This aircraft, designed by A. N. Tupolev, is one of the most outstanding not only for its time. It was the world's first four-engine cantilever monoplane bomber with engines mounted in a row along the span in the leading edge of the wing. His scheme - a development of the TB-1 scheme - became dominant for all aircraft of this type and for various purposes. For 1930-1932 the TB-3 aircraft was a big step forward and stood at the height of technical perfection. This is the merit of A.N. Tupolev and the AGOS team, this is our priority. The creation of this classic aircraft seems all the more valuable because, together with it, the design and technology of similar machines was mastered and large-scale serial production of them was established.
The creation of the TB-3 began back in 1925 with negotiations between the Ostekhburo and TsAGI on the construction of a heavy bomber with a capacity of 2000 hp. With. in land and float versions. The design of such an aircraft began under the leadership of A. N. Tupolev in May 1926. The requirements from the Air Force management were clarified several times and took their final form in December 1929.
Prototype. Four 600 hp Curtis Conqueror engines were selected. With. later replacing them with M-17. Calculations and models were purged. On March 21, 1930, the layout was approved. Construction was completed in a short time, and on October 31, 1930, the aircraft was already assembled at the airfield. The first flight of M. M. Gromov on December 22, 1930 showed that the aircraft was successful. This assessment remained with him in the future in all his modifications
The aircraft was tested on specially made skis. The turrets were installed, but there were no machine guns or bomb weapons. By February 20, 1931, the Air Force assessed that the ANT-6 aircraft with a Curtis engine, according to its flight characteristics, is a completely modern bomber at the level of the best foreign aircraft. Flight performance characteristics allow us to recommend it for serial construction with M-17” engines.
The aircraft was returned to AGOS to change engines and eliminate defects. The following changes were made: BMW-VIz 500/730 hp engines were installed. with and correspondingly enlarged radiators, suspended obliquely according to the R-6 type, TsAGI propellers - wooden, with a diameter of 3.5 m; the horn compensators for the ailerons were abolished (span decreased by 1 m), slot compensation was made in the ailerons and rudders; the area of the horizontal tail is increased; the crutch is remade according to the TB-1 model; The plane is mounted on wheels made by the English company Palmer - with tires 2000 X 450 mm. However, these wheels turned out to be weak and were replaced by tandem bogies with domestic wheels 1350 X 300 mm. The series was introduced in the second half of 1931.
Head specimen. TB-3 (ANT-6) - 4 M-17 was launched to the airfield on January 4, 1932, test pilot Andrei Borisovich Yumashev, leading engineer-pilot Ivan Fedorovich Petrov flew. It was recognized that the aircraft was combat-ready and could be accepted as a standard for serial production in 1932.
This aircraft had retractable machine-gun rotating turrets (similar to the P-6 type) in the center section, between the second and third spars, closer to the outer engines. Beam-type bomb racks and radio equipment were installed. The chassis wheels are in tandem bogies. Small arms - a Tur-6 turret with a single or coaxial YES machine gun in the nose of the fuselage, a turret with one YES, a Tur-5 (rolling) turret behind the wing with one or two YES Ammunition - a total of 100 discs of 63 rounds each. The total mass of small arms is 439 kg. Bomb armament - holders for 2000 kg of various bombs weighing up to 1000 kg (Der-9, Der-13, Der-15 and Der-16), Sbr 9 bomb release device with a total weight of 437 kg Equipment weight (then fully included in the load) - 349 kg .
The prototype was tested on skis and on wheels with full small arms and bomber weapons in various combinations. The centering of an empty aircraft is 30.2% of MAR, loaded - 30.8% of MAR. Flight performance on wheels and on skis turned out to be the same.
The launch of the TB-3 (ANT-6) aircraft into production took place in conditions where its success as a type was beyond doubt. Another six months before the first flight, the plant named after. On the 10th anniversary of October, I began to get acquainted with the drawings. During the tests, the drawings were finalized. In September 1931, it was decided to replace imported chrome-molybdenum steel KhMA with domestic chromansil KhNZA steel in all components of the aircraft, except for the landing gear axle shafts, which were still imported.
After testing the lead aircraft, serial construction began at two factories. The first circumstance that we had to face was the significant overweight of production aircraft compared to the lead aircraft, reaching 10-12% of the airframe mass. The reasons were mainly the greater thickness of sheets and pipes due to inevitable positive tolerances, the addition of pieces of equipment and weapons with their fastenings, and the addition of structural units related to the needs of operation (brackets, partitions, seats, steps, etc.). It was found that many electrical wires have a cross-section much larger than the current required, that the welds are rough, and that the chassis bogies are unreasonably heavy. Experimental aircraft left the airfield covered with a thin layer of varnish, and in the series their protective painting was done with a spray gun very roughly: the layer of varnish and paint was thick. On experimental aircraft everything was done cleaner. In cases where KhMA steel was replaced with mild steel grade M, the cross-section of the parts increased accordingly. There were a number of other reasons.
Some unusual measures were taken against this. Regardless of the work of TsAGI designers and calculations, the factories announced a collection of proposals to lighten aircraft parts with a payment of 100 rubles per kilogram of mass removed in the series. Later, the rotating towers were abolished, a number of partitions in the fuselage were thrown out, the landing gear bogies, tanks, bomb suspension and much more were lightened.
As a result, it was possible to remove more than 800 kg of the mass of the empty aircraft, but still the discrepancies in the mass between individual aircraft reached tens and even hundreds of kilograms, the denunciations did not always go well, sometimes vibrations occurred and minor breakdowns occurred due to weakening of the structure. However, the goal was largely achieved and the empty weight of the aircraft with the M-17 was approximately 10,970 kg without removable equipment and weapons. The flight weight was set at 17,200 kg, and with overload - up to 19,300 kg.
TB-3-4M-17f serial (Fig. 246, a) 1. This was the most numerous chip of the TB-3 aircraft (about half of the total number). The design of this aircraft was standard for all subsequent variants, which differed mainly in the power plant, fuselage, landing gear and trim.
The fuselage in its contours was formed by straight lines at the top and bottom, in cross section it was trapezoidal with a slightly convex deck, and the sides were vertical above the wing. Structurally, it was divided into three parts, with the middle part (F-2) forming one integral whole with a center section between its first and last spars. The design replicated the fuselage of the TB-1 in an enlarged form. The frames were made of A-profiles with braces made of pipes; some were equipped with bulkheads with doors almost as tall as a person, which formed separate cabins for the pilots, navigator and radio operator. The nose of the fuselage under the turret is glazed, the cockpit is open, which was in the spirit of that time. The lantern was installed only in the Arctic version. The closed front turret appeared much later, but the rear ones remained open.
The wing consisted of a center section with a span of about 7 m and two consoles. The chord length at the sides of the fuselage is 8.0 m, in front of the winglets - 2.95 m, the relative thicknesses of the A0 (Tupolev) profiles are 20% in the center section and 10% at the winglets. The profile is biconvex, the ordinates of the upper side of the arch made up 60% of its total thickness. The wing is four-spar with several operational connectors. In the center section, the toes and tail parts were detachable, in the consoles - the tail parts and the initial section of the toe. Thus, the entire main part of the center section, together with the F-2, as well as the disassembled wing consoles, had a width of no more than 4 m and could be transported by rail. All spars were shaped from pipes with a largest cross-section of 100 x 90 mm. The ribs consisted of external A-profiles and tubular braces with brackets. The consoles had nine ribs at a distance of 1.8 m. The corrugated skin was supported by wing spars and several stringers in the form of triangular light beams made of sheets with lightening holes.
The corrugated skin of the wing and fuselage had a thickness of mainly 0.3 mm, in the F-2 and F-3 (partially) and on top in the center section - 0.5 mm, and in certain places where people often stood with their feet - 0.8 mm. The height of the corrugation waves was 13 mm, the pitch was 50 mm. It was possible to walk on all surfaces in soft shoes, and in designated places in boots. In the center section, part of the detachable socks was made in the form of very convenient folding ladders for engine maintenance
Since 1934, the wing span has been increased from 39.5 to 41.85 m by lengthening the ends. This turned out to be possible due to the increase in the durable limit! and new brands of duralumin. Wing area increased from 230 to 234.5 m2
Stabilizer - with a variable installation angle in flight. The control of the rudders and ailerons is almost entirely cable, and to reduce the pilot's efforts when controlling the ailerons, two chain hoists were introduced. To deflect the rudder in the event of stopping the engines on one side, a special tensioning mechanism with rubber cords was installed, which was replaced by the installation of a servo rudder in 1934.
The chassis is of a pyramidal type with an axle shaft, a strut and a shock-absorbing strut with 12 rubber plates, which were replaced by oil-air shock absorption in 1934. There were two pairs of wheels mounted in tandem on a trolley welded from pipes. The wheels were spoked, usually without spoke fairings. Then the rear wheels were braked. Since 1935, the bogies were replaced by brake wheels with pneumatic tires measuring 2000 x 450 mm.
In winter, the aircraft was mounted on skis of a standard wooden structure with dimensions of 5540 X 1460 mm. Tail ski - dimensions 1000 x 450 mm. The specific load of the skis was about 1100 kg/m2. The skis were equipped with ten 16 mm rubber cords at the front and four at the rear.
The motor frames for the M-17 engine were welded from soft pipes and attached at three points (two on top) to the nodes of the center section front spar. Radiators slanted back were suspended from the frames, surrounded by a common hood with engines. The plane had four gas tanks of 1950 liters each. Each gas tank was divided into three compartments. The fittings are AM type. Gas tanks - riveted from sheet duralumin on whatman paper gaskets with shellac using 4-mm duralumin rivets with a barrel-shaped head and 1.5-mm duralumin washers under both heads. This type of tank lasted about 15 years, since the tightness of the seams was well ensured in them.
On the TB-3-4M-17 aircraft, the technical flight range through a series of measures for special adjustment of carburetors and ignition was increased to 3120 km with an overload weight of 19.5 tons.
TB-3 “battened down.” In 1933, on one TB-3-4M-17 aircraft, bomb racks, turrets, turrets were successively removed, all holes were sealed, fairings were placed on the bogies, everything that protruded from the skin was removed. The speed increased by only 4.5% and the range of this “batten” aircraft increased by the same amount.
The conclusion was clear. For large and relatively low-speed aircraft, the speed gain from a smooth skin compared to a corrugated one was small, with the main importance being the smooth skin on the tip and upper part of the wing to the rear spar.
The TB-3-4M-17 aircraft were in service from 1932 to 1939. In the process of their gradual replacement, they were transferred to Aeroflot, where they were used for cargo transportation for a number of years under the G-2 (cargo second) brand.
TB-3-4M-34. The design remained generally the same. Honeycomb vertical radiators were installed, positioned significantly back and enclosed in separate hoods under the wing (“beard”). Added water-oil radiators. The question of installing M-34 engines arose in the fall of 1931. In February 1933, they were installed on the aircraft, and in October state tests of two production aircraft were completed. The data was slightly higher than that of aircraft with the M-17. There were several dozen aircraft with M-34.
TB-3-4M-34R. Along with the installation of the M-34R geared engine, some changes were made to the aircraft: a tail gunner point was installed initially without changing the shape of the fuselage behind the spike, without communication with the fuselage. The design was temporary (until the fuselage was redesigned). The towers under the wing still remained. Minor changes were also made to the tail. The rear wheels of the trolleys are braked and hydraulically controlled. Rubber shock absorption is replaced by oil-air. State tests of the aircraft were completed on October 16, 1933. Flight performance was significantly improved thanks to the engine gearbox. The aircraft was approved as a standard in 1934. After testing, the rear part of the fuselage was redesigned, the tail point was organically molded into its contours, the crutch was replaced by a tail wheel
In aircraft produced in 1934, a number of measures were taken to improve aerodynamics: fairings were installed on the wing, stabilizer and air fin, and engine cowlings with wings. Fairings were installed on the axle shafts and wheel bogies, but this design turned out to be inconvenient and could not be used in operation. The radiator hoods were redesigned, and the dynamos with windmills were made retractable into the fuselage.
The TB-3-4M-34R achieved the longest flight duration - 18 hours 30 minutes.
ANT-6 (TB-3)-4 AM-34RD (see Table 31). In 1933-1934. For three overseas flights - to Warsaw, Paris and Rome - nine specially finished aircraft were produced with a new fuselage, with closed turrets and with brake wheels in bogies. In addition, several more aircraft were made with large two-meter wheels and three-bladed metal propellers. Their data was significantly higher than the serial ones.
All three flights, each involving three aircraft, were perfectly executed. Our huge aircraft produced a great effect abroad, once again demonstrating the successes of Soviet aircraft construction.
