Yakovliev’s V/STOL Fighters Yak-36, Yak-38, Yak-41 and Yak-141 The full story of Russia’s rivals to the Harrier John Fricker and Piotr Butowski PORKYakoviev’s V/STOL Fighters Yak-36, Yak-38, Yak-41 and Yak-141Copyright © 1995 Joha Fricker An Aerolax book published by Mictanc Publishing Lined 24 The Hollow, Eat! Shiton Leicester, LE® 7NA, England To 01455 047 615 Fax 01455 641 805 Unites Stats ade distibution by ‘Specity Press Publishers & Wholesalers Inc 11481 Kost Dam Road, North Branch, MN 55056 Tot 612 583 3239 Fax 612 583 2023 Tol ee telephone 800 895 4585 ISBN 1 65780 041 9 {Alright reserved. No part ofthis publication may be reproduced, stored in a retreval sytem, rans imited in any form or by any means, electronic, ‘mechanical or photo coped, recorded or otherwise, without the writen permission of the publishes. Design concept and layout © 1995 Midland Pushing Linted and ‘Stephen Thompson Associates Pronted in England by CClearpointColourprint ited Daybreak, Notingham, NGS 6HO Most of the photographs within his book have been supple by Pot Bowe Line lusvations are based upon material supplied by Pot Butowshi and the Yakovev OKB. ‘The publishers wich to thank the following for thelr eee phamsorctlo wd atemies Marin Dery. Ken Els, John Fricker, Cit Knox, Lockheed Martin, Jay Miler and the Yakovlev OKB, Tile page ihustaion ‘on the ramp at Zhukovsky, the first Yakovev OK iustraton on this page, below: ‘Yak-36 28° during Its performance at Domodyedovo In July 1967. TASS We hope that you enjoy this book Aerotax and Milan Publishing tes are carol eited and designed or you by a knowledgeable and enthusastic tam of specials, wth many years of experience Further tes are i the course of prepara tion but we would welcome ideas of what YOU would ike to see. you have a manu ‘orp for a project that requies puDishin, wwe should be happy to consider but send only brief details intaly, please In aditon, ur associate company Niland Countes Publications, ofrs an exceptionally wide range of aviation, space fight astronomy, itary, naval an tans port books and videos for saleby marder round the wold For a copy ofthe appropriate catalogue, oF to order turer copes of tis book pease wt, telephone oF ax: Midland Counties Publications Unit 3 Maizfela, Hickey Fels, HINCKLEY, Lees, LE10 YF England “Tol 01455 259 747 Fax: 01455 255 737Yak-36 ‘Freehand’ ‘Yok-36 prototype, ‘37, during the rehearsals before Domodyedavo alr show, 1967. The code ‘numbers on both fightrated arcr Yellow with a black outine Ptr Butowsk collection Soviet research into vertical or short take-off and landing (V/STOL) aircraft generally paral leled that in the West, while in most cases lagging somewhat behind in technological ‘advances. One or two unsuccessful attempts ‘were made in the piston engine era to achieve shor field performance trom vertically mount- ed powerplants, notably by Boris Yuryev's VK- 108-powered KIT-1 project in 1946. It was not Until the first turbojets became available after the end of the Second World War, however, in the form of captured BMW 003 and Junkers Jumo 004 units used in the Arado Ar 234, Heinkel He 162 and Messerschmitt Me 262, that more determined efforts were directed towards the application of vertical thrust vec: tors to supplement aerodynamic wing lit In 1947, Alexei Shcherbakov conceived a high speed VSI (Vysokoskorostnoi Istrebtyel) fighter with swiveling wingtip powerplants, similar to the later German EWR-Sud VJ-101, a ‘concept which was then tested on a simple sta- tie rig using two Jumo 004s in the following year. Jet if interest then appeared to lapse in the USSR until well after the Rolls-Royce designed and built manned Thrust- Measuring Rig (TMR), powered by two Nenes. More popu larly known as ‘The Fiying Bedstead’, it made its intial hovering fights in July 1953. It then took about three years for a group of Soviet engineers at the Ramenskoye Lil (Lot nolssledovateisk’ Institut) or Fight Test Institute under AN Rafaelyants, and including V N Matveyey, LKvashnin and L Lipshin, to produce in 1958 a similar jet lit test-bed, in the form of the Turbolet, This utlised a single vertically. mounted Mikhulin RD-9BL (AMS) turbojet developing 24.5KN (5,507.8ib) of thrust with a bell intake, and employed similar outrigger bleed air jt reaction controls or putter pipes to the Rolls-Royce TMR, as well as limited thrust vectoring from swiveling vanes. A similar although shorter fourlegged undercarriage with small castoring metal wheels was also used, but the operator was provided with a neat cabin with a side entry door, unlike the TMR. pilot's total exposure to the elements. With a maximum take-off weight of only 2.340kg (6.188.81b) however, fight endurance of the ‘Turbolet was probably similarly limited to about 30 minutes, Initially lown by Yuri Garnayew, it ‘underwent extensive trials to develop automat ic stabilisation and jet control technologies for vertical take-offs and landings. Further stimulus for Soviet VISTOL develop ‘ment was provided by the visit of an industry delegation under the leadership of Aleksandr Yakovlev to the 1960 Famborough air show, which featured fight demonstrations of the Short SC.1 VIOL research aircraft. With four vertically mounted Rolls-Royce RB.108 ft engines having limited fore-and-aft thrust vec toring, plus another horizontally mounted for Cruise propulsion, the SC.1 had begun flight ‘development ito the VIOL composite power: plant concept in 1957, and completed its frst ‘double transitions from and to the hover in April 1960. So impressed was Yakovlev by Tom Brooke-Smith’s SC.1 demonstrations at Farn- borough in September 1960, that on his return to Moscow he recommended similar research to Dmitri Ustinov, the Soviet deputy prime min- ister responsible for defence. Similar