the Taganrog Machine-Building Plant.

In fact, the work on creating the VVA-14 was led by Deputy Chief Designer N.A. Pogorelov, who replaced V.I. Biryulina, because R.L. Bartini lived in Moscow and visited Taganrog on visits.

VVA-14 was a whole collection of unusual technical solutions, each of which required a large amount of development work even before the start of flight tests. For the purpose of full-scale testing of aircraft systems and structural elements, several corresponding stands were designed and built.

To test the power plant on a small pontoon stand built at the Ukhtomsk Helicopter Plant (UVZ), experimental work was carried out to study the depression and spray plume formed when a jet of gases from the TS-12M TRD is exposed to the water surface.

To study the takeoff and landing modes of the VVA-14 on various surfaces, UVZ created a floating gas-dynamic test bench analogue 1410, which made it possible to test a model of the aircraft on a 1:4 scale, equipped with six TS-12M turbojet engines that simulated the operation of all lifting engines of the aircraft.

Stand 1410 was transported to the test and experimental base of the Design Bureau in Gelendzhik, where it underwent a full cycle of tests to study the modes of takeoff and landing of the aircraft on the water surface. The results obtained indicated, in particular, that the forces and moments acting on the aircraft during vertical takeoff and landing were insignificant and the aircraft stabilization and control system could well fend them off. Combined gas-jet rudders for heading and pitch control were also tested on a ground test bench. To test the control of the VVA-14, two flight stands were created: with a movable and a fixed cockpit. On the flight stands, even before the first flight, the aircraft control modes were thoroughly worked out, among which was the landing mode in conditions of creating an intense dynamic air cushion. Test pilot Yu.M. was often invited to the stands. Kupriyanov, who highly appreciated the work of their creators, saying during the debriefing of the first flight: “They flew as if on a simulator!”

It was planned to build three experimental VVA-14. Two copies of the aircraft, the “1M” and “2M” machines, were put into production simultaneously. The first prototype “1M” aircraft was made without lifting engines and was intended for testing and fine-tuning the aerodynamics and design in all flight modes, except for vertical takeoff and landing, and stability studies and controllability in these modes, for testing the propulsion system and aircraft systems. To ensure takeoff and landing from the airfield, the aircraft was equipped with a bicycle chassis with steerable nose wheels (the chassis design used struts from 3M and Tu-22 bombers).

By the summer of 1972, the main work on assembling the VVA-14 (“1M”) aircraft was completed and the aircraft, which left the assembly shop, was transferred to LIK for final development before flight testing. The VVA-14 had a very unusual appearance. The fuselage with the cockpit turned into a center section, on the sides of which there were two huge compartments with floats and their pressurization system. Spaced swept horizontal and vertical tail. The detachable parts of the wing were attached to the center section caisson. For the originality of the design, the aircraft received the nickname “Fantomas”. The leading test engineer was I.K. Vinokurov, test pilot Yu.M. Kupriyanov, test navigator L.F. Kuznetsov.

The parking lot where VVA-14 was located was located on the edge of the airfield near a small grove, the so-called. “quarantine”, and for the purpose of secrecy, “1M” received civil registration USSR-19172 and Aeroflot symbols on board. In the period from July 12 to 14, 1972, the first taxiing and jogging of the aircraft began on the unpaved runway of the factory airfield. Then the wing consoles and tail unit were undocked from the VVA-14 and, observing all the required secrecy measures, one night they were transported to the neighboring Taganrog airfield, which had a concrete strip, on which one of the training regiments of the Yeisk Military Pilot School was based. There, from 10 to 12 August, jogging continued. Their results were encouraging, the VVA-14 behaved normally during runs up to a speed of 230 km/h, the power plant and on-board equipment worked without any problems. In his report, test pilot Yu.M. Kupriyanov noted that: “During the take-off, approach and run, the aircraft is stable, controllable, there is no deviation from the take-off course or roll.” In addition, attention is drawn to good review from the pilot's cabin and convenient location of flight and navigation instruments and control devices power plant.

The VVA-14 took off for the first time on September 4, 1972 with a crew consisting of test pilot Yu.M. Kupriyanov and test navigator L.F. Kuznetsova. The flight, which lasted almost an hour, showed that the stability and controllability of the machine in the air were within normal limits and no worse than that of traditional aircraft. As on the ground, in the air the VVA-14 looked very unusual, receiving a “three-headed” rating when it was seen below (the central nose-fuselage and two side compartments) another nickname - “Snake Gorynych”. The Be-30 (No. 05 “OS”) was involved in individual flights as an escort aircraft and a standard aircraft for calibrating flight and navigation equipment. Flight tests of the first stage were completed by the summer of 1973. Their results confirmed that the original aerodynamic design with a wing center section is quite viable, and the propulsion power plant and main systems operate reliably and ensure the execution of test flights. But the most significant result of this stage of flight testing was that under the aircraft when flying near the ground, the thickness of the dynamic air cushion turned out to be significantly greater in relation to the average aerodynamic chord wing than previously thought. With an average aerodynamic chord of the VVA-14 of 10.75 m, the effect of the dynamic cushion was felt from a height of 10-12 m, and at the leveling height (about 8 m) the cushion was already so dense and stable that Yu.M. During debriefings, Kupriyanov many times asked permission to drop the control stick and let the car land on its own. However, he was never allowed to conduct such an experiment, fearing that there might simply not be enough runway.

The only serious incident was the failure of the No. 1 hydraulic system on the first flight. The cause was the destruction of the outlet tube working fluid from pumps, due to the coincidence of fuselage vibrations with the pulsation frequency of the liquid. A way out of the situation was found by replacing the tubes with rubber hoses. Although the prospects for obtaining real, rather than “paper” lifting engines remained very uncertain, finally, a pneumatic take-off and landing device (PVPU) was ready. The PVPU floats had a length of 14 m, a diameter of 2.5 m, and a volume of each of them was 50 m3. They were designed by the Dolgoprudny Design Bureau of units and manufactured at the Yaroslavl Tire Plant. Therefore, in the winter of 1973-74. VVA-14 (“1M”) was carried out in the experimental production workshop of the Design Bureau where PVPU systems and devices were installed on it. At the same time, static tests were carried out on a specially prepared float. The floats were released by twelve controlled pneumatic ring ejectors - one for each float compartment. Air high pressure was taken from the compressors of the main engines. The cleaning of the PVPU was carried out by hydraulic cylinders, which acted through longitudinal rods on the cables covering the floats, displacing air from their compartments through pressure reducing valves.

After the termination of the VVA-14 program, the “1M” aircraft was rolled into the workshop for conversion into the experimental 14M1P ekranolet, the assembled airframe of the “2M” was taken to the far edge of the factory parking lot, and the third copy of the vertically taking off amphibian was never built. Based on the VVA-14 there were projects to create modifications for various purposes. The ship version would have folding wing consoles and tail units and could be based on anti-submarine cruisers Project 1123, specially retrofitted large-tonnage dry cargo ships and tankers, or on anti-submarine carrier cruisers VVA-14. In the transport version, the VVA-14 could carry 32 people or 5000 kg of cargo over a distance of up to 3300 km. In the search and rescue version, as part of an amphibious crew additionally two rescuers and a doctor were included. The cargo compartment housed special equipment (boats, rafts, winches, etc.). The flight characteristics of the VVA-14 in the rescue version remained almost the same as those of the anti-submarine aircraft, with the exception of the flight range, which could be increased by 500-1000 km.

Let's say a little about the design of the floats and the systems for their cleaning and release.

The PVPU floats had a length of 14 m, a diameter of 2.5 m. Each volume was 50 m. They were designed by the Dolgoprudny Design Bureau of Units (DKBA) and manufactured by the Yaroslavl tire makers.