TB-3-AM-34RN. Until 1935, all previous engines lacked altitude and therefore the ceiling of the TB-3 in all variants was small. With the installation of the new AM-34RN engine at an altitude of 4200 m, the situation improved dramatically. The aircraft was tested in August-October 1935. Four-blade wooden propellers were installed on the middle engines, and two-blade propellers were installed on the outer engines. The fuselage had a stern turret and a tail wheel, the landing gear wheels originally with bogies were replaced by two-meter ones, small arms - Tur-8 with ShKAS machine guns - bow, middle, hatch (down back) and aft installations, 2000 kg bombs on KD-2 holders, Der-19 and Der-20, bomb releasers Sbr-9 and Esbr-2, sights SPB-2, OPB-1 and KV-5.
The speed at an altitude of 4200 m reached 288 km/h, the ceiling was 7740 m. The success was great, but the test report indicated that the TB-3 aircraft was inferior to foreign ones. It was clear that the dimensions, shape and design of the TB-3 were already outdated. Another aircraft was needed and it was already being developed in the TB-7 type.
TB-3-4 AM-34FRN and AM-34FRNV. With the installation of new modifications of engines in the form of M-34FRN and M-34FRNV on the TB-3 aircraft, it became possible to somewhat improve the flight tactical data of the aircraft and set several new records. So, pilot A.B. Yumashev on September 11, 1936. reached a height of 8116 m with a control load of 5000 kg, on October 28 - a height of 8980 m with the same load, on September 16 - a height of 6605 m with a load of 10,000 kg and on September 20, 1936 - a height of 2700 m with a load of 12,000 kg (not the maximum). The design of the production aircraft was not subjected to any reinforcements. Two more gas tanks were installed in the wing consoles, a flatner was installed on the rudder, two-meter brake wheels were installed, the fuselage nose was redesigned, the front turret was shielded, the wing fairings were improved, and the radiator forehead was reduced.
Aircraft with the M-34FRN were produced in 1936 and 1937. (the last period of their serial construction). The plane was brought to the possible degree of Perfection. The speed at altitude exceeded 300 km/h. However, the TB-3 aircraft gradually lost its importance as a heavy bomber and became a military transport aircraft. In order to increase the flight range, the installation of AN-1 diesel engines by A.D. Charomsky of 750 hp was designed. With. The estimated range was 4280 km. This TB-ZD (diesel) version was tested in 1935, but without success, since other flight qualities were lower than with the M-34RN.
The TB-3 aircraft in various modifications was built in series during 1932-1937. with a break from the autumn of 1934 to the spring of 1935. It was discontinued due to the start of preparations for the introduction of the SB aircraft, but then it was produced again, partly with the aim of using the existing reserve.
TB-3 aircraft of all types were used as bombers in 1939 at Khalkhin Gol, a little - in the war with the White Finns and to a very small extent - in the initial period of the Great Patriotic War, for example in the Smolensk defensive operation, on the Northern Front, near Murmansk in winter 1941-1942 and in other places.
But the TB-3 was used a lot and successfully as a military transport aircraft for landing operations and for all kinds of transportation of people and cargo. At the same time, the aircraft were armed with ShKAS machine guns in various combinations, including for firing through windows on the sides (except for turrets), and through hatches in the floor. For landings, the load on average was 30-35 paratroopers. Under the TB-3 tankettes, guns, cars, and ammunition were suspended and dropped by parachute.
During the Patriotic War, TB-3 aircraft were also used to provide communications with various headquarters, to deliver ammunition and food to blocked garrisons and partisans behind enemy lines, to transport flight personnel during relocations, to evacuate the wounded and for other purposes. In addition, the TB-3 aircraft was used as a carrier of other aircraft in the “Link” combination.
In all cases of its most varied use, the aircraft fully justified itself.
Civil application
ANT-6-4M-34R - an Arctic version of the TB-3 for flights in the Arctic and for the expedition to the North Pole planned in 1937. 1. In these aircraft, called “Aviaarktika,” the nose of the fuselage and the cockpit were redesigned, and large wheels instead of bogies and a tail wheel, fairings were improved and some changes were made to the power plant, in particular, three-blade metal propellers were installed.
The conquest of the North Pole on May 21, 1937, and numerous flights over the Arctic over several years best indicate that the ANT-6-4M-34R aircraft successfully lived up to their purpose. The load in these aircraft reached 12 tons, i.e. almost 50% of the flight weight (24.5 tons). The strength of the aircraft, subject to minor flight restrictions, allowed this. The speed at the ground reached 240 km/h.
On one of the production aircraft with the M-34R engine, from January 1 to February 11, 1935, interesting experiments were carried out to determine the influence of corrugated skin on the flight performance of the aircraft. The original aircraft was covered with fabric along the corrugation: first only the tip of the wing, then the tip and upper side of the wing to the rear spar, then both sides of the wing to the rear spar, and finally over the entire wing and the lower surface of the fuselage, and finally over all surfaces of the aircraft. It turned out that the gain in speed did not exceed 5.5%, and in the ceiling reached 27.5%.
With four-blade wooden propellers on the same aircraft, the rate of climb increased significantly.
Ctrl Enter
Noticed osh Y bku Select text and click Ctrl+Enter
The entire history of domestic aviation is inextricably linked with the name of Andrei Nikolaevich Tupolev. Under his leadership in the early 1930s. The heavy bomber TB-3 (ANT-6) and the high-speed SB (ANT-40) were created, which at that time had no equal. His “flying fortresses” TB-7 bombed Berlin already in August 1941, and the magnificent Tu-2 is rightfully considered one of the best front-line bombers of the Second World War. His aviation masterpieces Tu-95, Tu-16 and Tu-22 ensured the security of our country during the Cold War, and the Tu-22M3 and Tu-160 missile carriers, revolutionary in technology and unsurpassed in striking power, still form the basis of long-range aviation of the Russian Air Force .
This book restores the true history of the creation and combat use of ALL military aircraft by A. N. Tupolev and his famous design bureau - since the 1920s. to the present day.
The book was also published under the title “All Tupolev combat aircraft. Collector's Edition".
ANT-6 (TB-3)
During World War II, Romania's 15 oil refineries supplied Germany with over seven percent of the petroleum products supplied by its dependent countries and satellites. Considering that the main consumers of oil were the Kriegsmarine and the Luftwaffe, the destruction of oil refineries, storage facilities and oil pipelines would lead to a significant reduction in the activity of German troops on the Soviet front.
From the very beginning of the Great Patriotic War, much attention was paid to this issue. Long-range and front-line aircraft periodically attacked the oil-bearing regions of Romania. However, the transport artery connecting them with the port of Constanta continued to operate. The section of the oil pipeline laid along the lower tier of the Chernovodsky Bridge across the Danube River was considered the most vulnerable.
A bridge is a tough nut to crack for aviation, especially if it is covered by fighter aircraft and anti-aircraft artillery. All attempts to destroy it with the help of Il-4 and Pe-2 bombers did not yield positive results. Therefore, they decided to use for this purpose a composite dive bomber - SPB, which was put into service shortly before the war.
The SPB, which was a combination of the I-16 fighter and the TB-3 bomber, became the apogee of the development of the “Airplane-Zven”. Its first combat use took place on the night of August 10, 1941, when two TB-3s of the 18th transport squadron of the Black Sea Fleet Air Force with suspended fighters of the 32nd Fighter Aviation Regiment took off from one of the Crimean airfields towards Romania. Not reaching the target, in the area of Georgievsky Arm they gave the command to uncouple the I-16. The calculation was correct - the high speed and small size of the fighters, combined with surprise, determined the success of the operation - all eight 250 kg bombs accurately hit the target. Three days later the raid was repeated. As a result of this operation, the Chernovodsky bridge and oil pipeline were inactive for several months.
The creation of the SPB, as well as the airborne troops, in our country, the conquest of the North Pole and the Pole of Inaccessibility, as well as the development of Siberia and the Far East are inextricably linked with the TB-3 aircraft (ANT-6, TsAGI-6).
The history of the creation of the future TB-3 began in 1925 with negotiations between the Special Technical Bureau and TsAGI. In June of the following year, the Red Army Air Force Directorate developed approximate requirements for a heavy bomber, which were refined several times and took their final form only in 1929. The aircraft was supposed to deliver a drop load weighing 2000 kg over a distance of 1500 km. It was conceived as a “flying fortress” armed with eight 7.62 mm machine guns.
Around the same time, the G-38 passenger aircraft was created in Germany under the leadership of Hugo Junkers. Both machines had a lot in common - a thick-profile cantilever wing, four liquid-cooled motors placed in a row, non-retractable two-wheeled chassis bogies, a truss airframe structure, and corrugated skin. But their fates turned out differently. The TB-3 went into mass production, while the G-38 was built in just eight vehicles, including six in the Ki-20 bomber variant, produced under license in Japan.
Thus, the Soviet Union became the only power that mastered the mass production of the world's largest and truly multi-purpose heavy aircraft.
The idea of creating the TB-3 belonged to Tupolev; in particular, V. M. Petlyakov, V. M. Myasishchev, A. A. Arkhangelsky and V. N. Belyaev, who later became chief designers, participated in the development of the project.
In February 1930, the prototype was defended, eight months later the car was built, and on December 22, TsAGI chief pilot M. M. Gromov and flight mechanic Rusakov tested it in the air. Flight tests of the experimental TB-3 with Curtis-Conqueror engines and two-blade metal propellers from the Standard-Style company were carried out at the capital's Central Airfield until February 20, 1931. The next day, a meeting of representatives of TsAGI and the Air Force Research Institute took place, the minutes of which, in particular, noted: “The TB-3–4 Curtis-Conqueror is, in terms of its flight characteristics, a modern bomber that is on par with the best foreign aircraft. It is considered necessary to put the aircraft into serial production with the replacement of Curtis-Conqueror engines with M-17s.”
At the meeting it was said that the aircraft is stable in all modes and, with the stabilizer adjusted, flies for a long time with the helm abandoned, allows turns with a bank of 40–45 degrees, the time to complete a full turn, depending on the direction, varied from 54.5 to 56.5 seconds. It is also possible to fly with three motors in any combination, but in this case the load on the pedals was very high (30–40 kg). During takeoff and landing, the plane had no tendency to turn.
At the same time, they pointed out the shortcomings of firing points that limited the sphere of fire to the rear, excessive loads on the rudders and the low efficiency of the tail, rudders and elevators, and the lack of communication between crew members.
To improve the protection of the rear hemisphere, at the meeting it was proposed to make a two-tail tail, and if this is not possible, to equip production aircraft with firing points under the wing. This proposal was considered during the work of the mock-up commission and was reflected in its protocol on changing the technical conditions for TB-3 in February 1930.
It was also proposed to install slotted ailerons. However, this idea was abandoned due to complexity and it was proposed to test them on the designed passenger ANT-14. It was recommended to increase the aerodynamic compensator and the elevator area on the experimental machine.
After testing, the experimental TB-3 was equipped with M-17 engines (Soviet designation for licensed BMW-VIs) with wooden propellers, bomber weapons, and wing-mounted machine-gun turrets. The equipment of the car was very meager. In addition to instruments for monitoring engine operation, there was a magnetic compass, a speed indicator, an altimeter, a clock, air thermometers, a wind gauge, an “air navigator,” a Hertz sight for bombing for the navigator, and, apparently, radiotelegraph equipment.
In this form, the bomber entered factory testing in the last days of April 1931. Their results were not encouraging. Suffice it to say that the maximum speed decreased by 19 km/h, and the time to climb 3000 meters increased three times. The stability and controllability characteristics, which were assessed based on the pilots' reports, remained unchanged, but one curious detail was noted. During landing, a flight mechanic came to the pilot’s aid and used the steering wheel to set the required angle of deflection of the stabilizer. Despite the presence of pulleys in the control wiring from the steering wheel to the ailerons, excessive loads were noted. Subsequently, they were reduced by introducing slot compensation for ailerons.
In 1931, TB-3 was put into mass production with M-17 engines at factories No. 22 and No. 31. Compared with its predecessor TB-1, with an almost identical maximum speed of 196 km/h, the bomb load and flight range increased sharply, reaching 2300 km. The service ceiling did not exceed 3800 meters. Normal flight weight increased almost threefold and reached 17,200 kg. On February 27 of the following year, test pilot of plant No. 22 Lozovsky took the first production TB-3 into the air.
At the beginning of January 1932, one of the first production TB-3s with M-17 engines and underwing rifle mounts was transferred for testing to the Air Force Research Institute and, upon completion, was adopted as a standard. Compared to the prototype aircraft, the wing span has decreased while its area remains unchanged and the flight weight has increased. However, the flight characteristics remained virtually unchanged.