pro- ‘grammes, which resulted ina 1961 contract for the composite-powered Dassault Balzac VTOL research aircrat, were also being planned in France, Germany and the US. The Soviet armed forces need litle persuasion to follow suitwith a research order. Apart from the Yak OKB (design bureau), lt tle interest in VTOL was displayed by other Soviet aircraft designers at this stage, and it ‘was left to Yakovlev personally to sketch outthe initial ideas for his brainchild. This was based fon the Yak-30 light low-wing two-seat tandem Jet trainer prototype developed in about 1960 for the DOSAAF organisation (Dobrovol noe ‘Obshchestve Sodeistviya Arm, Aviatsti Fotu tui-service Soviet basic military fying traning). In addition to its original 8.34/10.3KN (1,875) 2315 5ib) Tumansky RU-19 (2delye — iter/art ‘le 29 or TRD-29 for Fl documentation) turbo- jet, the projected Yak 20V (vertkalnyi- vertical) was to have had two similar powerpiants installed vertically. Following successtul fight trials from late 1960 of the Hawker P1127 VISTOL private venture development proto- type, however, the Yak-30V concept was soon abandoned while stil at the design stage in favour of a more ambitious project based on vectoring thrust nozzles.Work started by a Yakovlev team headed by Stanislav Mordovin and his close assistant, (rest Sidorov, on a P1127 lookalike, to be powered by a new engine with a thrust/weight ratio of no less than 10:1 for take-off, and using fourrotating nozzies, Perhaps wisely, in view of the quantum leap in technology which such a performance would \demand, the Soviet government refused fund- ing for the proposed powerplant, although the reason given atthe time by the chairman ofthe State Committee of Aircraft Technology, Pyotr Dementyev, was that Vertical take-off is neces: ssaryonly inacircus' The Yak team went literally back to the draw: ing-board and turned thei attention to a more proven VTOL concept, in the form of a twin-jet aircraft with two vectored thrust nozzles, which the (initaly) BSE Viper-powered Bell X14, using cascade vane-type tailpipe thrust diver- ters had been successfully fight demonstrating in the US since early 1957. Using compressor- bleed jetreaction or putter pipe controls atthe wingstips and tal, the X-14 made its frst com- plete transition trom vertical to horizontal fight and back at Niagara Falls Municipal Airport on 24th May 1958, and its concept, with many inputs rom the Hawker P1127, was adoptedon alarger scale by the Yakoviev design team, Under the leadership of Stanistay Mordovin, and in conditions of great secrecy, this group evolved an lzdelye V(vertkainyi) project, which was to become the Yak-36, as something more than a technology demonstrator. Its maximum take-off weight of 9,400kg (20,723,510) includ. fed a modest 600kg (1,323Ib) weapons load. wo R-27-300 non-after-buring turbofans dev. eloped by Tumansky and Khatchaturov (and later installed in the MiG-23), each with a single ti short-coupled rotatable nozzle, and individual. ly rated at about 49kN (11,016ib) ofthrustin the vertical mode, were however necessary 10 pro- duce a take-off thrustiweight ratio only margin- ally above unity at about 1.06. ‘Side-by-side instalation of the F.27s in the ‘Yak-96 with split nose pitotype intakes result- ed in a wide and elliptical tuselage cross-sec- tion, deepened by having to accommodate the cockpit above the forward:mounted power- plant pack, and by a prominent bulge beneath teach engine. To minimise trim changes, the ‘obiiquely-angled thrust vectoring nozzles were aligned as close as possible to the aircraft's centre of gravity. This was below about mic chord of the root section of the mic-mounted ‘and anhedralled short span wing, with its mod: rately swept leading and straight tailing ‘edges. These terminated in long wingtip {airings accommodating forward-etracting out- rigger undercarriage legs, supplementing the fuselage-stowed tandem mainwheel units, ‘comprising a single forward folding nosewhee! ‘and twin-wheeled af-etracting units. The wingtip fairings also housed the lateral jtreaction controls or putter pipes, with others exhausting below the swept fin and high- mounted swept tailplane for paral sub-stall pitch control. Because of the relatively short fuselage length, the corresponding nose putter pipes had to be accommodated in along boom ‘extending from above the intake ducts, to ‘achieve the required leverage without exces sive compressor bleeds. Conventional alerons, land other aerodynamic controls were used for wing-bome fight, with area-increasing slotted flaps extending from the inner tralling edges to Improve the availabe it coefficient in the slow speed regime. ‘Autostablisation requirements via the putter pipe controls for jet-borne fight, based on Tur Dolet experience, were met by Yakoviev's development of the SAU-36 automatic fight ‘control system (AFCS) for incorporation in the ‘Yak-96. This was linked with new safety require ments fo pilot ejection from both zero speeds ‘and heights, which the Yak OKB approached through a dual objective programme. While fone group of designers worked on develop ment of a new rocket-boosted KYa-t (kriesio ‘Yakovieva) ejection-seat with zero-zero perfor mance, another group was committed to the pioneering evolution of an SKE (Sisterna Kata puttirovaniya Ekstremalnaya) ‘extreme’ ejection initiation system. This automatically ejected the pilotin the hover regime i specified safety limits in terms of attitude, angular accelerations or rates of descent were exceeded, and was to prove generally successful with subsequent Yakovlev VSTOL operations. The Yak36 was first Yakovlev design to make use of com- puter technology, following the OKB's acquis tion of MN-2 Elektron analogue computers in the late 1950s. These were