The PVPU cleaning and release system turned out to be very difficult to fine-tune and set up tests, since this mechanohydropneumoelectric complex incorporated various unique specialized devices, the full-scale laboratory testing of which for the most part turned out to be unfulfilled in terms of timing, and even in terms of technology (the floats themselves, their drive systems and management).

To test the PVPU, it was necessary to supply a large amount of active air from a simulator of main engine compressors during exhaust (filling). We got out of the situation by designing and manufacturing a filter station that purified high-pressure air supplied from the factory pneumatic network. The floats were released by twelve controlled pneumatic ring ejectors - one for each float compartment.

The process began by opening the locks of the harvesting hydraulic cylinders, which, when released, played the role of dampers, providing shell resistance with cables encircling the floats. Excess air to maintain a constant maximum excess pressure in the floats was released into the atmosphere through pressure reducing valves. In the operating mode “release - cleaning of PVPU”, excess pressure was provided within the range of 0.15...0.25 MPa, or (0.015...0.025) atm.

After complete shaping, based on the signal from the released position, the controlled ejector switched to the mode of supplying active air without mixing it with atmospheric air - the “boost” mode. Upon reaching pressure (1.5…2.5) MPa (or 0.15…0.25 atm), the ejector automatically closed according to the overpressure signal “0.2 kgf/cm” and periodically switched on to “boost” when the pressure decreased in the float due to air cooling or due to leaks. The maximum excess pressure was limited by switching the pressure reducing valve to a pressure of 3.5 + 0.5 MPa (0.35 + 0.05 atm).

The air supply to the “boost” during exhaust was carried out from the compressor of the main engines, and when stationary and during vertical flight - from a high-pressure pneumatic system or from the compressor of the TA-6 auxiliary power plant. During the airplane flight, atmospheric air was additionally supplied from special air intakes.

The cleaning of the PVPU was carried out by fairly powerful hydraulic cylinders, which acted through the longitudinal rods on the cables covering the floats, displacing air from the compartments through the mentioned pressure-reducing valves. They switched to the “release - cleaning PVPU” mode (with locks opened from the outside by pneumatic cylinders.

The floats and the complex of their drive and control systems were literally stuffed with inventions, which, like all inventors, were given with with great difficulty and fueled by R. Bartini’s desire to search for something new, but - certainly! — optimal solution. Here are two examples.

First. The operating load from the float cleaning mechanism, overcome by powerful hydraulic cylinders, was 14 tons and was spring-loaded, independent of the stroke (900 mm). In the retracted position, the piston was fixed by a collet lock of the cylinder, which was supposed to open first when releasing the floats. Everyone understands: if you push the door, loading the lock, it is much more difficult to open it than if you remove the distortions and springing of the door by hand and then open the free lock.
So, the assumption about the possibility of jamming of collet locks loaded with great force when opening them was “brilliantly” confirmed in the laboratory after three openings of the lock under load. What to do? Then the everyday solution with a door lock was transferred to the PVPU system: before opening the lock, pressure was first applied to remove the floats, the lock was unloaded, it was opened from the outside, after which the cleaning signal was removed, and the released piston was free to release.

Second example. The ejector supply of air into the float compartments during release ensured its reduced temperature. However, when filled to a pressure of maximum work capacity of 0.2 atm (“boost”), hot air from the turbojet engine compressors was supplied to the float compartments through a special ejector channel and there was a possibility of accelerated aging and cracking of the elastic shell of the floats in the area where the ejectors were installed.

To prevent this danger, the end of the hot air exhaust channel was equipped with a special divider, the design of which, as if in miniature, solved problems known from the field of air intakes of supersonic aircraft - the channels provided for combating shock waves, suction of cold air, etc.

to Favorites to Favorites from Favorites 0

Preface: This aircraft was created at the very end of the existence of the Soviet Union. And naturally, after the collapse of the USSR, there was no money, no desire, and, most importantly, no need to bring this machine to production. But today, when the Russian fleet has begun to revive, it seems to me that it makes sense to revive the project of this aircraft. Moreover, over the past twenty years, in my opinion, it has absolutely not lost its relevance.

Its relevance is especially visible if we consider this aircraft as a carrier-based aircraft for use by the Russian Navy. If Russia has the Yak-141 aircraft, the Mistral helicopter carriers will become the only ships of this class in the world, on the deck of which supersonic fighters will be based, like a full-fledged aircraft carrier.

Next, I bring to your attention a very good and detailed article from the site Airvar dedicated to this unique aircraft.

In September-October 1991, the Yak-41M vertical/short take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft was tested in the Northern Fleet. The tests were carried out on the heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser (TAKR) “Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union S.G. Gorshkov" (until 1991 - TAKR "Baku"), the Yak-41M aircraft became not only the next stage after the Yak-38 in the development of domestic V/STOL aircraft, but also a landmark machine in the history of world aviation - the first supersonic vertical take-off aircraft and landings.

The first developments of a supersonic vertically take-off fighter aircraft, designed to defend aircraft-carrying ships from air attacks, were carried out at MMZ "Speed" in 1974. Taking into account the experience of creating and operating the Yak-38 aircraft, in 1975 the design of a new aircraft began under the designation Yak-41 (product “48”). A large amount of work was carried out to select the aerodynamic design of the machine, several were considered alternative options power plant. The results of research and development formed the basis for proposals for an aircraft with a single lift-propulsion engine.

A government decree adopted in November 1977 approved the proposal of the Air Force, Navy and MAP with instructions from MMZ "Speed" to create a supersonic fighter vertical takeoff and landing and submit it for state tests in 1982. At the same time, the Resolution provided for the creation of a training version of the aircraft - the Yak-41UT - with its presentation for testing in 1983, as well as the development in 1978 of a technical proposal for the creation of a ship-based supersonic VTOL attack aircraft based on the Yak-41.

In 1977, specialists from the ZOCNII branch developed and then presented tactical and technical requirements (TTT) to the Navy Air Force for a new vertical take-off and landing fighter, intended for deployment on aircraft-carrying ships of projects: 1143.3 (Novorossiysk), 1143.4 (Baku) ), 1143.5 (“Tbilisi”), as well as TAKR project 1143 (“Kiev” and “Minsk”) after their modernization. In case of delay in the creation of a new aircraft, it was planned to equip the air group of the Project 1143.4 cruiser with Yak-38M aircraft.

The development of a supersonic VTOL aircraft was carried out under the leadership of Deputy General Designer S.A. Yakovlev (son of A.S. Yakovlev) and was carried out exactly on time. Gradually, designers began to give preference to an aircraft design with a combined power plant similar to that used on the Yak-38. But work on the vehicle with a single lifting and propulsion engine (PMD) did not stop.

In March 1979, the OKB completed development preliminary design aircraft with a single PMD R-79V-300 and the construction of its mock-up. At the same time, materials on multi-role fighter with an expanded range of weapons and a combined power plant.

Based on the results of the commission’s work, the Ministry of Aviation Administration adopted an order to develop a preliminary design at MMZ “Speed” and build a mock-up of a fighter with a combined power plant.

When creating a combined power plant, they decided to use two RD-41 lift engines with a thrust of 4,100 kg each and one R-79 lift-propulsion engine (R-79V-300) with a thrust of 15,500 kg. Power plant of three engines with electronic system control, according to calculations, could provide vertical take-off or take-off with a short takeoff run (within the length of the deck of an aircraft-carrying ship) of an aircraft with a maximum take-off weight of 19,500 kg.

During the design work, wind tunnel and bench tests, the area of ​​the aircraft’s wing (initially 29.3 m²) had to be significantly increased.

Meanwhile, the development and creation of the power plant was delayed. In addition, views on the purpose of the aircraft have changed in accordance with the new tasks of naval aviation. As a result, an addition to the TTT of the Navy Air Force was developed, in accordance with which it was prescribed to create the Yak-41 attack aircraft on the basis of the developed project.