A year later, the Air Force Research Institute made an attempt to improve the bomber's flight performance. First of all, we paid attention to the power plant. We increased the ignition timing and clarified the instructions for using the altitude corrector for M-17 engines. The oil reserve was reduced from 460 to 300 kg and the empty weight was reduced by 518 kg, and the flight weight was increased to 20,000 kg. At the same time, the bomb load increased to 3600 kg instead of the calculated 1000 kg. This became possible thanks to the installation of additional Der-9 holders. On August 6, 1933, the modified aircraft made a non-stop flight along the route Shchelkovo (now Chkalovskaya airfield) - Evpatoria - Shchelkovo in 15.5 hours. 2500 kg of bombs were dropped at the site in Yevpatoria.
Based on the remaining fuel, we concluded: “The aircraft allows, in calm conditions, a bomb load of 3200 kg when flying to a radius of 1200 km and 2000 kg when flying to a radius of 1500 km.”
It was possible to improve the bomber's flight performance only through local improvements in aerodynamics or by replacing the engines with more powerful ones. Developing both directions, a month later TsAGI together with Plant No. 22 in October 1933 presented a bomber with M-34 engines for state testing, and nine days later - a modernized TB-3 with M-17.
In November, tests of the modified TB-3–4M-17 were completed at the Air Force Research Institute with the participation of leading engineer Kulikov and test pilot N.I. Kastanaev. On a vehicle with a wing span increased to 41.85 meters and an area of 235.1 m 2, wing and tail fairings were installed at the points where they interface with the fuselage and fairings were installed on the chassis. The wing machine gun mounts were removed. As a result, the maximum speed at the ground increased by 20 km/h, and at an altitude of 3000 meters - by 10 km/h, and the ceiling rose by 800 meters. But by the end of 1933 this was no longer enough.
They hoped to get the best results on a machine with M-34 engines designed by A. A. Mikulin. But, despite their high take-off power (840 hp), the flight characteristics have changed little. Thus, the maximum speed did not exceed 207.5 km/h, and the service ceiling was 3900 meters. The reason was a significant decrease in the thrust of the propellers, which rotated at higher speeds than on the M-17F, and the lack of boost led to a decrease in engine power and, as a consequence, a drop in speed with increasing flight altitude.
Nevertheless, the aircraft was put into mass production at Plant No. 22. In 1935, 56 aircraft with new engines, after fine-tuning at the Air Force Research Institute, were relocated to Seshcha. Subsequently, they could be found at airfields in Serpukhov (eight bombers), Krechevitsy and Grodno.
A significant improvement in flight performance was achieved only after the installation of M-34R gear engines, but not immediately. On an experimental aircraft in 1933, it was possible to achieve only a speed of 229 km/h, increase the rate of climb by almost one and a half times and slightly increase the ceiling. And only after improving the aerodynamics of the aircraft during testing in July 1934, they received characteristics that satisfied the designers and the customer - the Air Force.
On production vehicles, the wing machine gun mounts were finally removed (for example, as my father said, in the 1st heavy bomber regiment of the former Rostov air brigade they were already absent on aircraft with M-17 engines), and instead a stern rifle mount was introduced. In addition, the areas of the tail unit were increased, the rudder with a modified geometry was raised up and equipped with a flatner, the keel column was strengthened and fairings were installed for the wing, tail and engine nacelles. A tail wheel appeared, the rear wheels on the main support bogies were replaced with brake ones, and the rubber shock absorbers were replaced with oil-air ones. As a result, with the same engine power, the maximum speed increased to 242.5 km/h, and the service ceiling to 5100 m. The leading test pilot at the Air Force Research Institute was G. F. Baidukov.
In the summer of 1934, Air Force exercises took place in the Far East with the extensive participation of TB-3s. The effect of their use exceeded all expectations. The July resolution of the Defense Committee noted, in particular:
“Given the great combat value of TB-3 ships with an M-34 engine with a gearbox, and especially a gearbox and supercharger, to oblige the NKTP(in those years, this People’s Commissariat included the aviation industry. - Approx. author) to speed up the production of these aircraft in every possible way... Oblige the Red Army Air Force to install it on these aircraft immediately upon receipt from industry<…>ShKAS machine guns, primarily in air units in the Far East.”
Looking ahead, I note that later on the TB-3 all twin YES machine guns were replaced with single ShKAS, which were distinguished by a high rate of fire (1800 versus 780 rounds per minute). Such protection for airships designed to solve strategic problems was still considered insufficient in the mid-1930s, but large-caliber weapons for aircraft did not exist in the country.
Already during the war, some TB-3 units were equipped with shielded turrets with UBT heavy machine guns.
In the winter of 1934–35, a ball mount with a 20 mm Oerlikon magazine gun was studied at TsAGI on the TB-3 flying laboratory. But subsequent tests at the Air Force Research Institute showed that it was unsuitable for aircraft, including due to insufficient ammunition.
Two years later, the turret for the ShVAK cannon failed to pass state tests, but work in this direction continued, and during the war years, some bombers with M-34R engines were equipped with shielded installations.
The highest flight characteristics were obtained after installing the M-34RN supercharged engines. In addition to them, a stern rifle mount appeared on the aircraft. In this regard, they reduced the vertical area (from 18.5 m2 for an aircraft with M-17 engines to 10.41 m2) and increased the area of the horizontal tail (from 27.8 m2 for an aircraft with M-17 engines to 30, 6 m2). They changed the shape of the steering wheel, which was equipped with a flatner to reduce the effort on the pedals.
If the TB-3–4M17 had two-bladed propellers with a diameter of 3.5 m, then on the machine with the M-34RN, four-bladed propellers with a diameter of 4.4 m were used on the internal engines, and four-meter two-bladed ones were used on the outer ones, where the wing was thinner. Naturally, both the fuel and oil systems of the engines have changed. It was also positive that the capacity of the engine cooling system was reduced to 130 liters per engine. The total gain on coolant alone was 120 kg compared to vehicles equipped with M-34 engines, but 130 liters more than the TB-3–4M17.
A wheel was placed on the crutch support.
The aircraft's instrumentation has also become richer. Thus, the pilots had individual speed indicators, altimeters, K-4 compasses, turn and slip indicators, variometers and a common (in one copy) “Jäger” watch, artificial horizon and gyro-semi-compass. For the navigator, they provided a KN-2 compass, an altimeter, a speed indicator, a clock and a bombing sight - OPB-1 or OP-2.
With a take-off weight of 23,050 kg, the flight range reached 3,000 km, the maximum speed at an altitude of 4,200 meters was 288 km/h, and the ceiling was 7,740 meters. But in 1935, these data no longer satisfied the military. Despite the efforts of the industry, the aircraft was becoming obsolete right before our eyes.
The report on state tests of the TB-3M-34RN aircraft, carried out with the participation of leading test pilot I.P. Belozerov in August - October 1935, noted: "Plane by<…>maximum speed, ceiling, rate of climb has an undoubted advantage over the TB-3M-34R, but at the same time is significantly inferior in maximum speed<…>"Boeing 229".
According to the results of control tests of the TB-3 with M-34RN engines, carried out in 1936, the maximum bomb load reached 4000 kg, naturally, due to the suspension of ammunition under the wing (2000 kg). At the same time, suspension of bombs of 1000 kg caliber was allowed. The maximum flight range remained the same - 3000 km, but in combat conditions it did not exceed 2600 km with 1000 kg of bombs.
Anything happened in the biography of TB-3 - both ups and downs. It is impossible to list all emergency situations, but one of them will interest the reader. In October 1938, a bomber with M-34RN engines, piloted by pilot M.A. Gurov, approached a thundercloud at an altitude of 4200 meters. The airship was thrown into a dive with a left turn. All attempts by the crew to bring the plane, which had accelerated to an exorbitant speed, out of its dive were in vain. As a result, TB-3 began to collapse. First the tail unit fell off, then the chart room. The rest of the fuselage, as the investigation showed, broke between frames 12 and 13. Almost simultaneously, the skin was torn off from both planes of the load-bearing surface. Of the eleven crew members, only eight managed to escape by parachute.
On the latest series of TB-3M-34RN, the landing gear bogies were replaced with two-meter wheels and the shape of the forward part of the fuselage was changed in connection with the installation of a shielded turret similar to the DB-A bomber. Four Aviaarktika aircraft, originally intended to land an expedition to the North Pole, were also produced in a similar configuration.
At the Experimental Institute of the NKTP, headed by P.I. Grokhovsky, and then at KB-29 under the leadership of Privalov, suspension devices for military equipment and vehicles under the fuselage of a bomber were developed. The TB-3 was used to transport artillery pieces, motorcycles, and in August 1935, military tests were carried out on the suspension of the T-27 light tank. In the same year, the R-52 - TB-3 object with two 76 mm caliber guns mounted on it was tested.
In 1933, experiments were carried out on in-flight refueling from R-5 and TB-3 aircraft, and a gasoline and oil refueling tank for ground vehicles was also tested (TB-3 No. 22453, modified at the UVVS Design Bureau). Three years later, they tested another device for transferring fuel from a flying tanker to a bomber.
The first attempt to significantly increase the altitude of the TB-3 was a proposal to equip it with a central pressurization unit with an M-103 (ATsN-1) engine, developed at CIAM under the leadership of S. A. Treskin and G. S. Skubachevsky in the fall of 1935. This would allow ceiling up to 9000–10,000 meters. However, by that time the TB-3 was considered an obsolete bomber, and it did not get to the point of building a high-altitude version of it. The idea of the ACN did not disappear and was implemented in the TB-7 aircraft.
In the summer of 1939, another attempt was made to improve the aircraft's performance. The AM-34RN engines were equipped with TK-1 turbochargers and VRSh-34 adjustable pitch propellers. Tests carried out by pilots Lisitsyn, V. Datsko and A. Khripkov in July - August showed that the practical ceiling reached 8000 meters (they never rose to the estimated 8900 meters due to the low efficiency of the propellers). The maximum speed in comparison with the serial TB-3 remained virtually unchanged, but retained its value up to 284 km/h. As a result, they decided that it was inappropriate to modernize the bomber.
In 1936, several TB-3s were equipped with uprated AM-34FRN engines, which made it possible to increase its speed to 300 km/h and its ceiling to 8000 meters. However, these motors had a low service life, did not pass state tests and could not be used on production vehicles. Nevertheless, in October of the same year, A. B. Yumashev’s crew set six world records. A control load weighing 5000 kg was raised to a height of 8116 meters, and then to a height of 8960 meters, a load weighing 10,000 kg - to 6605 meters, and 12,000 kg - to 2700 meters. These achievements raised the prestige of the USSR as a leading aviation power, but did not contribute to strengthening the country's defense capability.
As they were removed from service, the aircraft were transferred to the Civil Air Fleet and operated under the designation G-2. The commercial load due to the removal of weapons and special equipment increased significantly and on aircraft with M-17 engines reached 4500 kg, although the volume of the fuselage could not always accommodate the cargo planned for transportation. The vehicles were used mainly for transporting goods to hard-to-reach and remote areas of the country.
The last expedition carried out on it under the designation ANT-6 was the study of areas adjacent to the Pole of Inaccessibility in the Arctic Ocean in 1941. Calculations showed that in order to carry out the entire research program, its take-off weight had to be at least 27,740 kg, which more than three tons exceeded the permitted limit. The expedition ended brilliantly, another blank spot was erased from the map, and TB-3 showed that it had large reserves of carrying capacity, which were gradually revealed during operation.
In 1932, Japan occupied Manchuria and its troops were stationed along the border with the Soviet Union for clearly unfriendly purposes, while the navy of the Land of the Rising Sun dominated the Far Eastern seas. In this situation, the Soviet government sent a formation of 150 TB-3 to the Far East, the range of which made it possible to reach any point in Japan. This immediately sobered up the samurai and pushed back the armed conflict.
However, in the summer of 1938, Japanese troops invaded the USSR in the area of Lake Khasan. Rifle units were supported from the air by 250 aircraft, including 60 TB-3s. This was the first time a heavy bomber was used in combat. But the lesson the samurai learned did not benefit them.
In the spring of next year they started an armed conflict on the Khalkhin Gol River. And again the TB-3s got involved in combat work, flying 166 sorties. In addition to carrying out bombing strikes, TB-3 (mainly at night) delivered ammunition and food to combat areas and took out the sick and wounded.
By that time, our country had three special-purpose aviation armies (SAF), the basis of which were heavy bombers, intended both to independently solve strategic problems - carrying out bombing strikes, and to support airborne troops (Airborne Forces).
For the first time, the capabilities of the Airborne Forces were demonstrated in 1934 at maneuvers of the Belarusian Military District, and a year later, during exercises near Minsk, the sky was “decorated” with 1,800 parachutes. Observers, including foreign ones, were even more surprised by the landing force of 5,700 people with heavy weapons, vehicles with guns, light tanks and armored vehicles.