also used by Yakovlev to develop for the Yak-96 one of the fist Soviet fight simulators, on which the pro- ject test plots were able to begin training sor- ties. As the former Turbolet pilot with the most Jet V/STOL experience, Yuri Garnayev was hhead of the fight team, wth Valentin Mukhin as his later deputy. ‘The second of two Yak-36 fight prototypes, 38, In the early stager of testing. Note the lack of Air recirculation fences, added later under the fuselage. Yokovev OKBValentin Mukhin, the plot who undertook the ‘bulk of the Yak-36 test flying, following Yuri, Gamayev's accident in the Kamov Ka-22 in July 1964, Prot Butowsh cotecion ‘Ate final completion in 1962, the prototype YYak-96 was conveyed to a specially construct- ied test rig within the Central Aerodynamics land Hydrodynamics Test Insttute (Tsentrainyi AeroGidrodinamicheskiy Insit-TsAGI, where ‘2 metal grid had been laid over an excavated ‘area, to minimise ground effects from jet biast when the engine nozzles were in the vertical positon, nial tests were confined to engine land nozzle operation with the aircraft firmly tethered to the ground by 1.5m (4:92f) wire cables, during which various small powerplant deliciencies were rectified, plus AFCS correc: tions by agjustments of the gain co-eicients. Forts fist tethered hover attempts, the Yak: 96 was moved toa concrete pad, where intially it showed no inclination to leave the ground despite prolonged applications of full power. ‘The cause was soon traced to adverse exhaust {92s ground ettects, avoided by most contem- porary Western V/STOL projects by continued ‘rid operation. With the nozzles vertical, acc- ‘ording to Rolls-Royce experience, the entrain: iment process ofthe jet effiuxes is driven by the spreading thrust Impingement or fountains below the wing which produce a strong pump ing action or suck-down force on the airframe ‘amounting to a 10% of more loss of thrust. An associated etfect, further encountered by the ‘Yak-36 and other V/STOL jet aircraft when close to the ground in the hover, is exhaust hot air ingestion by the intakes. This not oniy results in substantial thrust losses of up to 7.8kN (1,753:5Ib) in the case of the Yak36 ~ but can also induce serious engine surge problems, ‘Another complication was that ingestion ctfectsrapicly diminish at hover heights above ‘about 1.5m (6.92f), resulting ina sudden surge ‘of adcitional thrust. The ingestion problem was fairy easily solved in the Yak-36, however, by the addition of large forward-retracting twin segment air dam surfaces, referred to by ‘Yakovlev as an ‘apron’, below the forward fuse~ lage, for extension during VTOL operations. AS in the P1127 and subsequent Harries, the attachment of fences to the Yak 36 under sur faces around the fountain impingement zone was then found to entrain the jt effuxes to pro- duce an upward lit force which approximately equalled the suck-down loss, allowing vertical lioffs to be achieved Further trials were again tethered, with sight- ly longer wire cable, although intaly the Yak- 36 proved both unstable and uncontrollable ‘while the ground etfect problems were being resolved. These were aggravated by the insta bilty of the entrained low pressure zone be: neath the fuselage, and further magnified by the result of aircraft motion or ambient winds. Eventually, the Yakovlev team managed to modity the efflux flow by suitable fences to attain the required fountain efect to assist the Vertical take-o, and achieved the first unteth- fered stable hover on Mth January 1963, From the hover, Gamayev then proceeded ‘cautiously to extend the fight envelope, initially fying a distance of only about 40m (1318) at ‘ot more than about 1-2m (3.3-6.5t) above the. ‘ground. Successive fights were then extended literally in leaps and bounds. it was not until 16th September 1963, however, that Gamayev achieved a full double transition to and trom horizontal fight, with a vertical take-off and landing. Fight development of the Yak-26 was ‘continued, although mainly by Valentin Mukhin ater 16th July 1964, when Gamayey, as the USSR’s leading V/STOL pilot, was injured in the crash of the massive twin 4,192/4kW (6,622shp) Soloviev TV-2 turboprop-powered Kamov Ka-22 Vintokri (NATO 'Hoop’) convert pplane with additonal wingtip rotors, which killed two of his crew members. Mukhin made his frst fightin the Yak-36 on 27th July 1968, 11 days after Gamayev's crash. Further development of the Yak-96, which also involved a second prototype, proved it to bbe firmly subsonic, its maximum speed of ‘about Mach 0.9 being achieved only in a full power high altitude dive. Its progress was not without incident, with some damage sustained after a hard landing in 1966, but in the autumn ofthat year, ne ofthe prototypes was demon: strated to Leonid Brezhnev, then Secretary General of the CPSU Central Committee (later Chairman of the Supreme Council rom 1977), ‘and other state authorities. ‘Atthat stage, the Yak-36 programme had still rot been revealed to the public, and it was ot until the major air display at Moscow's Domodyedovo airport on Sth July 1967, that the USSR's V/STOL fighter project was formally unveiled. Describing the Yak-36's frst public presentation, Aleksandr Yakovlev wrote in his ‘re-Glasnost' autobiography The Aim ofa Lie time, as follows: ‘When the announcer called ‘out “Attention! A vertical take-off and landing aircrafts being teadied for fight... be piloted by Hero of the Soviet Union Mukhin’, tons of thousands of spectators turned to gaze at a small silvery machine, which presently, to the roar of its jets, began to rise straight up, like a helicopter, without any ground run, hovered ‘momentarily on attaining a height of about 50m (164f), then passed gradually into horizontal fight while retracting its