At the beginning of 1980, in accordance with the General Staff directive on the reorientation of the aircraft fleet of the projected fifth TAKR to vertical and short take-off aircraft, the technical specifications for the aircraft, approved in 1978, were adjusted.

In November of the same year, the Commanders-in-Chief of the Air Force and Navy approved clarification of the specifications for the Yak-41 fighter, according to which the MMZ “Speed” was tasked with providing a short takeoff with a run of 120–130 m, takeoff from a springboard and landing with a short run. In the same month, the Ministry of Defense (Navy Air Force) commission reviewed the preliminary design and layout of the Yak-41, but it took almost six months to approve the commission’s protocol.

Somewhat later, as part of the general development of views on a ship-based aircraft and the possibility of its creation in terms of time, the following addition to the TTT was developed. The aircraft began to be created as a multi-purpose aircraft - designed to intercept air targets, conduct maneuverable air combat and strike at sea and ground targets. Taking into account the experience of using the Yak-38 aircraft from land airfields and small-sized sites, the range of weapons was expanded at the request of the customer.

In parallel with the design work, MAP and Air Force specialists in 1982-1983 conducted theoretical studies that showed the possibility of significantly increasing the combat load and loitering time of the Yak-41 when patrolling with a PTB during takeoff with a short run-up or from a springboard. The Yak-38 aircraft tested the technique of taking off with a short takeoff run.

Due to delays in the creation of engines, in November 1983 a decision was made by the military-industrial complex under the Council of Ministers of the USSR to postpone the deadline for testing the Yak-41 aircraft to 1985, but this deadline also had to be adjusted. The R-79V-300 lift-propulsion engine was prepared for full-scale testing only at the end of 1984.

Events of 1984: death of Defense Minister D.F. Ustinov, who supported the development of VTOL aircraft, and the retirement of A.S. Yakovlev was slowed down by work on the car. The 1977 decree on the creation of the Yak-41 and all its subsequent additions remained unfulfilled.

In May 1986, another resolution was adopted on the creation of the Yak-41M multi-purpose shipborne aircraft at MMZ "Speed" using the backlog of the Yak-41 shipborne fighter. The deadline for presenting the Yak-41M aircraft for state testing was 1988 (the start of deliveries to the Navy aviation was 1990), and the training Yak-41UT was 1989. Work on creating an attack aircraft based on the Yak-41 was stopped.

With the change in purpose and expansion of the tasks of the aircraft with a combined power plant, the technical specifications were subjected to further adjustments in terms of flight performance characteristics: the maximum speed at altitude, service ceiling and flight range during vertical take-off were reduced; new characteristics of flight range with PTB and maximum load with a shortened take-off run (120 m) were approved.

G.A. was appointed the lead designer for the aircraft. Matveev.

To test the Yak-41M, a small series of four copies was built. One copy was intended for static tests, the second - with tail number "48" - to evaluate the forces and moments acting on the aircraft in various flight modes and the operation of the power plant. Two flying examples had tail numbers “75” and “77”. Under these numbers they were tested at land airfields and on the aircraft carrier Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union S.G. Gorshkov", located in the Northern Fleet. The aircraft with the onboard “77” was a pre-production prototype.

In the process of creating the aircraft, conducting bench and factory tests, a number of scientific, technical and technological problems were solved. The temperature fields from the gas jets of the power plant engines were studied and a system was created to protect the engines from hot gases entering the air intakes during operation. Particular attention was paid to the mutual influence of these fields on the power plants of aircraft during group takeoff.

During the design process, the Yak-41M aircraft was optimized for vertical take-off and supersonic flight. It is capable of performing vertical takeoff at full load. For this purpose, afterburning operation of the engines is provided. The combined triplex digital fly-by-wire control system for the aircraft and power plant connects the deflection of the all-moving stabilizer with the operating mode of the lift and lift-propulsion engines. The system controls the deflection of the nozzles of all three engines. Lifting engines can operate up to an altitude of 2500 meters at a flight speed of no more than 550 km/h.

The fuel capacity using external fuel tanks can be increased by 1750 kg. It is possible to install an overhead conformal fuel tank.

Jet control systems are used on flight versions of the aircraft, and these systems differ on different copies. During the tests, the effectiveness of the proposed options was assessed. On the 75 aircraft, jet rudders are installed in the tail and have ejectors in the directional control channel. On aircraft 77, rotating jet control nozzles are installed in the forward fuselage.

The information display system includes a multifunctional electronic indicator (display) and an indicator on the cockpit windshield.

The sighting system has an on-board computer, around which are grouped: an M002 (S-41) on-board radar station, a fire control system, a helmet-mounted target designation system and a laser-television guidance system.

The flight navigation system allows you to determine the coordinates of the aircraft's location in flight both from ground-based (ship-based) radio systems and from satellite navigation systems. The complex includes systems for remote and trajectory control of the aircraft, an autonomous navigation computer, etc.

The empty weight of the aircraft is 11,650 kg.

Built-in small arms – highly effective GSh-301 cannon of 30 mm caliber with 120 rounds of ammunition various types, ensuring the destruction of air and ground (surface) lightly armored targets.

The maximum combat load of the Yak-41M is 2600 kg and is placed on an external sling on four pylons under the wing.

Weapon options are formed depending on the nature of the targets hit and are divided into three main groups: “air-to-air” (UR P-27R, R-27T, R-77, R-73), “air-sea” (UR X-31A ) and “air-to-surface” (UR Kh-25MP, Kh-31P, Kh-35).

The aircraft's standard armament includes short-range and medium-range air-to-air missiles with active and passive radar and thermal homing heads,

Unguided weapons, both missile (S-8 and S-13 shells in blocks, S-24) and bombs (FAB, small cargo containers - KMGU) are provided in a fairly wide range.

In 1985, the first prototype of the Yak-41M aircraft (“product 48M”, tail number 48) was built, bench tests of which began in 1986.

The first flight of the Yak-41M during takeoff and landing “like an airplane” was performed by test pilot A.A. Sinitsyn March 9, 1987.

However, it was not possible to submit the aircraft for State testing within the period stipulated by the resolution (in 1988). When adjusting the timing of the tests, the designation of the aircraft was once again changed, which became known as the Yak-141.

The Yak-141 has the following advantages over the Yak-38:

• take-off without taxiing onto the runway directly from a shelter along the exit taxiway, ensuring the mass entry into combat of a Yak-141 unit;
• operation of aircraft from damaged airfields;
• dispersal of aircraft over a large number of small areas, ensuring increased survivability and secrecy of basing;
• reduction by 4–5 times of the take-off time of a unit of Yak-141 aircraft from readiness position 1 compared to a unit of normal take-off;
• concentration of a group of fighter aircraft to intercept air targets in threatened areas, regardless of the presence of a developed airfield network there;
• conducting close maneuver combat, striking ground and surface targets;
• short response time to a call from ground forces due to short flight time and simultaneous takeoff large quantity aircraft from dispersed sites located near the front line;
• basing both on aircraft-carrying ships of the Navy and on ships navy that do not have a developed flight deck, as well as on limited runways and sections of roads.

Testing of the vertical launch mode with hovering began at the end of 1989. On June 13, 1990, pilot A.A. Sinitsyn performed the first flight with vertical takeoff and landing.

Unique characteristics new car, identified during the tests, made it possible to count on the opportunity to officially take a leading world position among aircraft of this class. By April 1991, one of the flying copies of the Yak-41M with a set of control loads was prepared for record flights. Within 15 days, test pilot of the OKB named after. A.S. Yakovleva A.A. Sinitsyn set 12 world records in the class aircraft“N” (vertical take-off and landing vehicles with jet lift).

The active phase of testing the Yak-41M aircraft in ship conditions began in September 1991.

The test support group included specialists from various industrial organizations and the Ministry of Defense. The author of these lines was also part of the group. We took off from the LII airfield on a Yak-42 aircraft and after about 2.5 hours we were already in Severomorsk, where preparations were underway for the meeting of two experimental Yak-41M aircraft at the coastal airfield.