Thirty paratroopers were placed in the center section and on planks laid above the bomb bay doors. People sat in darkness and cramped conditions; there was a strong wind blowing through numerous cracks. We jumped from turret cutouts in the fuselage, from both wing planes. It was difficult for the paratroopers, but there were no other aircraft capable of solving similar problems.
TB-3's assets included participation in the war with Finland, the Polish campaign and the liberation campaigns of the Red Army in the Baltic states and Bessarabia.
By the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, the TB-3 was already a very outdated heavy bomber, but despite this, it accounted for 13% of the strength of Long-Range Aviation. During the war, TB-3s were also used to transport goods. Thus, the 7th Heavy Bomber Regiment transported up to 100 tons of food to besieged Leningrad in one flight. The TB-3 took part in hostilities until 1944, but even after that it was used for some time to deliver cargo.
In 1941, the 81st Long-Range Air Division, commanded by M.V. Vodopyanov, included a special air group of remote-controlled aircraft led by A.G. Fedorov. It included three TB-3 and one SB and DB-3. At the end of August, preparations began in the Moscow region for guiding unmanned aircraft to a target. To solve this problem, polar pilots E.K. Pusep, A.N. Tyagunin, N.N. Ponomarenko and others, as well as other specialists, were involved.
Within a week, the pilot cabins on the TB-3 were re-equipped with radio control equipment installed. The cargo compartments were filled with explosives. Radio transmitters with radio command panels were installed on the SB and DB-3 bombers. The crews practiced leaving aircraft by parachute. During training, the TB-3 flew in front, followed by SB or DB-3 guidance aircraft at a slight elevation and at a distance of 150–200 meters.
The only attempt, which was not crowned with success, was made to use the radio-controlled TB-3 in combat to destroy the bridge across the Volga near the city of Kalinin (Tver).
The limited space of the book does not allow us to cover the numerous night bombing attacks, flights to the partisans and landings. TB-3 quietly carried out the tasks assigned to it by the military. And there were no special situations in his combat work, with the exception of those described. The flights of the crews of combat vehicles were rarely without casualties; sometimes they returned with damaged engines and on the last drops of fuel, but after a few days they found themselves back in service and so on for almost three years of war.
The TB-3 was stable, easy to fly and reliable in flight in all modes, accessible to average pilots, which contributed to its rapid mastery. An example of this is an incident that occurred in October 1941 at an airfield near the Russian village of Kuvshinovka near Vyazma. “The day was just beginning,” said Vasily Ivanovich Yakubovich, “when the gaze of the pilot K. Ivanov, who came out of the building of the village school, turned into a dormitory for the personnel of the 1st heavy bomber air regiment (later became the guards) of the 53rd aviation division, opened an unexpected picture . A German officer came out of a black limousine and said something like this in Russian: “Now our troops will be here.” Leave before it’s too late.” And indeed, a long column appeared in the distance. The technician on duty at the hostel, Troshin, sounded the alarm, and everyone rushed to the airfield to get to the planes.”
Who it was - our intelligence officer in German uniform or a sympathetic Wehrmacht officer - still remains a mystery. But the fact itself cannot be denied.
At the airfield at that time there was a squadron of Siberians on SB planes without fuel and TB-3s of the 1st Tank Battalion who had just returned from a mission, as well as a unit of the airborne battalion of Captain I. Starchak.
One of the first to take off was the plane of squadron commander Chirskov, followed by the TB-3, piloted by P. Balashov.
“Ahead of me,” recalled F. Orlov, who later became a Hero of the Soviet Union, “the plane of the first squadron was taxiing. With his tail half-lowered, he began to take off in the direction of the Germans and took off somehow strangely, turned sharply, and could not maintain his direction. True, I had no time to watch him, but it was easy to guess that someone inexperienced was sitting at the helm. Judging by the tail number, it should have been Sasha Makagonov.”
But there was another plane without a commander - the “yellow three” from the first squadron. “When we ran to the airfield,” said V.I. Yakubovich, “it turned out that the commander of our ship was not there. There was no time to search for him either. Then, at his own peril and risk, engineer Shvidchenko took his place. True, the co-pilot, junior lieutenant Lvov, was there, but he had no experience of independent flights on the TB-3.
Our plane stood apart from the others, and therefore we took off from a standstill, and right ahead there was a huge haystack. It seemed that we would crash just a little, but Lvov “blew up” the car in time, and everything turned out well. Already in the air we saw German tanks driving into the airfield, shooting. The gunners of our planes shot the Germans with machine guns on takeoff, sparing no ammunition. And on the ground there was a battle. Starchak's battalion held back the Germans. This flight ended safely with landing at the Myachkovo airfield near Moscow. Soon the pilot Zhuravlev arrived to us, and upon returning to the regiment we learned about P. Balashov’s flight. As far as I remember, the flight mechanic of the plane was N. Lozin, who was awarded the medal “For Courage” for that flight.”
According to statistics from the former Ministry of Aviation Industry, the TB-3 was built at three enterprises. Plant No. 18 delivered five aircraft to the customer in 1934, No. 39 delivered 50 in 1932–1934, Filyovsky Plant No. 22 built 355 bombers with M-17 engines in 1932–1933, 111 with M engines in 1933–1934 -34, in 1935–1936 - 150 with M-34R, 23 with M-34RB and 101 with AM-34RN. In total, all plants delivered 873 aircraft of the TB-3 family to the customer. In September 1940, the lion's share of these aircraft (521 copies, both with M-17 and M-34 engines) were in combat units of the Air Force. In the Navy aviation there are 12 TB-3 with M-17 engines and 16 with M-34 engines. By the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, the Air Force had six air regiments armed with TB-3.
In May 1945, Civil Air Fleet specialists made their verdict regarding the future fate of TB-3. In their opinion, the already low performance characteristics of the G-2 (converted TB-3), which had significantly deteriorated during operation due to the weighting of the airframe by an average of 1000 kg, and the severe wear and tear of the aircraft and M-17 engines by that time made the aircraft unprofitable . In addition, with continued use of the aircraft in hot climates (it was operated mainly in Central Asia), the flight weight was reduced at a temperature of +40° by 2000 kg, and its load capacity - from 4000 to 2000 kg.
The situation was no better with the G-2, equipped with M-34RN engines, although it had advantages over the G-2 with the M-17.
The life cycle of the TB-3 ended in 1946 after a government decree was issued to write off the remaining vehicles. Only fragments of the giant that once surprised Europe have survived to this day. But all is not lost. They say that a Polar Aviation aircraft is securely stored under the snow cover of one of the northern islands.
Work on the future TB-3 bomber began with an order from the Ostekhburo, which proposed back in 1925 that TsAGI develop an aircraft that was quite original in its purpose. According to the plan, this heavy four-engine vehicle, conventionally called T1-4RTZ, was intended for transporting large-sized cargo on an external sling. In June 1926, the Scientific and Technical Committee (STC) at the UVVS reviewed the technical specifications for the aircraft and added to everything else the functions of a night bomber. Due to the great complexity of the design, the work begun by Tupolev in December 1925 dragged on for three years. The preliminary drawing of the ANT-6 was ready at the beginning of 1927, and on February 18, 1929, the Ostekhburo entered into an agreement with TsAGI for the construction of a prototype. The aircraft retained common features with the TB-1, inheriting its signature fuselage shape and corrugated skin. They decided to install foreign engines - at first they counted on Packard engines (800 hp), but then settled on Curtiss “Conqueror” (600 hp). While the design bureau was finalizing the drawings, the military “corrected” their assignment several times and even planned to install the ANT-6 on floats. As a result, due to the lack of suitable “watercraft” (and not only in the USSR, but in the world in general) capable of supporting such an impressive aircraft, this idea was abandoned, but they wanted to use some components of the bomber in the construction of a flying boat.
In October 1929, the TsAGI workshops began assembling the first prototype. The assembly of the aircraft was delayed because the domestic industry was unable to provide the manufacturing plants with the necessary materials, so some parts and equipment had to be purchased abroad. In addition, the Air Force demanded to increase the payload, range and ceiling of the bomber, almost completely abandoning transport functions.
On February 21 and March 21, 1930, the aircraft project was reviewed by a mock-up commission and, after making a number of comments, nevertheless approved it. By September 28, the first ANT-6 was ready and on October 31, it was prepared for testing. Flights on the experimental aircraft were conducted by M.M. Gromov, but the first flight on December 22 almost ended in disaster - the gas sectors of the American engines, not having a reliable fixation, became loose and the pilot had difficulty bringing the aircraft to the airfield. Unreliable engines were replaced with German BMW-VIE 7.3 (730 hp).
On April 25, 1931, the improved aircraft was again put into testing. The new ANT-6, in addition, had a larger tail surface, which improved stability in flight. After successful completion of state tests, the ANT-6 was recommended for mass production under the designation TB-3. Production vehicles differed from the prototype by additional shooting points under the wing and Soviet M-17 engines.
To build the TB-3, plant No. 22 was allocated, which began mastering the design of the aircraft in June 1930. It was given a plan to build a pilot batch of eight bombers in 1930-1931, and by April 28, 1932, the plant had delivered 10 TB-3s, which had so many defects that they were unsafe to fly. Nevertheless, the planes were prepared for the May Day parade, and only through the incredible efforts of the mechanics and pilots was this demonstration flight successful.
In the fall, plant No. 39 was connected to the production of TB-3 - the first aircraft was produced there in December 1932, and by the beginning of 1933, both plants had delivered 160 bombers instead of the planned 100. During operation and mass production, many changes were made to the TB-3 design . For example, since the end of 1933, all aircraft had a smooth, rather than corrugated, wing tip. The increased weight of the aircraft was reduced by dismantling bulkheads, stairs and other non-essential structural elements. The M-17/17B engines were replaced with more powerful M-17F. It was the TB-3-4M-17 modifications that made up the majority of all bombers produced.
In the fall of 1931, they planned to install domestic M-34 engines (635\830 hp) on the TB-3, hoping to increase the speed of the aircraft. In January 1933, one aircraft was equipped with a similar engine installation, but the increase in speed was very small - only 10 km/h. Next, the M-34 was installed on three more bombers, resulting in the opposite effect. Planes began to fly even slower. However, a series with the M-34 was nevertheless launched at plant No. 22, considering that the best option would be to install geared M-34Rs, which increased the efficiency of the propeller at low flight speeds.
At the same time, the factory workers modernized the aircraft. Motorcycle hoods were made more streamlined, with a different arrangement of radiators. An additional F-4 section appeared in the rear fuselage, in which a Tur-4 turret with a pair of DA machine guns was placed. The rudder was also slightly modified, raising it and making a cutout for the aft turret. The rear wheels were made with brakes, rubber shock absorbers were replaced with oil-air ones. Tests of the TB-3-4M-34R took place from September 27 to October 6, 1933. The technical specifications of the aircraft increased, which allowed the main Air Force to issue an order to cease production of all earlier modifications of the aircraft, although bombers with M-17 and M-34 engines were produced before beginning of 1934. Serial copies of TB-3-4M-34R had a number of differences, the most important of which were:
Replacing a tail spike with a wheel
No propeller spinners
Absence of the upper front turret of the Tur-5
Improvement of instrumentation (an attitude indicator, an electric pneumatic mail line between the pilot and navigator, and an AFA-15 camera were installed on the plane, instead of the old “Potte”).
This modification was sometimes referred to in documents as TB-3R. For flights abroad, nine aircraft were brought to the TB-3RD standard (with M-34RD engines), improving their aerodynamics and removing almost all military equipment. The squadron took part in flights to Warsaw, Rome and Paris.
At the beginning of 1934, M-34RN engines with drive superchargers began to be installed on the TB-3. The use of supercharging led to an increase in the aircraft's altitude and an improvement in its speed characteristics. Moreover, the bomber has changed in appearance. Instead of paired wheeled carts, two large diameter wheels were used. The engines were covered with new hoods with significantly improved shapes and rotated propellers with a diameter of 4.1 meters. Numerous open-type rifle turrets were replaced with shielded Tur-8s with one ShKAS machine gun. The tail turret received a sliding visor, and underwing rifle mounts were not installed at all. Through this modernization, it was possible to increase the speed of the bomber to 288 km/h, versus 179 km/h for aircraft with M-17 and M-34 engines. In total, Plant No. 22 assembled 74 such aircraft, after which the company switched to producing bombers with M-34FRN (900 hp) and M-34FRNV engines. The modified TB-3s were equipped with additional fuel tanks in the wing consoles and improved instrumentation. In particular, the SPU-7R intercom and VHF radio station RES appeared. All modifications of the bomber, starting with the TB-3-4M-34RN, had an increased wingspan, rounded stabilizer tips and developed fairings between the wing and fuselage.
Serial construction of the TB-3 was completed in the spring of 1938, when Plant No. 22 produced the last bomber of this type. A total of 819 TB-3 aircraft were assembled.