undercarriage, and next flashed past the stands. Ciriing the fila with lightning speed, the pilot began to slow down; we saw him release the undercarriage, approach the spot where he was to land, hover an instant at 50m, effect a 180° turn, and set his ‘machine down gently in a vertical landing, with perfect precision and no landing run.A storm of ‘applause greeted this extraordinary aircraft hich combined within sel the properties of a high speed jet powered aircraft with those of a helicopter The Yak-36 obviously had the same public Impact in the USSR as had the SC.1, Dassaut Balzac and Mirage IV, and Hawker P1127 in the West, where it was promptly given the NATO reporting code-name ‘Freehand’. Both ‘Yak-36 flight prototypes were present at the Domodyedovo aisplay, coded '37" and 38, the latter carrying two underwing UB-16-57 57mm (2.25in) rocket pods and showing slight dtr fences in its small fuselage intakes. Adcitional features of both Yak-36s which became appar tent at Domodyedovo included two large ventral fins for improved stability at high angles of attack; twin longitudinal strakes beneath the fuselage inboard ofthe et nozzles; twin ventral nose strakes; and a double-hinged panel that extended forward of the rear undercarriage bogie when lowered to act as a heat shield. A third prototype (36), was used for powerplant tests in the 7101 wind tunnel of the TsAGI inst tute, and may be the one bearing that number ‘and painted in a dark blue naval finish, with two Lunderwing weapons pylons, which is pre- served at Moscow's Monino museum. A fourth Yak-96 prototype airframe was also built for the usual static structural tests, butwithits limit fed speed, payload, endurance and 300km (162nm) range, there was no prospect of the type's operational development.Yak-36 ‘Fr and’ Specification Powerplants Two 49/62,3KN" (11,015,7/14,005 66) ‘Tumansky R27-300 vectored thrust turbofans Dimensions Span: 7.4m (24 28h) Overall length: 16.75m (64.95t), Taliplane span: 2.7m (8.86), Weights Empty, equipped: 5,600kg (12,3461). Maximum fuel load: 2,500kg (5.51216) Maximum external load: 600kg (1,323Ib) Maximum take-ott 9,400kg (20.723.5Ib)/11,700Kg* (29,304I6). Performance Maximum speed at sea level 1,009km/n* (544.46kts). Maximum speed at 10,000m (32,808. 1,000kmrvh (639.6). Caling: 12,000m* (39,370") Maximum range: 370km* (200rm) * Monino museum data ‘Above. Yak-36 38° during the Domodyedovo __ Below A view of the static test Yak-36 prototype, rade, Sth July 1967. Note under fuselage 36, during wials n the T-101 wind tunnel in the fences and rocket pod. TASS TRAGI insute, Pot Bowe colectionDetail view of the downward adjusted exhaust of the RO-27-300 engine on Jet exhaust vane on the Monine Yak-36. This example was used for ground testing only ‘he bate oft very rear ofthe Yak-36's fuselage. The plate at ‘crude control surace lock to prevent damage Monino exhibit. Ptr Bows V/STOL fighter influences » Below: Short SC.1; first tials 1957. MAP Below: Rols-Royce TM; fist hovering Mights July 1953. Roi-Royce 8 a ‘ceo. ken Es cotecto Baas han cee ered weer toer Win a iy Mle Bottom. Hawker 1127s; frst Might October 1960. Kon Els cotectYak-36M/Yak-38 ‘Forger’ While the Yak: 26 fulfil a useful research func: tion, the Soviet air force refused to fund further VISTOL development in the absence of an ‘operational requirement. The navy, then in the process of launching two 15,000 tonne Project 11123 anti-submarine warfare (ASW) helicopter carriers Leningrad and Moskva and formulat ing designs for aircraf-carying cruisers, was a better potential customer. Proposals in the sec- Cond half of the 1960s by Armament Minister Dmitri Ustinov, an acquaintance of Aleksandr Yakoviev from the Second World War when he was Deputy Minister for the Ar industry, to back VISTOL development as the basis of a fleet ai farm, found ready acceptance on the part of ‘Admiral Sergei Gorshkov, Soviet navy Com. rmander in-Chiet (C-in-C). The Yak design team, headed by Stanislav Mordovin, had been work: ing for some time on a more combat-capable ‘and modified Yak 36M (Modifisirvannyi), or ladelye VM. Formal resolution No.1166-4135s (Govershenno sekretno, or top secret), taken'on 28th December 1967, by the Central Commit tee and Council of Ministers, specified the fo lowing, somewhat ambitious, requirements for new V/STOL combat aircraft capable of both shipbome and air force operation: maximum speed at high altitude, 1,400km/h (755.4kts) 1,250kmim (674 5kts) at sea level. Range with 11000kg (2,208 6b) of weapon load at high at- tude, 1,400km_(755.4nm); and 700-750km (@78-405nm)atlow evel The new V/STOL airorat was to operate trom the Project 1123 helicopter carriers and the new Project 1143 (Kiev-class) ‘through-deck cruisers’. Additionally it was to be capable of ‘operating from short, unprepared airstrips with ground pressure strength that was rated above 0.5 MPa (71Ib/in). 8 ‘The main operational role of the shipborne V/STOL fighters was air protection of the fet, for which they would need to be equipped with radar and medium-range air-to-air missiles, as wall as special navigational systems for mar- time use. Like the specified performance, such Ccapabiities in a shipborne fighter were well beyond the state ofthe art at that tie, resulting in a two-stage programme for the proposed ‘Yak-36M. The first stage was fora light attack version with fairly basic equipment; this to be followed by the more advanced Yak36P (Perekhvatchik, interceptor) for air defence of the leat Initial design and approval of the WS (oyenno: Vozdushnyye Sy airforce) detailed tactical and technical specifications for the fst version (the WS retaining overall responsibilty for this naval aircraft project) including a long list of equipment and armament, occupied the whole of 