We were preparing to conduct tests on an aircraft-carrying ship. Premises were allocated on the cruiser to accommodate special equipment, and the deck was being prepared to receive aircraft and accommodate them. The difficulty was that the Admiral Gorshkov TAKR did not have the delays necessary to hold the aircraft when the afterburner mode of operation of the ascent-propulsion engine was turned on for acceleration during a short takeoff. To prevent the aircraft from sliding on the deck floor when the engine is brought to takeoff mode, the OKB named after. A.S. Yakovlev developed profile delaying devices (stops). In preparation for testing, these stops were attached to the deck, and if necessary, they were easily removed.

In connection with the transfer on board the cruiser of some of the specialists participating in the tests, as well as representatives of the commission, living and working premises were allocated for them, the procedure for providing food, etc. was worked out.

All flight testing activities were led by OKB Deputy Chief Designer K.F. Popovich.

As the ship was prepared, the test program was refined. In addition to testing a single aircraft, various options for group take-off of aircraft from a ship, including unconventional ones, were considered. According to calculations carried out at the Design Bureau and Research Institute, they could be implemented in practice.

Preparations for testing the Yak-41M both in the design bureau and on the ship were carried out taking into account the experience of testing and operating the Yak-38 attack aircraft. During the operation of the Yak-38, there were incidents related to mismatch of engines (lifting and lifting-propulsion) in thrust, rocking of the aircraft in roll and pitch, spontaneous roll and turn (“pickup”) along the course. To prevent such moments, the Yak-41M was equipped with more advanced jet rudders and automation, as well as a system to prevent hot gases from entering the power plant inlet. On September 24, 1991, aircraft began flying from the Zhukovsky airfield to the site of the next stage of testing.

After preparation at the Severomorsk airfield, the planes flew to the ship. The takeoff was carried out like an airplane. The flights of the new machines aroused everyone's admiration. Schemes and flight conditions of Yak-41M aircraft according to the dates of their execution during tests on the aircraft carrier “Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union S.G. Gorshkov" are given below.

The landing of the first plane was carried out brilliantly. OKB test pilot A.A. Sinitsyn gently landed the car on the deck of the ship, but when the power plant was turned off, he allowed the pitch to increase. This happened due to the fact that the experimental vehicle had a separate shutdown of the power plant engines, and the pilot first turned off the PMD, and then the PD. As a result, the plane, already standing on the deck, began to lift its nose and lightly touched the deck with its stabilizer and jet nozzle flaps. But everything ended well.

The second to successfully land was OKB test pilot V.A. Yakimov. It should be noted that for him this was the first landing on the deck of an aircraft carrier in his life.

Ship trials of the new vehicle have begun. An assessment was made of the possibility of operating the aircraft on a ship, lowering and ascent on lifts, mooring options, and the possibility of placement on the hangar deck and in the repair area. As a result, the aircraft was almost completely adapted for ship-based deployment and operation. Some problems also arose, but according to experts, they were easily resolved.

Test flights began on September 30. A total of three were carried out, including two with a short take-off run and one hovering flight with a vertical take-off. All landings were carried out vertically.

As already mentioned, to ensure a short takeoff, profile stops were installed on the deck. To take off, the pilot taxied and placed the plane on these stops, put the engine into afterburner mode and released the brakes. The plane rolled over the stops and began its takeoff run.

The test program provided for testing actions in real conditions of a ship on the open sea. For this purpose, the TAKR went into the Barents Sea, but the flights did not take place due to bad weather conditions. The weather forecast did not promise improvement, and the ship returned to base.

During the tests, I had to compare the takeoff with a short run of the Yak-41M aircraft with the springboard takeoff of the Su-27K and MiG-29K aircraft. There was something to compare with; not long before that I had to visit the Tavkr Tbilisi and participate in the testing of ski-jump takeoff and arresting landing aircraft. The takeoff with a short run of the Yak-41M looked calmer compared to the dynamics of the springboard takeoff of the Su-27K and MiG-29K. In terms of time, the acceleration of the Yak was somewhat higher, but it was proposed to organize a group takeoff of the Yak-41M easier and faster in time, using unconventional takeoff options.

A.A. paid a lot of attention to the problem of organizing a group takeoff. Sinitsyn. He and I walked and measured the deck, drew up options for the pre-launch arrangement of vehicles and developed proposals for achieving safe conditions takeoff. These conditions were also associated with some modifications to the deck elements that did not require the creation of summer No. 75 by A.A. Sinitsyn. The flight was successful, the mission was completed.

V.A. took off next. Yakimov on plane No. 77. The flight proceeded normally, but during landing the pilot exceeded the vertical speed, which resulted in an accident.

All tests of the Yak-41M were stopped. An investigation into this incident has begun. The flight debriefing took place in the ship's commander's cabin, and all the information from the aircraft's flight recorders was received here.

As the results of the investigation showed, the emergency situation arose during the final stage of the flight. When approaching the ship on an airplane, lateral forces arose from the air intakes due to cross winds, which the pilot compensated for by deflecting the pedals at a high flow rate.

In this position the plane approached the deck. The flight director gave commands to the pilot to stay on course. A strong crosswind, the proximity of the ship's superstructure and the limited size of the deck - all this together gave rise to the pilot's desire to land as quickly as possible. There was no support from the flight director to ensure a safe vertical speed. Being above the deck at an altitude of 10–13 meters, the pilot exceeded the maximum vertical rate of descent. The plane landed roughly, hitting the deck, the main landing gear pierced the fuel tank, and a fire broke out. Pilot V.A. Yakimov, after repeated commands from the flight director, ejected.

The search and rescue team was on high alert TAKR service was not involved - the splashed-down Yakimov was quickly picked up by a rescue boat. The fire on the plane was extinguished by the ship's firefighting services using standard means.

We must pay tribute to the unique rescue means of the Yak-41M, which worked flawlessly. The K-36LV chair was created at NPO Zvezda (head of the enterprise G.I. Severin). From OKB im. A.S. Yakovlev, the work on creating the Yak-41M ejection seat was headed by B.S. Prusakov. The K-36LV seat provides automatic rescue of the pilot in vertical and transitional flight modes, as well as safe evacuation of the aircraft in almost all flight modes in the event of an emergency or combat defeat.

In aviation, especially when testing aircraft, unfortunately, sometimes emergency accidents occur, although flight safety and preserving the lives of the crew in the event of an emergency are the basis for the creation of aircraft. In the situation that happened with the Yak-41M, the pilot ejected safely and was soon flying again. But then we were all dejected by what had happened. Of course, V.A. was the hardest of all. Yakimov.

We understood perfectly well what the situation was in the country, and that the accident could be used to curtail work on this topic. But I didn’t even want to talk about this when we met with the test leaders before leaving the ship. As a souvenir of the first landing of the Yak-41M on the Admiral Gorshkov aircraft carrier, I still have a photograph of the aircraft, which was a pre-production aircraft complex and was intended to arm Soviet aircraft-carrying ships.

The Yak-141 aircraft (Yak-41M No. 75), after the cessation of testing, was first publicly presented on September 6–13, 1992 at the Farnborough Air Show, and was later repeatedly demonstrated at other air shows. The second Yak-41M (tail number “77”) after restoration became a museum exhibit.

The growing crisis and the collapse of the union state did not allow this machine to be put into mass production. The accident served only as a formal reason to first freeze and then completely cover up the development of V/STOL aircraft in our country. However, the OKB continued work on new promising projects for some time.

In the process of creating and operating V/STOL aircraft, vast experience has been accumulated. As a result, the designers and scientists of our country managed to create a supersonic V/STOL aircraft that has no analogues in the world. High flight-tactical characteristics are evidenced by world records set on one of the experimental Yak-141 aircraft by test pilot A.A. Sinitsyn.