They tried to raise the TTD of the bomber using different methods. In accordance with the requirements of senior management in the OKDVA Air Force, the TB-3-4M-17F was designed with a reduced number of weapons and a reduced crew. In this simple way they planned to increase the speed and increase the range of the aircraft to 1200 km. The project was not implemented.
In 1935, Charomsky diesel engines were installed on one of the serial TB-3s, which made it possible to increase the flight range to 4280 km. The plane was completely built, but probably never flew.
A year later, TK-1 turbochargers were installed on the TB-3-4M-34FRNV. This installation did not work very reliably, and although the TTD of the bomber at high altitudes increased, such a modification was not mass-produced.
The aircraft was tested in both the roles of a tanker and a refueled bomber. In 1933-1936. conducted a series of experiments, with the R-5 acting as a tanker. The TB-3R (equipped with the AZ-21 kit) was used to refuel the I-5 and I-16 fighters (with the AZ-22 kits) in flight. The same TB-3R was used to transport fuel for tanks and vehicles, installing two B-1000 tanks with 2140 liters of fuel in its bomb bay.
In 1935, TB-3s were actively used for airdropping. Standardly, the plane could accommodate 20 parachutists, but the TB-3 could take 30-40 people when overloaded. When installing the PG-12 suspension, it was possible to suspend a T-37 type tank or a cargo of similar weight under the bomber.
Particularly on the list of TB-3 modifications are flight aircraft. Depending on the type of aircraft transported by the bomber, their number varied. First of all, they wanted to equip Far Eastern aviation with similar combinations, where they planned to create five squadrons of “flights”. In fact, it was possible to organize only one, operating on the Black Sea in 1941-1942.
A torpedo bomber version was being developed specifically for naval aviation. Under the bomber it was possible to freely hang two torpedoes of the TAV-15 or TAV-27 type, and the latter was still in a state of development at the time the assignment was issued. In September 1934, a prototype torpedo bomber was produced, which conducted several flights with torpedoes on board. The experiment was not successful due to defects in the torpedo weapon. In the same vein, TB-3 was tested with MAV-1 and MAV-2 mines.
In July-August 1936, one TB-3 from the 2nd TBAB Lenovo participated in experiments on the suspension of the planned radio-controlled PT torpedo. The system was not adopted for service, although during the war something similar appeared among the Japanese.
At the same time, a special TB-3, called “Batterened,” went out for testing. In this version, all protruding parts were completely removed, weapons and unnecessary equipment were dismantled. The corrugated lining was replaced with smooth one. Through such modifications, it was possible to slightly increase the speed of the car, although other characteristics remained almost at the same level. Thus, it became finally clear that the TB-3 is an aircraft of yesterday and it is unlikely that it will be possible to create a heavy bomber on its basis that meets the rapidly increasing requirements of the time. An example is the DB-A, designed by Bolkhovitinov, but the conversation about it is already beyond the scope of the TB-3 topic.
The first serial TB-3-4M-17 began to arrive at the 3rd TBAB in the spring of 1932. In the fall, there were already 13 bombers flying as part of the OKDVA Air Force. Aircraft production was rapidly increasing, so to protect the eastern borders in the Far Eastern District, by November 1933, 86 such bombers were concentrated as part of six bomber air corps (BAC). For some time, TB-3s flew alongside TB-1s, gradually displacing the latter into training and transport squadrons.
The operation of the TB-3 did not go smoothly at all. Aircraft of different series in turn suffered from various kinds of design defects, most of which were in the engine installation and radiators, which on the TB-3R leaked and collapsed after 10-20 hours of operation. A lot of criticism was caused by the weak design of the tail wheel fork, which did not withstand field conditions. Many of the planes did not have bomb sights. Naturally, all these and other shortcomings were corrected by repair teams at the TB-3 base sites, partially modernizing them. At the end of the 30s, some aircraft received ShKAS machine guns and an RPK-2B radio compass. At the same time, the bomber turned out to be quite a durable machine. It was stable in flight and pleasant to pilot.
In mid-1935, 36 squadrons, mostly located in the Far East, were armed with TB-3 and TB-3R bombers. With the disappearance of the threat of war from Japan, aircraft gradually began to return to the European part of the country, but already in 1938 it was replaced by a new aircraft - the DB-3. Outdated bombers were transferred to second line units and aviation schools, although in no hurry to completely replace them with Ilyushin aircraft. Serial production of the newest TB-7 was delayed, so they decided not to rush to remove the TB-3 from service.
In 1937, six TB-3RNs were redeployed to China, with Chinese designations applied to them. While Soviet pilots were flying the planes (the group was commanded by G.I. Thor), everything worked out without serious breakdowns or incidents. On May 20, 1938, the group raided Japan, bombarding the cities of Sasebo, Nagasaki and Fukoku with tons of leaflets, causing even greater respect among the Japanese for the power of Soviet aviation in the Far East. As soon as the Soviet crews handed over the TB-3RN to the Chinese, they, lacking the proper skills to pilot such aircraft, quickly destroyed one machine, and the rest were soon rendered unflyable.
In the summer of 1938, TB-3s actively participated in the bombing of Japanese troops on Lake Khasan. On August 6, the most massive raid in the entire history of the aircraft took place - 60 TB-3s were the first to drop their bombs on the enemy, after which the SB, I-16 and I-15 took over. The effect was impressive. Then the need for such raids disappeared and TB-3 was switched to cargo transportation.
At Khalkhin Gol, a separate group of 23 TB-3 began combat operations on the night of July 7-8, 1939. 3-9 vehicles took off with a maximum bomb load of 2000 kg. In general, the intensity of combat use of TB-3s in Mongolia was not too high and several aircraft were used as ambulances and transports.
During the invasion of Poland in September 1939, TB-3s did not fly combat missions to bomb enemy forces. Only one plane, used for transport purposes, made an emergency landing on territory occupied by the Germans and was soon returned.
The Finnish War brought its first losses. TB-3s often flew out on combat missions during the day and without fighter cover, which was the main reason for the loss of two aircraft. The first one was shot down by Finnish air defense on February 13 - the bomber landed on the ice of the lake and, after a battle with the crew, was finished off by mortars. The second was shot down by a fighter on March 10, 1940. However, the old TB-3s flew very successfully. Moreover, it was the only aircraft capable of lifting a 2000-kg bomb, so necessary for the destruction of fortifications on the Mannerheim Line, and its role as a transport aircraft for supplying encircled Soviet troops cannot be overestimated.
1 TBAP and 3 TBAP of the 3rd DBAC - 108 aircraft (94 serviceable)
7 TBAP 1st DBAC – 44 (18) aircraft
14 TBAP 18 BAD – 39 (32) aircraft
Thus, the TB-3 grouping near the western borders was quite strong (there were a total of 191 vehicles of various modifications), which the Soviet command immediately took advantage of, mediocrely losing almost half of the aircraft in battles with the Germans. The 1st and 3rd TBAPs entered the war on June 22, bombing the advancing German units without losses. The 7th and 14th regiments joined them in the next two days, but this did not reduce the activity of their combat use. The most unlucky of them turned out to be 3 TBAP - on June 23, the regiment lost one of the four TB-3s sent for reconnaissance (!) of enemy tank columns, on June 29, German fighters and air defense destroyed two more groups of bombers bombing the enemy near Bobruisk, and the total losses were 30 June amounted to 11 aircraft.
The most terrible episode in the combat career of TB-3 occurred in the 14th TBAP. On July 10, 1941, twelve bombers took off to bomb the Zhitomir region during the day and without fighter cover. Over the target, the group was attacked by two Bf-109Es - one fighter was immediately shot down by riflemen’s fire, but the second showed miracles of accuracy, shooting down seven aircraft!
Fortunately, such cases did not recur, although in Soviet literature and foreign sources the TB-3 is considered an old and worthless aircraft. This is far from true.
Having recovered from such impressive losses in the first months of the war, the TB-3 units, in which 84 aircraft remained (almost all the aircraft were lost in battle, the Germans destroyed 16 aircraft at the airfields and captured about a dozen more at the airfields and in places of emergency landings), were completed with aircraft , sent from the Far Eastern districts. In March 1942, the 62nd and 53rd BAD of three regiments arrived at the front. But back in July 1941, the 325th TBAP was formed in Ukraine with 22 aircraft from aviation schools, and the 250th TBAP with 49 aircraft was sent from the Far East. In the fall, the 39th UAE arrived from Iran with 12 TB-3-4M-17 bombers. Of these three squadrons and regiments that joined the ranks of TB-3 in 1941, not one lived to see victory.
The main task of the TB-3 since 1942 was night bombing. Flying in this capacity, the bombers achieved the greatest success, even surpassing to some extent the more modern TB-7. Along the way, the aircraft were modernized - they were equipped with UBT machine guns on UTK-1 and BS turrets in hatch installations. The aircraft were equipped with NKPB-3 night sights and AFA-19 cameras. The use of large groups of TB-3 has become rare. Basically, 2-3 planes took off and could make several sorties during the night. Gradually we learned to fight air defense. The gunners extinguished the searchlights from the lower machine guns, and the Bf-109 was rarely able to catch, much less destroy, the huge bomber. The twin-engine Bf-110s caused enormous problems - thanks to their powerful cannon armament, these interceptors inflicted very painful blows at times. After meeting with this German fighter, the TB-3 had very little chance of emerging from the battle unscathed.
TB-3 was very actively used in landing operations in 1941-1942. The first successful action was the drop of paratroopers in the Slutsk area on June 29, 1941, with the participation of 24 bombers. Further, TB-3s quite successfully coped with transport functions, transporting fuel and military equipment. For example, on October 3, 1941, 40 aircraft took part in the transfer of T-38 tanks near Mtsensk. Subsequently, the 7th and 14th TBAPs supplied besieged Leningrad, and the 53rd and 62nd air regiments participated in the Battle of Stalingrad, and not only as transport ones.
Intensive combat use of the TB-3 continued until the battle on the Kursk Bulge, where aircraft of the 7th Guards TBAP were involved. There were fewer combat losses, but this did not save the TB-3 from aging. Due to wear and tear and lack of spare parts for the M-17 and M-34 engines, quite a lot of bombers were written off. The last to fly the TB-3RN was the 52nd Guards TBAP - its aircraft took part in the Victory Parade and were withdrawn from the Air Force in the fall of 1946.
Sources:
V.N. Shunkov “Red Army”. Moscow. AST\Minsk. Harvest. 2003
V. Kotelnikov “Strike power of the Red Army Air Force” (“History of Aviation” 2001-05)
V. Kotelnikov “Red Star Landing” (“AviaMaster” 2004-08)
V. Kotelnikov “Air battleship of the 2nd class” (“History of Aviation” 2002-05)
V. Kotelnikov “Battleship of Stalin’s Falcons” (“Aviation and Time” 1997-04)
V. Ratkin “Combat account of TB-3” (“World of Aviation” 1997-02)
Tactical and technical data of TB-3 heavy bombers
1933 |
TB-3 4M-34FRN 1936 |
|
| Length, m | 25,40 | 25,18 |
| Wingspan, m | 39,50 | 41,62 |
| Wing area, m | 230,00 | 234,50 |
| Height, m | 8,50 | |
| Empty weight, kg | 10967 | |
| Takeoff weight, kg | 19500 | 18877 |
| Speed max., km/h | 177 | 300 |
| Ground speed, km/h | 197 | 245 |
| Cruise speed, km/h | 182 | |
| Range, km | 1350 | 1960 |
| Ceiling, km | 3800 | 7740 |
| Engine, type\hp | four in-line M-17F, 715 hp. | four in-line M-34RFN, 970 hp. |
| Crew, people | 9-10 | |
| Small arms, type/caliber | four to eight 7.62 mm machine guns YES | four 7.62 mm ShKAS machine guns | up to 4000 kg bombs |
In the skies of China
TB-3 first took part in combat operations in the summer and autumn of 1937. They acted against the “internal enemy” - the Basmachi in the Pamirs. To support the operations of border guards and units of the Red Army, 30 R-5s and three TB-3s were then brought in. The latter transported people and goods to hard-to-reach areas.
And the first war in which these machines were involved was the Japanese-Chinese one. Shortly after the Japanese attack, on August 21, China and the USSR entered into a mutual assistance treaty. Already in September, the Soviet leadership began to carry out Operation Zet - the supply of combat aircraft to China.
In mid-September, they began to select crews for TB-3. As a matter of fact, these machines have been in Chinese skies before. Bombers of the Trans-Baikal District Air Force from time to time got lost and ended up in the airspace of their neighbors. Since the Chinese not only did not have air defense, but also did not have an intelligent surveillance service, everything ended well. Unless, according to the reports of our border guards, it was possible to end up in trouble. So, in February 1934, the pilot Kostromin crossed the border in a night flight, but after 50 minutes, having gained his bearings, he returned to our side.