1968. According to the completed specifications approved by WS C-in-C Marshal Konstantin Vershinin, the light attack Yak-36M hhad the primary roles of destroying enemy ships and of supporting amphibious assault ‘operations, mainly from Project 1123 class hel: ‘copter cartiers. I was also to be used for attacks against slow fying enemy ASW, recon: naissance and other aircraft with R-60M (AB ‘Aphid’ air-to-air missiles, although its primary ‘armament of up to 1,000kg (2204Ib) weight was to include two Kh-23M (AS-7 ‘Kerry’ ant ship missiles withthe Delta-NG guidance pod: or one RN-28 tactical nuclear bomb: conven: tional HE bombs; 23mm (0.9in) UPK23-250 cannon pods; unguided rockets of various cal bres; and twin 225P 23mm wing-mounted can- ‘non, each with 160-180 rounds, Redesign ofthe Yak 36 was hampered by the runway. Pot Butowsk calecton lack of a suitable powerplant. Ideally a dual flow turbotan lke the P1127's Bristol Siddeley Pegasus was required, with paired front and tear nozzles stradling the airrat's centre of ‘gravity, None of the Soviet engine design bur ‘eaux were then working on projects ofthis kind, land Yakovlev had to make use of what was already available. Initially, this meant continua: tion of the paired Soyuz/Tumansky R-27 con cept, using the uprated R-27V-300 twin-shaft turbofans with nozzle changes and an in creased design maximum vertical thrust of {60.3KN (13,556). Ths allowed the maximum VTO weight to be increased to 10,600kg (23.36016), but although the design maximum ‘speed went upto 1,250kmih (674.5kts),thelow alttude range remained limited to only 480km (25anm), Further refinements ofthe same basic design, using R-27VM300 engines further up- rated to 68,7KN (14,545 21b) thrust, and cheek intakes in an extended fuselage, while retaining the original mainplanes and empennage, were accompanied by an increase in design take-off weight to 11,200kg (24,6921b). This included the required 1,000kg (2,204Ib) of weapons land a theoretical maximum speed ot 2,000 kam/h (1,079.2kis) at high altitude. The use of two propulsion engines, however, doubled the fuel requirements for a given range, while restricting the required stowage space. The final Yak-36M concept therefore em: ployed only one R-27V-300 engine, which ofcourse gave insufficient vectored thrust to achieve vertical take-otfs and landings, butwas to.be supplemented by new vertcally- mounted 036.95 (lzdelye 33) lightweight It engines. Developed in Rybinsk by Pyotr Koliesov's, design team under A L Dynkin formerly known ‘as OKB-26 (as indicated by the engine desig rations), these single shaft single-flow engines had a sixstage compressor and single-stage turbine. The basic RD36-35 was rated at 23KN (6.170.600) of thrust, or slightly more than the contemporary Rolls Royce RB.162 it-engine, ‘and was first used in the mid-1960s for trial instalation in adaptations of conventional com- bat aircraft such as the Mikoyan MiG-21PD, MiG-23PD and Sukhoi Su-18VD to shorten their runway requirements, An uprated version - the RDG6-35FV (lzdelye 24)- was, however, deve: oped for the Yak 36M, with a maximum output of 28 4KN (6,384 Bib) at 12,250 rpm. Alternative installations of either two or three RDQ6-35 it! engines in tandem groups to reduce the frontal area were considered forthe YYak-36M, the larger number being required for the proposed radar-equipped Yak-36P. As final: ly approved, the Yak-36M emerged with a mid- mounted single R-27V-300 lit/cruise engine with cheek intakes and bifurcated hydraulica- Iy-operated and interinked thrust vectoring nozzles in the lower rear fuselage, installed 17em (6.7in) above the fuselage cenire-ine. With a length of 3.7m (12.14f), a diameter of 012m (332M) and a weight of 1,350kg (2.976.23Ib), the R-27 was augmented by two 'RD6-35F lit engines mounted in tandem im mediately behind the cockpit, with thei thrust ‘axes inclined 10° aft of the vertical. Ther fixed nozzles were arranged to give convergent thrust, the forward exhausting 25° to the rear and the aft iftengine vectored some "forward, {or better exhaust flow distribution. The lit-engines were covered in wing-bome fight by a single af hinged fairing door, which later incorporated 24 spring-loaded pressure ‘elie louvres, and also served to deflect air into thei intakes in the transition stages, and were similarly enclosed beneath the 15.6m (61.2) fuselage by longitudinallyhinged doors. To start the lit engines and activate the jet reaction Controls, the Yak 36M pilot had fist to move a fight condition selector alongside the single power contro! (throttle) lever trom the wing borne to the jet lift mode, reversing the process to shut down the ADs. Bleed air trom the main engine compressor at the rate of about 1-1.3kg (2.2-2.916) per second was used for starting the it engines, which wore not intr. changeable. With this powerplant instalation, ‘Yek-26M fuselage with complete powerplant ‘suspended under a Tupolev Tu-16 bomber to test engine starts. Note the conical nose and tot tube on the tp. Flight aircraft had a much ‘modified forward fuselage. which was not generally dissimilar to the con- temporaneous VFW-Fokker VAK‘191_ in the West, the 1968 Yak-36M had a design vertical thrust balance of 60.8kN (13,668 4lb) from its 27-300 turbojet, taking into account some 8.5kg (18.741b) per second of air for the jet reaction controls, which also provided 5.9kN (1.328.410) of lit, plus the 58.8kN (12,769Ib) total output from the two lit engines. This repre: ‘sented a theoretical total available jet lit of 123.5KN (27,764b), but the effective vertical thrust, alter deduction of installation losses was ‘actualy imitedto 115 2kN (25,898Ib) With an empty weight of 6.515kg (14,3631b) and a design VTO weight of 10,000kg (22,046.21b), including 1,000kg (2,204.61b) of