By the end of 1991, work at the Saratov Aviation Plant to prepare serial production of the Yak-41M was stopped due to lack of funding.

Work on fine-tuning and improving the characteristics of the aircraft in the design bureau in subsequent years was carried out at own funds counting on promising, including export orders. On the basis of the Yak-41M (Yak-141) and its promising modifications, a flexible mobile defensive system with a high degree of combat survivability could be created, capable of ensuring the preservation of the combat potential of the defending side in the event of a sudden massive enemy attack.

The appearance and development of V/STOL aircraft was determined by the entire course of scientific and technological progress. The authors of some publications claim that the development of VTOL aircraft was in the wrong direction, that they will never achieve the performance characteristics of conventional takeoff and landing aircraft. This is not entirely true. A VTOL aircraft is an aircraft that has received new properties, and therefore new capabilities, compared to an aircraft with a conventional aerodynamic design. So, for example, experience combat use The VTOL AV-8B "Harrier" showed that when using tactical techniques of helicopters in close air combat, it is 2-3 times superior to F/A-18 "Hornet" fighter-attack aircraft and F-14A "Tomcat" fighters, although in long-range combat loses to them with a ratio of 1:4.

With the further development of the design of aircraft of the Yak-41M type, aerodynamic designs gained the right to life, by implementing which one can obtain an aircraft that is not much inferior to an aircraft of a conventional (classical) design, but has a number of advantages. Such schemes were subsequently supposed to be implemented in aircraft such as the Yak-141M, Yak-43, etc. These schemes were presented at various exhibitions and published in a number of scientific and technical journals.

In the projects of promising V/STOL aircraft, issues of increasing their combat effectiveness were worked out. To this end, it was proposed to follow the direction of significantly increasing the combat radius and loitering time in a given area, increasing the payload mass, increasing the range of weapons and improving fire control systems, reducing radar and infrared visibility. This is confirmed by calculations according to which performance characteristics promising aircraft Yak-141M differ in better side compared to the Yak-141.

When the path of development of any direction is broken, progress in the field of science, technology and knowledge inevitably slows down, the scientific, technical and technological reserves, as well as trained personnel of scientists, designers, engineers and other specialists are lost.

In the early 1990s, the accident of the Yak-41M aircraft was only a “clue” to curtail all work on the creation of new generation V/STOL aircraft. The supersonic Yak-41M stood at the threshold of future ocean voyages, the implementation of which was prevented by the changed socio-political and economic situation in the country, which led to the collapse of the USSR and the failure to implement many plans to create aviation complexes new generations.

Aircraft design

The Yak-141 VTOL aircraft is designed according to a high-wing design, with a combined power plant and with the same engine layout as the Yak-38, a two-fin vertical tail and a tricycle landing gear.

The aircraft's airframe structure is 26% (by weight) made of composite material, including carbon fiber surfaces of the tail, flaps, beads and wing tips, with the rest of the structure made mainly of corrosion-resistant aluminum-lithium alloys to reduce weight.

According to general director JSC Saratov aircraft factory» Alexander Ermishina, the complexity coefficient of the Yak-141 aircraft compared to the MiG-29 fighter is 1.7.

The engine layout is the same as on the Yak-38 - the previous VTOL aircraft of the Design Bureau named after. A.S. Yakovlev - one lift-propulsion engine is located in the rear part of the fuselage and two propulsion engines are located immediately behind the cockpit.

The fuselage is rectangular in cross-section, made according to the area rule, has a pointed nose section, which houses the pilot's cabin with a K-36V ejection seat, as on the Yak-38 aircraft, designed by the Zvezda Design Bureau, which ensures automatic escape of the aircraft in vertical and transitional flight modes when a critical emergency occurs. situations. This system automatically goes into readiness mode when the PMD nozzle is deviated by an angle of more than 30 degrees. Forced automatic ejection of the pilot occurs when a specified pitch angle or a specified combination of roll angle and roll angular velocity is exceeded. Two lift engines are located immediately behind the pilot's cabin; the lift and propulsion engine is located at the rear of the aircraft.

The wing is high-mounted, swept-back, with a break in the trailing edge and root sagging, and has a negative transverse V of 4 degrees. and the sweep angle along the leading edge is 30 degrees. When placing an aircraft on a ship, the consoles can fold, almost halving the wingspan. The wing has developed mechanization, consisting of rotating socks in the root and folding parts, flaps in the root part and ailerons on the folding parts.

The tail unit is located on two cantilever beams, carried far back behind the lift-propulsion engine, and includes two fins with rudders installed with a slight camber, and an all-moving stabilizer located below the wing plane. From the fins forward along the fuselage there are vertical partitions.

The landing gear is tricycle with single-wheel struts attached to the fuselage, the front strut retracts backwards, the main struts retract forward under the air intake ducts.

The power plant includes one lift-propulsion engine R-79 from the Moscow NPO Soyuz and two lift engines RD-41 from the Rybinsk Motor Engineering Design Bureau, used during takeoff and landing. Each of the box-shaped air intakes of the R-79 engine has a large cross-sectional area, is strongly beveled at the inlet and has an adjustable wedge and two bypass flaps; the round nozzle rotates at an angle of up to 95 degrees. to deflect traction. The resource of the nozzle rotation mechanism is at least 1500 rotation cycles. Maximum rotation is used for vertical takeoff and landing. In addition to purely vertical takeoff, the Yak-141 can use at least two more takeoff methods. These are a short take-off with a running start and an ultra-short take-off with a slip. For both of these types of take-off, the normal deflection of the nozzle of the lift-propulsion engine is 65 degrees, and during take-off with a run-up, the rotation of the nozzle at this angle occurs after the start of the take-off run, and during take-off with slipping (with a take-off length of about 6 m), the rotation angle is 65 degrees at engine operation in afterburner is set before the aircraft begins to move.

The use of non-vertical take-off types increases the aircraft's payload capacity, since this eliminates the negative influence of the ground effect (a decrease in engine thrust as a result of hot jets reflected from the runway entering the air intakes and the suction effect of these jets). When turning the nozzle to a vertical position, the thrust can reach 80% of the horizontal thrust. During takeoff and landing, afterburner is used, which can make it difficult to use the aircraft from ground airfields due to increased erosion of the takeoff area.

During testing by the summer of 1991, the rotation of the nozzles in horizontal flight was not used for combat maneuvering. By the fall of 1992, 26 R-79 engines had been built, 16 of them were ready for operation on the aircraft, and seven engines were tested in flight on the aircraft.

The RD-41 lift engines are mounted one behind the other behind the cockpit and have retractable flaps that cover the air intakes and nozzles in level flight. The engines are inclined approximately 10 degrees forward relative to the vertical, their nozzles can be rotated in the range from +12.5 to -12.5 degrees. in the longitudinal plane, the cross-sectional area of ​​the nozzle can be adjusted in the range of 10%. During a vertical take-off, the nozzles of the lifting engines are turned towards each other to form a single jet (otherwise, two separate jets lead to the unwanted formation of an upward fountain); during a short take-off, the nozzles of both engines are deflected to the maximum angle back (the total angle of each nozzle taking into account the inclination engine axis is about 22.5 degrees) to create a horizontal component of thrust. By the end of 1991, about 30 RD-41 engines were built.

During vertical take-off, two transverse partitions are extended under the air intakes to prevent the recirculation of hot gases (from the zone of the ascending fountain formed between the jets of the lift and lift-propulsion engines) and the entry of foreign objects into the air intakes, and on the sides of the lower part of the air intakes there are two longitudinal horizontal partitions - for organizing the separation of the flow of hot gases from the fuselage.