Now we were talking about servicing the Alma-Ata-Lanzhou route, along which they were going to ferry planes to China. Transport TB-3, along with ANT-9 and DB-3, transported specialists and cargo along it. Soon fighters and high-speed bombers flew along the route to China.
Then the question arose about transferring the TB-ZRN batch to the Chinese side. On October 22, six heavy bombers flew to Alma-Ata. The planes were not new; they had already been in service with the Red Army Air Force for about a year. Four cars were taken from the 23rd TAB and two were transported from Rostov. The detachment was commanded by Captain Dontsov. Unlike the I-16 and I-15bis fighters and SB bombers, a significant portion of which were to be flown by Soviet pilots, the TB-3s were intended for use by the Chinese. Our crews acted only as drivers and instructors.
The planes took off from Almaty with additional cargo: ten FAB-100 bombs in the fuselage and two FAB-500 or four FAB-250 bombs under the wings. In addition, they carried two rounds of ammunition. On October 27, TB-3 landed in Urumqi and then continued along the highway without incident until Lanzhou, where they arrived on the 31st.
Here the planes were officially handed over to the Chinese authorities. Soviet identification marks were painted over already in Almaty. Now, white twelve-pointed stars on a blue background were applied to the planes and the fuselage, and a blue and white zebra stripe (four blue and three white horizontal stripes) was applied to the rudder.
Chinese crews began training in Lanzhou. At the end of November, a Chinese pilot “attacked” one plane so much that it had to be written off. On November 30, the remaining five with mixed Soviet-Chinese crews flew to Nanchang. There they were covered by Japanese bombers. On December 13, the emergency vehicles were supposed to take off and relocate, but they did not have time. The Japanese destroyed two planes and seriously damaged two. On December 25, three TB-3s, including two repaired ones, returned to Lanzhou. The Chinese did not use heavy bombers for their intended purpose. Together with the S.72s purchased in Italy before the war, they transported people and cargo. On March 16, 1938, one of the engines failed on the TB-3, piloted by Guo Chia-yan and Zhang Jun-yi. The pilots decided to return back, but crashed in the Tsipan mountain gorge. Of the 25 Soviet volunteers on board, only two survived. The entire crew died. Fighter pilot D.A. Kudymov recalled that he had previously flown on this plane from Hankou to Lanzhou. The commander, taking off, did not even check whether there was enough fuel. The air has run out of fuel. Having barely crossed the mountain ridge, the bomber landed at the foot of the mountains among boulders, about half a kilometer short of the runway. “We got out of the plane outraged and angry to the limit. The TB pilot laughed..."
In 1938, in Chengdu, a Chinese pilot put another TB-3 on its nose, missing during landing. He rolled off the airfield and fell into a swamp. A Soviet mechanic later wrote: “The navigator’s cabin was raised up like the snout of a rhinoceros.” The cabin was repaired, the propellers were changed, after which the plane was flown to Lanzhou.
TB-3s of the Red Army Air Force also appeared in China, but in small numbers and not for long - only as transport ones. So, in November 1937, three TB-3s delivered bombs and cartridges to Lanzhou from the warehouses of the Trans-Baikal Military District. The planes were en route through Ulaanbaatar. On the way, they were accompanied by a pair of P-5s - not so much for security, but in case of an emergency landing.
In general, the TB-3's career in China turned out to be very short and not at all glorious.
Khasan, Khalkin-Gol and the campaign to Poland
The first real combat targets of the TB-3 had to be hit on their native soil. In the summer of 1938, they took part in the battles near Lake Khasan in the Far East. At the end of July, the Japanese took up positions on the Zaozernaya and Bezymyannaya hills on the Soviet side of the border. To knock them out, TB-3s with M-34 engines were ready to take off from there, they concentrated units of the Red Army, which supported 250 aircraft. These included 60 TB-3 under the command of A.V. Konovalova. On the evening of August 6, this entire armada fell on the trenches, artillery batteries and the rear of the Japanese group. TB-3 were in the first wave.
This was the first and only time when four-engine giants were used as originally intended - during the day, in large groups, with salvo bombing from a dense formation from medium altitudes, with complete air supremacy.
Then, support for the advancing tanks and infantry was provided mainly by SBs and fighters, and TB-3s switched to cargo transportation. The flood cut off the Soviet troops from the rear, and the planes carried crackers, butter, cereals and shag to the combat area.
Naval aviation was not involved in bombing, although its TB-3s were on duty at airfields with suspended bombs. They were also used to escort steamships heading to Posiet Bay. And the 1st 6th transport detachment participated in transporting food and ammunition to the front line.
TB-3s were also used at Khalkhin Gol. True, there were few of them there. After the outbreak of hostilities, two squadrons (formerly the 113th and 114th) were separated from the 4th TBAP, based at Domno station in Transbaikalia, and transferred to Mongolia, to the Obo-Somon area. By May 1, seven TB-3s with M-17 engines arrived at the Air Force in the 57th Rifle Corps (they were also called “Comrade Feklenko’s Air Force”, after the surname of the corps commander, and in official documents too), and four more were preparing for departure to Mongolia. They formed the 1st 9th transport and sanitary squadron, sometimes also called “Major Egorov’s group”; a little later it was increased to 23 aircraft. Two other squadrons of the 4th Tank Battalion remained in Domno and were used as transport squadrons.
As a matter of fact, at first all TB-3s at Khalkhin Gol served as transport ones. The nearest railway was hundreds of kilometers away. Everything was transported either by car or by air. TB-3 was shuttled along the Tamtsag - Bulak - Chita route. Weapons, people, ammunition, uniforms, and medicine were transported to the front. One time, three vehicles delivered equipment to a printing house, which began printing leaflets in Japanese, Chinese and Mongolian. In total, TB-3 transported 1885 tons of cargo. The wounded were being transported back - 15-20 people per plane.
TB-3, which was not specially adapted for transporting the wounded, usually took six to eight seriously and 14 lightly wounded, and the equipped one - 12 seriously and six lightly wounded. The stretchers were placed on three floors in the center section, next to the gas tanks. Seated wounded were placed in the fuselage and on planes.
Already during the operations at Khalkhin Gol, in July 1939, the Sanitary Institute of the Red Army prepared a special project for the sanitary TB-3 and asked to allocate a vehicle for conversion. On August 5, the Air Force proposed to take five bombers from Rzhev and modify them at plant No. 84 in Khimki. Overloaded with orders, the plant refused. Apparently, the sanitary TB-3s never appeared. The vehicles of the 4th Tbap were retrofitted on site independently in the simplest way.
TB-3 made more than 500 transport flights. In all cases, cargo and people were safely delivered to their destination. On one plane, during a flight to Chita, the right engine closest to the fuselage caught fire. The fire was extinguished in the air and we arrived at our destination. On another car, the radiator leaked during the flight. The flight engineer, tied with a halyard to the fuselage rail, walked along the plane with a can of water in his hand and topped up the system with a hand pump.
When the Soviet-Mongolian forces began preparing for the offensive, TB-3s from Obo-Somon switched to the role of night bombers. The first flight took place on the night of August 19-20. We approached the targets one by one. The front line was marked by lanterns located 3-7 km from the front edge and positioned so that they were visible only when approaching from our rear. About 8 km from the front line there was a landmark 50-meter arrow of lanterns.
Bombing was aimed at psychologically exhausting the enemy, and sometimes at noise masking the movements of troops on our side. Therefore, we then switched to the tactics of flying single aircraft at different times. Every night 6-20 ships took off. Each TB-3 took up to 1300 kg of small-caliber bombs; in total they dropped 25 tons per night.
Usually, the target was first illuminated by SABs, then, slowly, they made several passes, dropping bombs from a height of 1000-1500 m. Japanese anti-aircraft artillery fired at the bombers, but without much success. The only case recorded was when a TB-3 received significant damage - the engine of L. Varochkin’s plane was damaged over the front line. Nevertheless, he reached the target on three engines, bombed and returned to the airfield.
In general, until September 15, when the Japanese group capitulated, only one TB-3 was written off, and only after the accident. During this period, they made 160 combat sorties. During the Khalkhin Gol operation, these aircraft operated as night bombers for the first time. Assessment of their effectiveness may vary. On the one hand, they completed their task - they constantly harassed the enemy, exhausting his troops and not allowing them to sleep. The Air Force report of the 1st Army Group (to which the 57th Corps was deployed) states: “The experience of using night heavy aviation in the second stage was successful in the absence of night fighter aircraft and searchlights from the enemy. Her actions caused both moral and material damage to the enemy.” With regard to the second, the question is controversial. The search for dispersed targets near the front and in the near rear and their defeat at night turned out to be quite difficult, “... the results of night bombing were insignificant,” said a captured document from the headquarters of the Japanese 23rd Infantry Division. But in general, the experience of using TB-3 at night turned out to be quite successful.
The fighting in Mongolia had just ended when the TB-3s found themselves on the front line again. September 17, 1939 The Red Army crossed the border of Poland. A large air force was assembled for this operation. In the border Belarusian and Kiev military districts, there were 157 TB-3s, but the equipment was quite worn out, and about half of this number of aircraft were combat-ready. On the Belorussian Front in the 3rd TBAP, out of 75 aircraft, only 38 were serviceable. It is interesting that the aircraft of later production with the M-34 and M-34R were even inferior to the old bombers with the M-17 in terms of the percentage of combat readiness. Two thirds of the first in the Kiev district were chained to the ground.
TB-3 was assigned exclusively transport functions. At first they were used to transport ground personnel from air regiments redeployed to the front. When the troops crossed the border, it turned out that there was no enemy in front of them. On the Polish side there were scattered military units, most of them already battered by the Germans and withdrawn to the rear for replenishment. They were completely deprived of air cover. Many of them surrendered with existing equipment. Only the most persistent tried to break through to the Romanian or Hungarian borders, and even then, trying to avoid fighting with Soviet troops. The pace of the Red Army's advance far exceeded what was planned. The forward detachments were far removed from the supply bases. The air regiments that flew to the captured airfields were left without fuel and ammunition. This is where TB-3 came in handy.
So, for the horse-mechanized group named after. Dzerzhinsky, moving towards Grodno, the planes of the 3rd Tank Battalion for four days, from September 20 to 24, dropped by parachute or delivered 1,00 tons of fuel by landing method. The headquarters of the Air Force of the Belorussian Front itself, after relocating to Volkovysk, was fed for 1–8 days with food dropped by parachute. On the Ukrainian Front, similar transportation was carried out by the 14th Tank Battalion. He delivered people, ammunition, food. Operations in Poland ended by mid-October.
Against Finland
Already at the end of October, Air Force units that had completed the Polish campaign began to be transferred to the Leningrad Military District. A month later, the war with Finland began. It also could not do without TB-3.
A significant number of these vehicles were permanently based near Leningrad before the war. They were part of the 7th Tbap. After the outbreak of hostilities, equipment also arrived from the rear districts. The 2nd squadron of the 3rd tank regiment entered the 9th Army Air Force. The first five of its TB-3s flew from Borovsky near Kalinin to the Chiksha ice airfield in Karelia on January 9, 1940. Three more arrived after them. The “Spirin group” operating in the same sector of the front (commanded by brigade commander Spirin) included six TB-3s from the 1st Tank Battalion. They were transported from Rostov-on-Don on March 1. These aircraft were based at the Straits airfield.
At first, the four-engine giants flew out to bomb during the day, under the cover of old I-15bis fighters. Settlements, railway stations, and factories were bombed. But they tried not to let them into areas where Finnish fighters were actively operating - they were used mainly in secondary sectors of the front. Thus, in the zone of the 9th Army until January 1940, no enemy aircraft were seen at all.
They took different bombs - from small “lighters” and fragmentation AO-32 to FAB-500. The raids were carried out from altitudes of 2500-3000 m by single aircraft and small groups. In a similar way, TB-3, for example, bombed Kyurynsalmi and Suomussalmi.
But as the skill of Finnish anti-aircraft gunners and fighter pilots increased, and enemy aviation was replenished with more modern types of aircraft, Tupolev aircraft increasingly switched to a “night lifestyle”. The 9th Army Air Force report states: “The use of TB-3 aircraft as combat aircraft is impractical due to their large dimensions and low speed, and use during the day is completely unacceptable.”
The final point on daytime bombing missions was set by the incident with an aircraft from Spirin’s group, which occurred on March 10, 1940. The recently arrived TB-3s were released during the day to familiarize themselves with the area before night missions. They walked in a group without cover. The goal was Rovaniemi. At Vika station they were attacked by a lone Finnish fighter. Ours identified it as a “Gamecock” (in fact, it was a Swedish-made “Gladiator”, and the pilot G. Karlsson was also a Swede). He made several passes from below and from behind (the group included old vehicles without stern and “dagger” rifle installations). One of the TB-3s fell to the right and, descending, disappeared into the clouds. The bomber gunners opened fire indiscriminately. The fighter escaped without damage, but on two TB-3s that were not subject to its attacks, several bullet holes were later found in the stabilizers.