weapons and 2,800kg (6,173) of internal fuel, the Yak-36M had a thrust/weight ratio of a mar inal 1.175, though a rling take-off was est- ‘mated to allow a 500kg (1,102Ib) increase in fuel or armament load. The Yak-36M power plants underwent fight testing in @ converted “Tupolev Tu-16 Badger’ twinjet bomber, in which ‘Aleksandr Yakoviev insisted on at least 1,000 start up and operating cycies forthe lit engines betore the fst take-off ofthe prototype. Engine reliability was particularly crucial in the Yak-36, since compressor stall or other thrust losses in any of the three powerplants resulted in an immediate outofbalance and drastic pitch change, since all he exhaust noz les were some distance from the centre of ‘gravity (CG). This placed special importance ‘on the auto-eject system, for which the hover attitude limits were eventually set at only 15 rnose-up, 10° nose-down and 30° bank, thereby guaranteeing the pilot's maximum concentra tion on monitoring the AFCS (automatic fight Control system) during je-bome flight. Auto ejection was through the canopy to minimise the escape time-frame, although the cockpit hood was automatically jettisoned as part of the ejection sequence in wing-borne fight. (Other design features ofthe all-metal (mostly ‘new 01420 corrosion-resstant aluminium alloy) Yak-36M were generally similar to those of its predecessor prototypes, including mid-tuse- lage mounted and anhedralled (by 10° tree- sparred wings of cropped deta planform, although these employed a low thickness ‘chord ratio of only about 6%, and increased leading-edge sweep to 45° (37.2" at quarter chord), for supersonic fight SSimiiar Fowertype slotied flaps of 1.08m? (11.62R2) total area, extending to 35", and out board ailerons were also employed, although the 6.42m (21f) span of the original Yak 96M design was increased to 7.02m (23) before the prototype stage. BU-150V irreversible ser vos with emergency manual reversion actuated the allerons and elevator through one ofthe ai. cat's three hydraulic systems, and electrically operated trim tabs were fitted to all control surfaces. Main and stand-by pneumatic sys- tems were also provided for wheel and tal parachute brake system operation, plus emer gency actuation of many of the hydraulic ser Vices, including these for the landing gear, taps {and engine doors. The outward wing panels folded vertically through 102" by hydraulic means, toreduce the ‘span for shipboard stowage to 4.4m (14.43), with four weapons pylons and provision for two ‘Type 225P cannon on the fixed sections. The mainplane section of P53s-6 at the root and S. 4125-6 at the tip was too thin to allow any fuel stowage. The fuel load was located in two fuse- lage tanks and comprised 2,750kg (6,062.71b) (2.200k/4,850lb forward and 550kg/1,212.510 aft) - of F1, TS-2, RT or T7P grade kerosene. Originally built as an integral part of the fuse- lage, the inner wing sections were built as sep- arate items from airrame factory number (tn) ‘7977862938454 (the eighth production batch) ‘onwards, for attachment to fuselage frames 20, 23.and26,Mikhail Doksbakh, the first pilot of the Yak-38. Yakov OXB ‘Jet reaction control valves supplied with ‘main engine compressor bleed air at the rate of 5.09kg (11.091b) per second, with upper and lower outlet nozzies, were installed in each wingtip, and a swiveling yaw control valve was, ‘mounted inthe aft fuselage cone, foward ofthe ‘swept tall surfaces, for use in the hover. Similar valves, linked with the automatic fight control ‘and stabilisation system and operated by fore and aft movernent ofthe control column, were located under the nose and tal for longitudinal Control, using 6.2kg (13.671b) ofa per second. The success of Yakoview's low speed fight con- trol system before the days of fy-by-wire and ‘electronic engine controls has been described by former Harrier chief test pilot John Farley as nothing less than ‘an astonishing hycrome- chanical engineering control achievement Unlike the original Yak36's tandem main Undercarriage, the Yak-36M was designed with ‘a conventional levered suspension long-stroke tricycle landing gear, with forward-retracting fuselage stowed high pressure 660 x 200mm, (26in x 7.87in) mainwhee's mounted ahead of the jet nozzles, and an aftretracting 600 x 155mm (23.6in x 6.) nosewheel. A tal brak- ing parachute was stowed in the rear fuselage {or use in conventional landings. Equipment specified for the Yak-96M includ ed the PBK:S bomb sight developedat that ime for the Sukhoi Su-17 Ftter-C’ variable geome- try strike aircraft, and the new ASP-17 radar ranging gun sight, plus an interally-mounted DDelta-N system supplying guidance data for the Kn23 (AS-7 Kerry) airto-surface missiles (ASM). Other systems included a Machta-t Doppler speed and dritt meter; an SPO-10 radar warning unit; Siren or Geran active radar jammers in a suspended container, and a Privod instrument landing system for all-weath- € cartier operations. Some of this equipment was not available at the Yak-36M prototype 10 stage, however, notably the gun and bomb sights, replaced respectively by the ASP-PF-7M. ‘and PBK? from the Su-7B ‘Fitter’, while the fixed twin cannon installation was dispensed with and replaced by a 23mm GSh-29L cannon ina VSPU-36 under fusolage pod. Four prototypes were built of the Yak-36M, the first ~ VM-1 (05), being used for ground testing of the powerplant systems by the influ: ental state Central Aerodynamic and Hydrody- namic Insitute (TSAGI) Two more prototypes ~ \VM-2 (25) and VM-3 ~ were allocated for the main fight test programme, while a fourth ‘example (45! followed a alter stage for ship borne state acceptance trials. Firs fight of VM- 2, by Yakovlev test plot Mikhail Deksbakh, on 15th January 1971, was in the conventional wing-bome