The engine control system is digital three-channel, with full responsibility. When transitioning from vertical to horizontal flight, the pilot manually reduces the thrust deflection angle of the lifting propulsion engine to 65 degrees, and further rotation of the thrust vector to zero occurs automatically. The thrust of the lift engines is reduced automatically, preventing the aircraft from becoming unbalanced throughout the transition to level flight.

The flight navigation system provides manual, directional and automatic control by plane from takeoff to landing at any time of the day in various weather conditions at all latitudes. The flight and navigation complex includes an INS, self-propelled guns, a radio engineering system for short-range navigation and landing, a radio altimeter, an automatic radio compass, and a satellite navigation system. The angular position of the aircraft in horizontal flight is controlled using aerodynamic surfaces (all-moving stabilizer, ailerons, rudders), in hovering and low-speed flight modes - by jet rudders located at the ends of the wing (roll) and tail booms (yaw), as well as a differential change in the thrust of the lifting and lifting propulsion engines (by tonnage).

Air for the jet rudders is taken from the compressor of the lift-propulsion engine. The aerodynamic and jet rudders are controlled by a digital fly-by-wire system with full responsibility and with a three-channel redundancy scheme developed by the Moscow NPK Avionika; there is a backup mechanical flight control system (according to some reports, on one of the prototypes, not a digital, but an analog EMDS without a backup mechanical systems).

The pilot's ejection system ensures automatic ejection of the aircraft in vertical and transitional flight modes in the event of critical situations. This system automatically goes into readiness mode when the nozzle of the lift-propulsion engine is deflected at an angle of more than 30 degrees. Forced automatic ejection of the pilot occurs when a specified pitch angle or a specified combination of roll angle and roll angular velocity is exceeded.

Electronic and sighting equipment includes a weapons control system with a multifunctional pulse-Doppler radar "Zhuk" (RP-29), which is also installed on the MiG-29, an ILS and a multifunctional MFD on the front panel, it is possible to install a laser rangefinder and a television guidance system. (All this equipment was only on the lost 2nd copy of the Yak-141). The onboard radar is capable of detecting air targets with an EPR of 3 sq.m at a range of up to 80 km, and a boat - at a distance of up to 110 km. An IR search-and-track sensor coupled with the radar and laser rangefinder can also be installed.

Electronic jamming equipment is mounted in the wingtips and fins. The partitions extending forward from the fins of the Yak-141 can accommodate devices for ejecting thermal decoys or dipole reflectors.

The weapons control system allows for simultaneous attack of several targets and a high-resolution overview of the earth's surface.

The Yak-141 fighter is armed with a 30 mm GSh-301 cannon located in the fuselage with an ammunition capacity of 120 rounds. Four (and later six) underwing pylons can support air-to-air missiles (R-27 medium and R-73 or R-60 short-range) and air-to-surface missiles (B-3 X-25 and X -29), cannon installations or rocket launchers.

Weapon suspension options:

Air-to-air missile launcher:

• 4× R-77;
• 4×R-77 + 1×PTB (2000 l);
• 2×R-27E + 2×R-73E + 1×PTB (2000 l);
• 2×P-60 + 2×P-73;
• 2×R-60 + 2×R-77

Air-sea missile launcher:

• 2×X-35 + 2×R-73E + 1×PTB (2000 l);
• 4×Х-35А + 1×PTB (2000 l);
• 4×Kh-35P + 2×RVK-AE + 1×PTB (2000 l)

Ammunition for actions against ground targets:

• 6×ABSP (500 kg);
• 4 blocks with NURS caliber 80–249 mm + 1×PTB (2000 l);
• 2×Х-31П + 2×Р-77 + 1×PTB (2000 l);
• 2×X-25 + 2×R-73E + 1×PTB (2000 l);
• 4×gun containers 23 mm (250 rounds) + 1×PTB

World records set on the Yak-141:

LTH:

Modification: Yak-141

Wingspan, m:

• in unfolded position 10.10
• in folded position 5.90

Aircraft length, m: 18.30

Aircraft height, m: 5.00

Wing area, m²: 31.70

Fuel mass, kg:

• in internal tanks 4400
• in hanging 1750

Maximum take-off weight, kg:

• with a run of 120 m – 19,500
• with vertical takeoff - 15,800

Engine type (thrust, kgf):

• lift-propulsion – 1 turbofan R-79 (1×15 500 / 1×9000)
• lifting – 2 turbojet engines RD-41 (2×4260)

Maximum speed, km/h:

• near the ground 1250
• at an altitude of 11 km 1800

Ferry range, km:

• with a GDP near the ground of 650
• with GDP at an altitude of 10–12 km 1400

Practical range, km:

• near the ground 1010
• at an altitude of 10–12 km – 1400
• at an altitude of 10–12 km with PTB – 2100

Combat radius, km: 690

Loitering time, h:: 1.5

Practical ceiling, m: 15,000

Max. operational overload: 7

Crew, persons: 1

Armament: one 30-mm GSh-301 cannon (120 rounds).

On four, and later on six underwing pylons, air-to-air missiles R-77 or R-27 medium-range and short-range R-73 or short-range R-60 and air-to-surface missiles X-25 can be suspended, X-31, cannon mounts (23 mm, 250 rounds) or NAR launch units with a caliber of 80 to 240 mm, up to six bombs with a caliber of 500 kg.

MOSCOW, December 15— RIA Novosti, Vadim Saranov. One of the Pentagon's most expensive "toys" - the F-35B fighter-bomber - this week took part in joint US-Japanese exercises aimed at cooling the DPRK's nuclear missile fervor. Despite the wave of criticism of the vertical take-off concept used in the aircraft, the need to resume production of aircraft of this class has recently been increasingly discussed in Russia. In particular, Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov recently announced plans to build vertical take-off and landing aircraft (VTOL). Read about why Russia needs such an aircraft and whether the aviation industry has enough strength to create it in the RIA Novosti article.

The most popular domestic combat aircraft with vertical take-off and landing was the Yak-38, which was put into service in August 1977. The aircraft has earned a controversial reputation among aviators - out of 231 aircraft built, 49 crashed in accidents and aviation incidents.

The main operator of the aircraft was the Navy - the Yak-38 was based on the aircraft-carrying cruisers of Project 1143 "Kyiv", "Minsk", "Novorossiysk" and "Baku". As veterans of carrier-based aviation recall, the high accident rate forced the command to sharply reduce the number of training flights, and the flight time of Yak-38 pilots was a symbolic figure for those times - no more than 40 hours per year. As a result, there was not a single first-class pilot in the naval aviation regiments; only a few had second-class flight qualifications.

Its combat characteristics were also questionable - due to the lack of an on-board radar station, it could only conditionally conduct air battles. Using the Yak-38 as a pure attack aircraft seemed ineffective, since the combat radius during vertical takeoff was only 195 kilometers, and even less in hot climates.

The “problem child” was supposed to be replaced by a more advanced vehicle, the Yak-141, but after the collapse of the USSR, interest in it disappeared. As you can see, the domestic experience in creating and operating VTOL aircraft cannot be called successful. Why has the topic of vertical take-off and landing aircraft become relevant again?

Naval character

“Such a machine is vital not only for the Navy, but also for the Air Force,” military expert, captain first rank Konstantin Sivkov told RIA Novosti. “The main problem of modern aviation is that jet fighter you need a good runway, and there are very few such airfields; destroying them with a first strike is quite easy. During a period of threat, vertical take-off aircraft can be dispersed even across forest clearings. Such a system for using combat aircraft will have exceptional combat stability."

However, not everyone sees the feasibility of using VTOL aircraft in the land version as justified. One of the main problems is that during vertical takeoff the aircraft consumes a lot of fuel, which greatly limits its combat radius. Russia is a large country, therefore, to achieve air supremacy, fighter aircraft must have “long arms.”