TB-3, whose commander was senior lieutenant ST. Karepov, made an emergency landing on enemy territory. The crew fought with Finnish soldiers who surrounded the car. All were killed except two who were taken prisoner. The then Air Force chief Smushkevich reacted very sharply to this incident: “In the future, I categorically prohibit the use of TB-3 during the day without my special permission.”
The four-engine giants were used as night bombers until the end of hostilities. In particular, they were used during the period of the breakthrough of the Mannerheim Line. They dropped bombs of 250, 500 and 1000 kg on fortified areas. But overall they flew more transport missions than bombing missions. In winter and off-road conditions, aviation often remained the only means of supplying troops on the front line.
Airplanes played a particularly important role in providing support to the 54th Infantry Division, which was cut off from its own by the Finns. For 45 days it was supplied only by air. All cargo was transferred to SB and TB-3. The latter turned out to be much more profitable for such operations. You can’t carry much on the SB - the bomb bay is small, and bulky PDMM bags were torn off from the external suspension already at a speed of more than 250 km/h. But TB-3 was filled to the brim. Food, shag, cigarettes, matches, vitamins were placed in bags, and the bags were packed in FAB-50 and FAB-100 bomb containers. Grenades were also transported. They were wrapped in rags, and hay or tow was placed in the bags. The cartridges were placed in bags in zinc, boxes and buckets. Overcoats, felt boots, blankets, padded jackets were simply tied into bales. All this was placed in bomb bays on makeshift wooden bridges or hung on external bomb racks. The drop was carried out without parachutes from a height of 50-400 m (depending on the situation). The passage of the TB-3 at low altitude in full view of the enemy was the most dangerous part of the task. Three vehicles were shot down by conventional infantry machine guns and small arms fire.
Shells, charges, PPD machine guns and disks for them, radio stations, batteries, telephones were dropped in PDMM parachute bags. If there were not enough special cargo vehicles, they attached combat landing gear PN-2 or PN-4. Gasoline was dumped in PDBB tanks or simply in barrels.
It was supply operations for the encircled units that made the greatest contribution to the losses of TB-3. One damaged TB-3 was forced to land at the command post of the 54th division, the crew remained alive. Another did not reach his airfield and landed in the forest: one crew member was killed, two were wounded. Two more cars were heavily damaged.
On February 13, an aircraft of the 7th Tank Battalion was damaged by anti-aircraft artillery after dropping cargo. The bomber landed on the ice of a frozen lake. Finnish soldiers rushed to the car. Her crew took up the fight. Only two wounded survived and were taken prisoner. The bomber itself was finished off with mortar fire.
Baltics and Bessarabia
The pre-war years, when exercises with the participation of airborne troops were regularly held, bore fruit. During the annexation of the Baltic states and Bessarabia to the USSR, large troops were landed in a combat situation. And they were dropped off with TB-3.
The 214th Airborne Brigade (Airborne) operated in Lithuania and Latvia. On June 16, 1940, 63 TB-3s transferred the first wave of landing forces - 720 people - to the airfield near Siauliai. The bombers were escorted by fighters from two squadrons of the 1st 7th Fighter Regiment (IAP). Each plane took 16-24 people plus two or three bags of PDMM. They also transported 160 machine guns and 36 mortars. From Siauliai, the paratroopers moved on the armor of tanks to Latvia.
A second wave landing, including 18 45 mm guns, was planned, but was cancelled. The landing at Gaijuni station with the aim of capturing Kaunas did not take place either.
TB-3s also provided supplies for mechanized columns rushing from the borders into the depths of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. At the same time, 1983 people and 768 tons of cargo were transported, 402 tons had to be dropped with parachutes. This entire operation was called in the documents “liquidation of the conflict with the Baltic countries.”
In preparation for a similar operation in Bessarabia in June 1940, the 1st (from Minsk to Gogolev), 3rd (from Reblitsy to Boryspil), 7th (from Reblitsy to Boryspil and Odessa) and 14th (from Palestine to Boryspil) Tbap. In total they contained 136TB-3.
Initially, the command of the Southern Front (which had the 201st, 204th and 214th airborne battalions) planned to organize one large landing in the Tirgu-Frumos area, 20 km from Iasi, blocking a large road junction to prevent the evacuation of material assets. The landing force was to be landed by 120 TB-3s, which were supposed to be covered by five fighter regiments.
In reality, according to the situation, two troops were landed. On June 29, a landing took place in the Bolgrad area. At dawn, two R-5s were sent to the selected site for additional reconnaissance. 99 TB-3s flew after them, taking 1,436 people on board. 97 aircraft flew to the site, two made emergency landings due to problems. The site was too small for the TB-3 to land, so the troops were dropped by parachute. Strong winds upon landing caused several accidents. One fighter died (his canopy caught on the stabilizer of the bomber), another received a concussion and then died in the hospital, five had broken legs.
By the next day, Bolgrad was completely captured by the fighters of the 204th airborne battalion. One battalion moved to Cahul and, after a short skirmish with the Romanians at Reni, occupied the city.
The second landing took place on June 30. 44 TB-3s were transferred by a combined method to Izmail by the 201st airborne battalion. The brigade was tasked with taking the city, blocking the roads and preventing steamships from leaving the port.
The landing was supposed to be landing. 43 aircraft reached the target, one fell behind and got lost. The site was too small for the TB-3, but the pilots decided to take a chance. 1 2 cars landed, but three of them were damaged and blocked the landing strip. Then they started parachuting. 240 people disembarked from the previously landed bombers and unloaded a pickup truck and cargo. 509 paratroopers landed by parachute. There were no casualties, one fighter broke his leg and ten others received minor injuries. Two TB-3s returned to base loaded: one was carrying radio equipment that could not be dropped, and the other was carrying a music team, which, as it turned out, did not know how to jump with parachutes.
Everything seemed to go well. But the command understood perfectly well that both in the Baltic states and in Bessarabia, the landings were landing in extremely favorable conditions, in the absence of opposition from aviation and anti-aircraft artillery. The commander of the Air Force of the Kyiv Military District, Major General Nikolaenko, wrote in a report on operations in Bessarabia: “It is necessary to equip the landing units with a Douglas-type landing aircraft, because... TB-3 is unsuitable for this purpose due to its flight performance.” Clear and precise.
The day before
Until the spring of 1940, the position of the Air Force command regarding the TB-3 was unequivocal: the aircraft was completely outdated, it was no longer suitable for the role of a bomber or an airborne landing aircraft. It was supposed to select more efficient vehicles for military transport aviation and the Civil Air Fleet, and write off the rest. Over the course of a year, they wanted to remove a total of 330 TB-3 from the Air Force. This is despite the fact that as of February 1, 1940, their total fleet in the Air Force was 509 aircraft, of which 100 were faulty. More than half were old cars with M-17 engines (80% of them were in good working order). TB-ZRs were in second place in number; there were more than a hundred of them, and up to 90% could fly into the air. There were slightly fewer aircraft with M-34 and M-34RN; of them, too, 75-80% were listed as combat ready. The average life of the gliders was about 30%. Of this total number, 459 TB-3s were located directly in combat units (of which 92 were faulty). A decision was already being prepared to completely remove this type from service.
But already in the summer of 1940 the course began to change sharply. It was already becoming clear that entry into a major war could not be avoided. And at the same time, plans for the rapid expansion of the Air Force were thwarted; the industry did not have time to saturate them with modern technology. Many long-range bomber regiments, formed in 1940 and according to plan armed with DB-ZF and DB-240, did not receive a single aircraft at all.
Under these conditions, it was impossible to neglect a large fleet of even more or less serviceable TB-3s. If they could no longer bomb during the day, they were still quite capable of doing it at night. This was facilitated by the long life of the airframe of the Tupolev machine, which was extended several times, and each time it turned out that this was quite justified. Another thing is that the production of these aircraft was stopped long ago, there were not enough spare parts, and, in fact, no one set the task of bringing the aircraft to a combat-ready state, since they were going to be written off.
It was impossible to deny the general obsolescence of the TB-3, and they were going to use it only for lack of a better one. In July 1940, TB-3 of Senior Lieutenant I.A. Malkov from the 8th Tank Battalion, avoiding a thunderstorm, landed at an airfield not to the east, but to the west of Brest - near the Germans. Luftwaffe mechanics carefully covered the car. The crew was escorted to headquarters and asked to temporarily surrender their personal weapons, and then fed in the officers' mess. Having sorted it out, the Germans released the plane on the same day, issuing a stamped certificate to the commander that they had no complaints regarding the navigation error. What is interesting is not this, but the way the German pilots viewed the “flying barracks” at their airfield. I didn’t come up with this expression - a bomber mechanic who spoke a little German told me about it. Yes, the impression was not at all the same with which the Reichswehr officers looked at the experienced TB-3 in 1931.
And at this very time, a sharp turn came in the fate of TB-3. It was ordered to remove TB-3 from the landing and transport units. Using these vehicles, they wanted to transfer the 3rd and 7th TBAP to a five-squadron staff, create heavy detachments in the 5th (Murmansk) and 80th (Arkhangelsk) mixed regiments (SAP) and form eight separate squadrons - in Vaziani, Tashkent and in the Far East.
They refused to write off a significant portion of TB-3. By January 1941, it was planned to have 278 aircraft with M-17, 76 with M-34, 123 with M-34R and 69 with M-34RN. Based on these figures, it can be assumed that only about a dozen of the most dilapidated bombers, and some of the TB-ZRNs should be converted to M-34RB engines, lower altitude but more reliable (they were made from rebuilt M-34RNs, removing the superchargers).
The next step followed in February 1941, when the decree “On the reorganization of the aviation forces of the Red Army” was issued, which provided for the formation of five more regiments on these clumsy giants. The TB-3 was intended to be used both as a bomber and as a military transport aircraft. But the obstacle turned out to be an insufficient number of working equipment. On June 6, 1941, the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks and the Council of People's Commissars issued a joint resolution on urgently bringing 500 TB-3 to combat-ready condition. Factories were given orders to restore production of spare parts. Plant No. 26 in Rybinsk continued to produce M-17 engines in small quantities. In addition to this, they tried to establish their production at the Gorky Automobile Plant. Brigades of aircraft factory workers were sent to military units. Some of the work was carried out by civil aviation workshops and factories.
According to the report of Deputy Chief of the General Staff N.F. Vatutin, the Red Army Air Force on June 15, 1941 had six combat-ready regiments of heavy bombers. So they started a war with them.
The Great Patriotic War
As of June 22, 1941, the Air Force had 516 TB-3s in service. Naval aviation had another 25 aircraft. Being located at airfields relatively remote from the border, these vehicles avoided catastrophic losses from the first German attacks. As a result, at the initial stage of the war they made up a fairly significant part of the bomber aircraft participating in the hostilities.
Given German air superiority, the slow-moving giants were very vulnerable during the day, but worked quite successfully at night. Already on the night of June 23, the first heavy bombs fell on German tanks. The planes of the 3rd TBP attacked enemy troops in the areas of Seim, Sopotskin, Radin and Vengrova without losses. The next night, the 1st and 3rd Tank Battalions attacked German airfields in Suwalki, Mozhedow, Bela Podlaska and Ostroleka with high-explosive and cluster bombs.
But the TB-3 initially flew during the day. The fact is that the main targets soon became the advancing German troops, and it is not easy to detect and hit these targets at night. During daytime sorties, which were then usually carried out without cover (there were not enough fighters), heavy bombers suffered heavy losses, especially when bombing from low and medium altitudes. So, on the afternoon of June 26, three TB-3s tried to bomb the crossing over the Berezina - and all were shot down. True, at night the pilots of the 1st Tank Battalion still completed this task. Gradually, TB-3 switched to operations only under cover of darkness. They operated on German communications east of Minsk, on the front near Mogilev, Galich and Smolensk. On the night of July 1–2, the 1st and 3rd Tank Battalions organized deep raids on enemy rear airfields. The surprise of this raid made it possible to inflict heavy losses on German bombers. The intensity of combat operations was very high for vehicles of this class. On August 30 and 31, TB-3s made up to three sorties per night!
Night flights required more highly trained crews and better navigation equipment. When it was cloudy it became very difficult to find a target, and on clear moonlit nights the slow-moving TB-3s became vulnerable to anti-aircraft artillery. Radio half-compasses were still a rarity, as were special night bomb sights.
There were cases when planes wandered for a long time, trying to regain their orientation. On July 13, a vehicle from the 3rd Tbp mistakenly began to bomb Mozhaisk, was attacked and shot down by its own fighters. The plane exploded in mid-air, killing the crew.