mode, and development in this regime continued until the first hover tests ‘began on 26th September of the same year ‘Similar ground-effect problems to those exper ‘enced withthe inital Yak-36s were encountered by its successor, although mainly concemed with it force losses due to the induced down flow over the airframe rather than recirculation, since the Yak-36M intakes were well foward of the jetnozzles. Once again, these were dealt with by the adation of two long ventral strakes. to capture the jet-effux fountain and deflect it downwards, thereby increasing the under: fuselage pressures, Full transitions to and from wing-borne flight were then completed for the first time on 20th March 1972, by Deksbakh, who was later nomi nated as a Hero of the Soviet Union for his VISTOL fight development services. Athough ‘not without their critical moments, these appear to have been relatively uneventful, allowing ‘completion of the Yak-36M factory fight test ‘programme by April 1972, followed by its trans ferto the VS Research Institute at Akhtubinsk for Stage A of the state acceptance tests. In effect, these are a continuation of the factory tests, but wth customer participation, wth the possibilty of design alterations and modifica- tions to retiy any major problems. ‘These trials included an intial deck landing ‘by Deksbakh on the helicopter carrier Moskva, witnessed on 18th November 1972, by the new C-in-C of Soviet naval aviation, Marshal Ivan Borzov. This was claimed as the first VISTOL. aircraft landing on a Soviet ship, apparently dis- counting ealier reports of similar operations by tone of the Yak-26 prototypes. Curiously, the Yak-36M concemed did not make is first tak off rom the Moskva until 22nd November, ater which sea trials continued until January 1973. Stage A completion ofthe state acceptance tials was completed in September 1974. Un- ‘surprisingly in view of its unreheated power plant and simple Hartiertype semi-annular intakes of 0.52m? (6.62) cross-section, the Yak-36M fel well shor ofits claimed design per formance of a 1,400kr/h speed and 1,400km (755.4kisinm) range. The Yak 36M proved to bbe barely transonic, with a maximum level speed in clean configuration at 200m (656ft) of 1,210Km/h (653Kts), falling to 1,100Km/n (693 6s) at 10,000m (32,808). Range pertor: ‘mance with two Kh-23 (AS-7) ASMs was also well down, varying from 500km (270nm) at sea level to 860km (464nm) at high altitude, resut- Ing ina typical operating radius of only about 195km, of litte more than 105m. There were ‘other contributing factors to the performance shortals, notably an excess of some 600kg (1.32aIb) in structural weight over the design target, increasing the maximum take-off gure 10 10:300kg (22,707 Sib), resulting in a reduc tion in weapons load to only 700kg (1,543Ib). At the same time, the installed thrust of the ‘Tumansky R-27V-900 lit/eruise engine turned ‘out to be only 57.9KN (13,016 Sib) rather than the target 60.3KN (13.556) figure, the spit ‘engine nozzles involving 20% more thrust loss, than expected. Form drag was higher than cal- culated. Attempts to improve the thrust using simple ater-burners were soon abandoned Further engine development, however, was continued with the fourth Yak-36M prototype, \VM-4 (coded °45), which began trials with ‘upgraded powerplants in mid-1974, initially ina ‘ground test rig. Vertical thrust output of the main R-27V-900 turbojet (engine number 48- 17), which had an eleven-stage axial compres- sor (five low pressure and six high pressure stages), plus a two-stage turbine with ait- cooled vanes and firsstage blades, was increased to 59.8KN (13,443.61) by means of higher turbine entry temperatures. Tests were ‘also made with experimental RD-35F-2 lit- ‘engines developed from the RD36-35FV, with ‘an output of 29.9KN (6,722Ib) by increasing their maximum rotational speed from 12,250 to 12,450rpm, giving a 5:1 compression ratio. In production Yak36MS, these were designated RDQ6-35FVAs (the 'R for raskruchennyi, Iteral- ly faster turing), with the same output ‘Several arrame changes were made during the acceptance trials for technical and tactical reasons, The most obvious was redesign of the nase section to raise and increase the size of the cockpit canopy and improve the plots for ward view, particularly during slow-speed approaches and landings. The fixed air intakes were slighty widened, and separated from the fuselage by large boundary layer spiter plates, Each also received five peripheral Harrierstyie suckin pressure relief doors 300mm (11.8in) ‘behind theirleading-edges to supply additional air during low speed operations. All production Yak-36Ms received these modifications from 1976 onwards. ‘VW was the fist prototype to incorporate wider track (from 2.2m/7 22ftto2.76m/9A) main Undercarriage units, to improve ground stabil ty In cross-wind operations. These units be- came standard in 1975. The rudder shape ‘underwent a small change trom the incorpora- tion of radio antenna, and the interally- mounted Delta‘N guidance system for the |AS-Ts was removed in favour of a pod installa: tion, being replaced by the formerly pod: ‘mounted Siren active jamming system.Cutaway of te 8.27200 ten jatr Butowski collection ———‘The interim ASP-PF-7M gun sight was replaced by the simpler ASP-PFD-21 trom the Mikoyan MiG-21, but the bomb sight was removed altogether from the modified VM-2 prototype, which has been preserved in the ‘Yakovlev OKB's own museum. Defensive aid systems installed in production Yak-36Ms in- cluded nose-mounted Gvazdika or Siren active jammers, Sitena-3M radar warning receivers ‘and 20M IFF (identifcation, fiend or foe) Despite its performance shortcomings, and Continuation of Stage 8 of he state acceptance tests by the State Flight Test Centre (Gosu:

También podría gustarte

• Tren Rodante 248

  

  Documento64 páginas

  Tren Rodante 248

  Pablo Daniel

  Aún no hay calificaciones
• Tren Rodante 251

  

  Documento64 páginas

  Tren Rodante 251

  Pablo Daniel

  Aún no hay calificaciones
• Tren Rodante 203

  

  Documento36 páginas

  Tren Rodante 203

  Pablo Daniel

  Aún no hay calificaciones
• • Revistas
  • Podcasts
  • Partituras
• Macdonell-Douglas Sea Harrier

  

  Documento101 páginas

  Macdonell-Douglas Sea Harrier

  Pablo Daniel

  Aún no hay calificaciones
• Close-Up 02 Sea Stallion - Sea Dragon

  

  Documento42 páginas

  Close-Up 02 Sea Stallion - Sea Dragon

  Pablo Daniel

  Aún no hay calificaciones
• Tren Rodante 249

  

  Documento64 páginas

  Tren Rodante 249

  Pablo Daniel

  Aún no hay calificaciones
• Tren Rodante 201

  

  Documento26 páginas

  Tren Rodante 201

  Pablo Daniel

  Aún no hay calificaciones
• Tren Rodante 206

  

  Documento70 páginas

  Tren Rodante 206

  Pablo Daniel

  Aún no hay calificaciones
• Tren Rodante 255

  

  Documento64 páginas

  Tren Rodante 255

  Pablo Daniel

  Aún no hay calificaciones
• Tren Rodante 207

  

  Documento70 páginas

  Tren Rodante 207

  Pablo Daniel

  Aún no hay calificaciones
• Tren Rodante 250

  

  Documento64 páginas

  Tren Rodante 250

  Pablo Daniel

  Aún no hay calificaciones
• Tren Rodante 261

  

  Documento64 páginas

  Tren Rodante 261

  Pablo Daniel

  Aún no hay calificaciones
• Tren Rodante 258

  

  Documento33 páginas

  Tren Rodante 258

  Pablo Daniel

  Aún no hay calificaciones
• Tren Rodante 253

  

  Documento33 páginas

  Tren Rodante 253

  Pablo Daniel

  Aún no hay calificaciones
• Tren Rodante 263

  

  Documento64 páginas

  Tren Rodante 263

  Pablo Daniel

  Aún no hay calificaciones
• Tren Rodante 204

  

  Documento70 páginas

  Tren Rodante 204

  Pablo Daniel

  Aún no hay calificaciones
• Tren Rodante 257

  

  Documento64 páginas

  Tren Rodante 257

  Pablo Daniel

  Aún no hay calificaciones
• Tren Rodante 264

  

  Documento64 páginas

  Tren Rodante 264

  Pablo Daniel

  Aún no hay calificaciones
• Tren Rodante 252

  

  Documento33 páginas

  Tren Rodante 252

  Pablo Daniel

  Aún no hay calificaciones
• Tren Rodante 247

  

  Documento64 páginas

  Tren Rodante 247

  Pablo Daniel

  Aún no hay calificaciones
• Tren Rodante 260

  

  Documento64 páginas

  Tren Rodante 260

  Pablo Daniel

  Aún no hay calificaciones
• Tren Rodante 245

  

  Documento64 páginas

  Tren Rodante 245

  Pablo Daniel

  Aún no hay calificaciones
• Tren Rodante 259

  

  Documento64 páginas

  Tren Rodante 259

  Pablo Daniel

  Aún no hay calificaciones
• Tren Rodante 246

  

  Documento64 páginas

  Tren Rodante 246

  Pablo Daniel

  Aún no hay calificaciones
• Tren Rodante 256

  

  Documento64 páginas

  Tren Rodante 256

  Pablo Daniel

  Aún no hay calificaciones
• Tren Rodante 244

  

  Documento64 páginas

  Tren Rodante 244

  Pablo Daniel

  Aún no hay calificaciones
• Tren Rodante 235

  

  Documento70 páginas

  Tren Rodante 235

  Pablo Daniel

  Aún no hay calificaciones
• Tren Rodante 254

  

  Documento33 páginas

  Tren Rodante 254

  Pablo Daniel

  Aún no hay calificaciones
• Tren Rodante 242

  

  Documento64 páginas

  Tren Rodante 242

  Pablo Daniel

  Aún no hay calificaciones
• Tren Rodante 243

  

  Documento64 páginas

  Tren Rodante 243

  Pablo Daniel

  Aún no hay calificaciones