“The implementation of combat missions of fighter aircraft in conditions of partially destroyed airfield infrastructure can be ensured by short take-off of conventional aircraft from a runway section less than 500 meters long,” believes Executive Director Agency "Airport" Oleg Panteleev. — Another question is that Russia has plans to build an aircraft carrier fleet, here the use of vertically taking off aircraft will be most rational. These may not necessarily be aircraft carriers, they may also be aircraft-carrying cruisers with the lowest cost parameters."

By the way, the F-35B today is a purely naval aircraft, its main customer is the US Marine Corps (the aircraft will be based on landing ships). British F-35Bs will form the basis of the air wing newest aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth, which was commissioned quite recently.

At the same time, according to Konstantin Sivkov, Russian design bureaus do not have to wait for new aircraft carriers to begin work on creating a Russian analogue of the F-35B. "Vertical take-off and landing aircraft can be based not only on aircraft carriers. For example, a tanker is equipped with a ramp and becomes a kind of aircraft carrier; in Soviet times we had such projects. In addition, VTOL aircraft can be used from warships capable of receiving helicopters, for example frigates,” our interlocutor said.

We can if we want

Meanwhile, it is obvious that the creation of a Russian vertical take-off aircraft will require impressive resources and funds. The cost of developing the F-35B and its horizontal take-off cousins, according to various estimates, has already reached $1.3 trillion, and several states participated in the creation of the vehicle.

According to experts, to produce a vehicle comparable in performance to the F-35B, a number of serious problems will need to be solved: miniaturization of avionics, creation of a new generation of on-board systems and design of an airframe with special characteristics. The Russian aviation industry has the potential for this, especially since many systems can be unified with the fifth-generation Su-57 aircraft. At the same time, one of the most labor-intensive components can be the car engine.

“The developer of the engine for the Yak-38 has ceased to exist. If any documentation on the rotary nozzle, including the afterburner, is probably still preserved, then people with practical experience in creating such components and assemblies will most likely no longer be found. Here “We have probably lost our competencies,” says Oleg Panteleev. “In general, I believe that the aviation industry will be able to give a worthy answer in the form of a viable VTOL project if the customer, represented by the Ministry of Defense, makes a decision on the aircraft-carrying fleet and its aviation component.”

Russia will be able to begin building aircraft carriers in the foreseeable future. According to the Ministry of Defense, the keel of the Project 23000 Storm heavy aircraft carrier is expected to be laid down in 2025-2030. By this time, the Russian Navy intends to receive two new universal landing ships “Priboy”, capable of carrying aircraft with vertical take-off and landing.

Khramov Maxim Anatolievich

Work plan.

Introduction.

What is a vertical takeoff and landing aircraft?

The past of VTOL aircraft.

Real VTOL

The expected future of VTOL aircraft.

Conclusion.

Introduction.

We are used to thinking that planes must take off, accelerating along the runway. But history knows many designs of vertical take-off and landing aircraft (for short, they are called VTOL aircraft). But only the British Harrier and its modifications became really widespread. I set a goal - in this work to talk about the development of VTOL aircraft in the past and to determine the likely paths of development of VTOL aircraft over the next 30-40 years (sixth generation).

To begin with, I want to clarify what a Vertical Takeoff and Landing Aircraft is. By this term I mean an aircraft with engines located in the fuselage and equipped with a thrust vector control system, which allows it to take off or land vertically, but does not deprive it of the ability to take off like a regular aircraft from the runway. Machines of exactly this type appeared only in the 50s, although before that there were projects for vertically taking off aircraft, but they were not implemented due to the complexity of the design. Traditional VTOL aircraft include the widely used Harrier, Yak-38, and, not widely used, the Yak-141 and F-35B. These machines had their disadvantages and their advantages.

Why did he appear?

The need for a VTOL aircraft of the type that I defined it appeared in the 50-60s,when the USSR was preparing for hostilities in Europe. American strategists logically assumed that if war broke out, the airfields would quickly be put out of action or, worse, captured. Air defensetook upon herselfpart of the tasks to counter Soviet aviation,helicopters also took on part of the tasks of supporting troops during retreat (the Bundeswehr could not withstand the superior forces of the Soviet army), but they were too imperfect for this, too slow, too fragile, too poorly armed. Therefore, an aircraft was required to support troops on the battlefield, and at the same time, to counter aircraft. The problem was fueled by the demands of fighter aircraft of that time on the length and quality of runways. Another way to use such aircraft could be installation on aircraft carriers laid down during the war,because Due to their small size, aircraft carriers could not accommodate contemporary carrier-based fighters. The task was set and the work began.

The first production vertical take-off and landing aircraft and the only one that actually took part in hostilities (the Falklands War) was the Harrier. It appeared thanks to the unique Rolls-Royce Pegasus engine, which had not one, but four nozzles, spaced symmetrically across different sides, this minimized the “dead weight” of vertical takeoff and landing systems, but the nozzles, and, accordingly, the engine had to be installed at the center of mass, very close to the cabin. Thanks to its engine, the plane could use helicopter techniques in air combat, which saved it more than once, but placed additional demands on the pilot. Theoretically, with proper development of the engine and improvement of aerodynamics, it would be quite possible to achieve supersonic speed.

Domestic VTOL aircraft were initially designed simply as a response to Western ones, without a clear goal, but as a result they found application. The VTOL aircraft were intended to be used as carrier-based aircraft. Domestic VTOL aircraft Yak-38 and Yak-141 had a different system for obtaining verticality than the Harrier; they had three engines installed: two lifting and one lifting-propulsion, only their power differed. Despite the absence of fundamental differences, the aircraft turned out to be very different, both in characteristics and in appearance. The speed, range, and payload of the Yak-141 were many times greater than those of the Yak-38, which, due to its short range, even received the nickname “foremast defense aircraft.” This was caused by the low thrust-to-weight ratio of the Yak-38 and the general underdevelopment of the aircraft, which, in fact, was an experimental machine and was created as a transitional stage for testing the infrastructure and piloting techniques. Most accidents are due to lack of piloting experience. But the Yak-141 was not the pinnacle of progress in domestic VTOL aircraft; the Yak-43 project was developed on its basis. There is little information about this aircraft, but it is known that they planned to install an NK-25 bomber engine with a thrust of 25,000 kgf or a P134-300 with a thrust of 17,000 kgf. But one thing is certain - it was supposed to be an aircraft using technologies to reduce radar signature. This aircraft was supposed to be the most advanced VTOL aircraft.

The present vertical takeoff and landing aircraft

But perestroika and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union passed the banner of progress in this area to the United States, where at that time a new defense program JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) appeared. Under this program, which provided for the creation of a single fighter for the Army, Navy and Marine Corps, two prototypes were presented: the X-35 from Lockheed Martin and the X-32 from Boeing. The Boeing prototype was a development of the ideas contained in the Harrier and, in my opinion, was more progressive. But due to a weaker engine, it lost to the prototype from Lockhod Martin, which received the designation F-35. The F-35, in general, is a cross between the Yak-141, F-22 Raptor and the development of the earlier F-24 project. From the Yak-141 he took the idea of ​​a propulsion system, an engine with a nozzle rotating in a vertical plane and an additional motor. Separately, I would like to say about the rotors rotating in different directions; on the Yak this was done to compensate for the gyroscopic moment. He took the tail unit from the F-22 Raptor. From the F-24, the nose section with air intakes and cockpit. New was the trapezoidal wing. There were three different versions: the F-35B for the Marine Corps to replace the AV-8B Harrier II, the F-35A for the Air Force to replace the F-16 and F-35C, and for the Navy to replace the F/A-18. The F-35B differed from all others in its smallest size and weight, as well as the presence of a lifting impeller. Instead of lifting motors, as on the Yak-141, it has an impeller driven by a Pratt & Whitney F-135 engine, the most powerful of fighter jets.

In my subjective opinion, the future of VTOL aircraft is very vague; they simply have no use. Fifth-generation VTOL aircraft have now been developed to meet the needs of the military. But since the development of the latest and most advanced VTOL aircraft, the F-35B, cost the Pentagon over $56 billion, and also due to a $500 billion reduction in the US military budget, the development of a sixth-generation VTOL aircraft in the United States remains a big question mark. Russia is another matter. We have extensive experience in developing VTOL aircraft. In addition, we are increasing the military budget and, hopefully, in the future Russia will begin developing a sixth-generation VTOL aircraft.

Secondly, the problem arises - what kind of engine will it be? A single lift-propulsion engine, such as the Rolls-Royce Pegasus on the Harrier and the Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 on the Boeing X-32, minimizes the weight of the VTOL equipment, but since the lift nozzles must be located at the center of gravity, the engine you have to do it either with the propulsion nozzles located outside the fuselage, which negatively affects the aerodynamics, EPR, gas flow rate from the nozzles, and so on, or make the engine long or the plane short in order to direct the jet stream to the nozzle located in the tail.

F119-PW-100(SE614) Rolls-Royce Pegasus

A propulsion system divided into, in fact, two different engines, such as the Pratt & Whitney F135-400 on the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II and the P79B-300+2xRD-41 on the Yak-141, removes some of the restrictions on the length of the aircraft. The price for this is that the plane has to carry an almost useless lift with it throughout the flight. propulsion system, which in the case of the F-35 forces the plane to be made wider, and in the case of the Yak-141 forces it to carry an additional supply of fuel.

Lifting and propulsion engine of the Yak-141 aircraft Remote control diagram of the F-35B aircraft

The choice of engine also depends on the purpose of the aircraft. For an attack aircraft, survivability, unpretentiousness, and reliability are important.
For a fighter jet, low fuel consumption. Therefore, depending on the purpose of the VTOL aircraft, the engine may be different.
Attack aircraft require an engine similar to the Rolls-Royce Pegasus, which provides high maneuverability and does not take up large volumes.For a fighter, you should choose a split propulsion system, as it will provide a lower ESR, as well as a higher thrust-to-weight ratio.

The main task of a vertical take-off attack aircraft will be to support amphibious assault forces. It will be based on universal landing ships. The vertical take-off fighter will be based on light aircraft carriers and perform all the same functions as a standard carrier-based fighter on supercarriers.

Conclusions.

In the course of my work, I reviewed the history and prospects of VTOL aircraft and believe that they will fly in the 21st century, because VTOL aircraft can perform tasks that neither airplanes, due to their attachment to runways, nor helicopters can perform due to their limited speed. Unfortunately, from a technical point of view, an insurmountable obstacle to the development of VTOL aircraft is the colossal fuel consumption during takeoff. But as technology develops, this drawback can be overcome. And, probably, the moment will come when VTOL aircraft will replace helicopters as too slow, and airplanes as requiring complex infrastructure, and will form a single class of aircraft of the future.

Information sources

E.I. Ruzicki. European vertical take-off aircraft. - Moscow. Astel AST. 2000 pp. 20-44; 105-108; 144-150.

Encyclopedia for children. Technique. Publishing house "Avanta" 2005. p.566; 574; 585-586; 593

http:/ /ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Siddeley_Harrier

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_AV-8_Harrier_II

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yak-141

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-32

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yak-38

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yak-36

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Harrier_II

http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/yak141.html

http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/x35.html

http://www.airwar.ru/enc/attack/harrgr1.html

Recently, Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov announced that a new type of aircraft could be created for Russian aircraft carriers: short take-off and landing or full vertical take-off. On the one hand, there is no need to invent anything special: the corresponding machine - the Yak-141 - was created back in last years The USSR has proven itself well. But how much does the Russian fleet need such an aircraft now?

Airplane Yak-141. Photo: WikiMedia Commons

An airplane that can take off and land without a run has long been a dream of aviators: it does not require long runways, but a small area, like for a helicopter, is enough. This is especially important for military aviation, because airfields in combat situations are often destroyed by enemy attacks. For naval aviation, having long runways is all the more problematic, since their size is limited by the length of the ship's deck.

Meanwhile, the rearmament of the Russian armed forces also includes the construction of new aircraft-carrying cruisers. In connection with this, the military began to think: shouldn’t such ships be equipped with vertical take-off and landing aircraft?

It is worth noting that the Russian defense industry will not have to reinvent the wheel: it has accumulated enormous experience in this direction since Soviet times. Suffice it to say that the famous passenger plane An-28 needed only 40 meters of runway to take off!

The Soviet Air Force also had vertical take-off combat vehicles, for example, the Yak-38 attack aircraft; however, in tropical seas during long voyages Soviet ships its engines began to malfunction. However, a more modern development of the Yakovlev Design Bureau - the Yak-141 aircraft, intensive testing of which began in the late 80s, set as many as 12 world records for aircraft of its class! Alas, this unique aircraft did not survive the collapse of the USSR, and the program was carefully curtailed. However, incompletely: in the mid-90s, as part of a concluded contract, the American company Lockheed successfully applied the developments of the Yakovlevites to create the fifth generation fighter-bomber F-35, among the many features of which (such as invisibility technology for locators) was the possibility of vertical take-off .

But foreign technology without its authors did not bring the Americans success comparable to the Yak-141: the vaunted super-fighter, as part of a test organized in the United States itself, lost a training battle to the almost antediluvian (originally from the 70s of the 20th century) F-16. True, the new Phantom did set at least one “record”: in terms of the high cost of its development program, which has already exceeded one and a half trillion dollars. So even President Trump, known for his respectful attitude towards the rearmament of the army, wondered whether the game was worth the candle. And the governments of Germany and France wisely chose not to purchase an expensive toy overseas, making do with their own reliable and proven fourth-generation aircraft, albeit without the possibility of vertical take-off. I think, first of all, because the last function in most cases is not so critically important.

Can the enemy bomb airfields? Also, the Soviet division commander Pokryshkin, during the battles in Germany, used a solid German autobahn as a runway for his air division. Besides, modern technology allows you to lay (and even more so repair) such roads in a matter of hours.

Is the deck of an aircraft carrier too short? But these ships entered wide application even before the Second World War, when there were no traces of any vertical take-off aircraft. Other tricks were used to take off and land conventional fighters and bombers.

Now vertical machines make up a rather small share of the existing aircraft fleet of aircraft-carrying cruisers. Including the Americans, where there seems to be no shortage of “verticals”. And all because the “miracle machines” themselves have shortcomings (and very significant ones).

The main one: the need to significantly reduce take-off weight so that the plane can lift off the deck vertically. In connection with this, for example, the only truly widely used model, the British Sea Harrier fighter, had a flight radius of a measly 135 kilometers. However, its speed, only slightly exceeding the speed of sound, was also not impressive.

Both the historical Yak-141 and the ultra-modern F-35 can develop maximum speed slightly less than two thousand kilometers per hour, while a conventional carrier-based fighter Russian Navy Su-33 - 2300 kilometers. In addition, the range of the latter is many times greater than that of its “vertical” colleagues.

Finally, a vertical take-off and landing aircraft is much more difficult to pilot precisely because of the change in flight modes. Suffice it to say that one of the two prototypes of the Yak-141 crashed during testing precisely for this reason, despite the fact that at its helm was an experienced test pilot, and not an ordinary pilot.

The uncertainty in the words of the Deputy Minister of Defense “we are discussing the creation of an aircraft with short take-off and landing, possibly vertical take-off and landing” is quite understandable. On the one hand, the revival of the unique developments of the Yakovlev Design Bureau will not be a particular problem, except, of course, for the amount required for this. It is clear that it will be difficult to allocate additional billions of dollars for the Russian military budget. But most importantly, will the potential benefits be worth the effort? The competent authorities still have to think about this.

home » Useful » Airplane with horizontal take-off. Revival of a legend: how is the development of a new Russian vertical take-off and landing aircraft progressing? Vertical takeoff and landing photo