The TB-3 turned out to be a very durable vehicle. Its strong and reliable glider had the ability to hold on even with very significant combat damage. Sometimes a bomber with a meter-long hole in the skin would calmly return to its home airfield. Four engines, two pilots, a huge wing with good gliding qualities kept the car in the air. Even with very “harsh” forced landings on forests, stumps, ditches, the crew usually remained alive. The main danger was fires - the gas tanks on the TB-3 were not protected and did not have a neutral gas pressurization system.
Due to the influx of reinforcements from the rear, the number of corrugated giants at the front, despite the losses, did not decrease, but increased. In the rear, new units were formed from hastily repaired vehicles. From the TB-3s collected “from the pine forest” in Nizhyn at the end of summer, an entire regiment of heavy bombers was formed - the 325th.
If on July 22 there were 51 TB-3s in operation, then by August 22 there were 127 of them. They made up about a quarter of the fleet of long-range bomber aircraft operating at the front. Of its six divisions, four (22nd, 50th, 51st and 52nd) included TB-3 regiments.
The Black Sea Fleet aviation used the Zveno-SPB system in combat operations. For these purposes, at the beginning of the war, equipment was restored on six TB-ZRN 1 of the 8th transport detachment and 12 I-16 of the 32nd IAP. They were used against targets that were difficult to hit by other means due to their remoteness or saturation with air defense systems. The first was a raid on Constanta on August 1, 1941. Two TB-3s dropped a pair of I-16s about 40 km from the target. The fighters set fire to the oil storage facility and landed safely at an intermediate airfield near Odessa. During the second raid on Constanta, several ships in the port were damaged, but out of six fighters only two returned. The most famous was the operation against the well-protected Chernovodsk bridge over the Danube. It was bombed twice - on August 11 and 13. For the first time, it was possible to damage the central span and interrupt the oil pipeline running across the bridge. In the second case, bombs damaged bridge supports. On September 1, 8, one “Link” carried out two sorties against the pontoon bridge across the Dnieper near Kakhovka, as a result of which two FAB-250s were caught in the crossing. Later, attacks were carried out on an oil refinery in Ploieşti and a floating dock in Constanta. When the Germans approached Perekop, the “Links” attracted nearby targets, in particular mechanized columns, to attack. Operations continued until the fall of 1942, when, due to the great vulnerability of carriers, the use of SPB was stopped.
But let's return to the first months of the war. TB-3s also played a big role as transport aircraft. At night, reconnaissance and sabotage groups were dropped from them behind enemy lines. In August 1941, the 1st Tank Battalion alone delivered 1,64 paratroopers behind the front line. Aircraft of this type were used to supply surrounded units, and sometimes they had to fly during the day and without cover. So, in July 1941, ten TB-3s dropped ammunition in the Gomel area. They were attacked by German fighters. The bombers formed a defensive circle, descending almost to the ground. The terrain was open, and the pilots managed to stay at an altitude of about 50 m. In that battle, the shooters completely spent their ammunition, but almost all attacks were repelled - the Germans shot down only one plane, the rest returned safely to base.
In the first five months of 1941, heavy bombers transported 2,791 tons of cargo and 2,300 people to the Western Front. During the battles near Orel, planes from Yaroslavl transferred units of the 5th Airborne Corps. Together with the military TB-3, their civilian “brothers” G-2 (the same TB-3, only disarmed) took part in this event. When Soviet troops fell into the “cauldron” near Vyazma, aviation supplied them with ammunition, food and fuel.
TB-3 of the 7th Tank Battalion, the 39th Tank Base and the transport squadron of the Baltic Fleet made a great contribution to the organization of the “air bridge” to Leningrad. To increase the payload, bomb racks, stepladders, and some equipment were removed from the bombers. However, external bomb racks came in handy - they carried tank engines. TB-3 took four engines weighing 650 kg each. Return flights brought evacuees from Leningrad.
In November 1941, the plane of Senior Lieutenant A.I. Sudakov was transporting 20 women and children from Leningrad. A plane flying without cover over Ladoga was attacked by a pair of Messerschmitts. A fire broke out in the right plane, gunner-radio operator Dadykin was killed, and co-pilot Petrov was seriously wounded. The damaged bomber landed with difficulty on the ice near the “road of life.”
Four-engine “oldies” also took part in the battle of Moscow. As of September 25, 1941, the Air Force of the Western Front had 25 TB-3s - about 40% of all bombers available there. In general, since September, the number of aircraft of this type at the front began to fall - heavy losses affected. As of October 22, 92 TB-3s remained in long-range aviation service. But the relative losses of the TB-3 were less than those of the DB-3, and by the end of November they still amounted to up to a third of its fleet.
The bombers operated exclusively at night. So, on the night of October 9-10, planes of the 1st and 3rd TBAP bombed a concentration of German mechanized troops at the Ugryumovo station (south of Yukhnov), and the next night - southeast of Vyazma. Then familiar airfields in Borovsky, Shatalovo, and Orsha became targets. They flew “short-leg”, were based close to the front line and constantly retreated. The sites fell to the Germans one after another, sometimes along with planes that did not have time to fly away.
On October 7, a curious incident occurred. The reconnaissance and sabotage battalion briefly recaptured the Maltsevo airfield from German motorcyclists and found three TB-3s abandoned there by the 1st Tank Battalion. The question arose of what to do with them, because the motorcyclists were only the vanguard, and the battalion could not withstand the main forces of the enemy for long. Two planes were burned, and the instructor of the parachute service, senior lieutenant P. Balashov, took to flying on the third. He studied at a flying club and once piloted a light plane. Bomber technician Kravtsov returned to the airfield along with the scouts. Together they lifted the TB-3 into the air and brought it safely to Tushino. Balashov sat down on the fifth pass, but he had never before taken the helm of such a hulk!
To compensate for losses, already pretty battered bombers (usually with M-17B or M-17F engines) from various aviation schools were sent to the active army. So, in October 1941, a separate TB-3 squadron was formed at the Chelyabinsk Shooter-Bomber School, commanded by Captain V.N. Zaitsev. In November she was sent to the Western Front.
At the beginning of 1942, there was a single case of combat use of the radio-controlled TB-3. In December of the previous year there were two “torpedoes” and two control aircraft. One set of TB-3 and command DB-ZF was in Ivanovo, completely ready for use. The second, where the SB acted as a control aircraft, was based at the base of the 81st Air Division in Kazan. In January 1942, they tried to destroy the railway junction in Vyazma with a “torpedo”. However, the target was not hit. According to one version, the TB-3 receiving antenna was broken by a fragment of an anti-aircraft shell; according to another, it was torn off due to icing. The plane went deep behind enemy lines and crashed after running out of fuel. The second “torpedo” burned out later in Kazan at the airfield - another plane crashed into it.
In 1942, TB-3s also served in the offensive. In January they were used to land troops south of Vyazma (two battalions and one regiment), and then near Yukhnov. For this purpose, 40 PS-84 and 22 TB-3 were concentrated. It took them four days to transfer all allocated forces, with two or three sorties per day.
In the same month, a special-purpose transport group under Major Polikarpov was formed in Krasnodar. It was based on vehicles of the 250th TB, transferred from Transbaikalia. They were replenished by planes arriving from various places, even from Mongolia. A total of 28 TB-3 of various modifications were collected. On the night of February 25, planes dropped cargo for the first time to the Crimean partisans. More than a hundred parachute bags with ammunition and medicines thrown from three TB-3s were picked up on the ground. Then for two months the planes of Polikarpov’s group flew behind enemy lines.
Since May 1942, the 325th TBP took over the baton of supplying the partisans. Major Zhmurov even tried to drive his huge car onto a small area in the mountains. The plane managed to land, but not to take off. The TB-3, which had already taken off from the ground, caught on a hillock, fell onto its wing and crashed into a ravine. But both the crew and passengers - wounded soldiers - remained alive. Flights to the Crimean partisans continued until the end of August, after which all combat-ready TB-3s of the 325th TB were thrown against the German troops who had reached the passes of the Caucasus Range.
There was work for them on other fronts as well. After the creation of Long-Range Aviation (LRA), most of the heavy bombers became part of it. In May 1942, TB-3s of the 53rd ADD division dropped cargo to the troops encircled near Demyansk and in just one night on May 4 they delivered 1.8 tons of ammunition, 6.7 tons of food and 1 ton of fuel. The slow giants were unique in their capabilities when delivering large equipment. If the PS-84 could take on board a field or anti-tank gun, then the TB-3 on an external sling could carry various wheeled or tracked vehicles, including light tanks. Both a truck and an anti-aircraft gun could fit between the chassis struts when assembled. Such flights were even carried out behind enemy lines, for example, in the summer of 1942 near Vyazma to the cavalry of General Belov.
From the middle of 1942, both as night bombers and as military transport aircraft, the TB-3 began to replace the more modern PS-84 (Li-2). Later, even more advanced American C-47s appeared in transport regiments and divisions. But the archaic-looking Tupolev four-engine aircraft lingered in the Soviet Air Force for a long time. In July, these vehicles took part in raids on the railway junction in Bryansk. At the same time, they dropped one FAB-2000, which caused great destruction.
At times, TB-3s demonstrated miracles of combat survivability. Thus, the plane of captain Ya.I. Plyashechnik was attacked in the Luga area by two Bf 110 fighters. A burning bomber with three engines entered the given area and dropped paratroopers, after which the pilots managed to land on their territory. In July 1942, on a damaged TB-3, the crew of Senior Lieutenant I.F. Matveev successfully bombed the Voronezh area and, having put out the fire, returned to their airfield. On August 18, Matveev was awarded the title of Hero of the Soviet Union.
At the front, they tried to improve the TB-3 as much as possible, primarily its equipment and weapons. The bombers were equipped with additional machine guns on the sides; instead of open Tur-5s, they installed modern shielded MV-3s with a ShKAS machine gun on old vehicles (sometimes one, sometimes two, instead of each Tur-5). There were also aircraft with the UTK-1 upper mount for the UBT heavy machine gun. We changed radio equipment, sights, and installed RPK-2B and RPK-10 radio semi-compasses.
Aircraft from the 53rd and 62nd ADD divisions took part in the defensive battle of Stalingrad. There they began by bombing crossings across the Don. A year later, TB-3 bombs contributed to the victory at Kursk, where the crew of Lieutenant V. Bezbokov from the 7th Guards performed an amazing feat. shelf. In his heavy vehicle, he landed at night with the headlights on in a corn field behind enemy lines to pick up the pilots of another plane who had landed with parachutes. At the end of September 1943, TB-3s took part in the parachute landing on the Bukrinsky bridgehead near Kiev.
From the beginning of 1943, obsolete bombers began to be returned from the front to flight schools. So, in August 1st Guards. The ADD regiment transferred 12 of the oldest and most worn-out vehicles to Chelyabinsk. There they were used for bombing and aerial gunnery training until the very end of the war. From the beginning of 1944, TB-3s finally switched to the role of military transport and training vehicles, and they were operated mainly in the rear. This is indirectly evidenced by the loss statistics. During 1944, the Air Force wrote off 15 TB-3s with M-17 engines, one with M-34s, and three with M-34RNs, but only due to accidents and wear and tear.
In the rear, some of the old-fashioned giants survived the collapse of the “Third Reich.” In any case, as part of the 52nd Guards. the regiment of the 18th Air Army (into which the ADD was turned) on July 1, 1945, there were still 20 such aircraft. On August 18, 1945, TB-3s took part in the last air parade in their “life.” Three cars performed in the episode “Old and New” - three Pe-8s flew behind them.
During the post-war reduction of the armed forces, all remaining TB-3s were soon written off.
In Civil Aviation
At the end of 1939 - beginning of 1940, the Civil Air Fleet fleet was replenished with a fairly significant number of vehicles transferred from the Air Force and Naval Aviation. They fell mainly into the Turkmen, East Siberian and North Kazakhstan departments. Aircraft with M-17 engines were operated on a number of lines in Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, for example, Ashgabat - Tashauz, Ashgabat - Chardzhou, Tashkent - Urgench, as well as in Siberia - Chita - Tsipican and Tyumen - Salekhard. Cars with M-34 engines flew only on the Moscow-Tashkent highway.
On January 31, 1940, a plane with tail number L-3047 lost its orientation during the flight Moscow - Minsk - Bialystok and mistakenly landed at the German airfield Lyk in Poland. The Germans treated the crew politely and sent them home a couple of days later. This is where the troubles began for the pilots...
On February 1, 1940, the Civil Air Fleet had 37 G-2 with M-17 and four with M-34, for a total of 41. By March 1, there were already 47. By December 1, 1940, there were already 36 aircraft with M- 17, five with M-34R and six with M-34RNB.
Specially formed civil aviation units took part in the entry into Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina. Again G-2 carried mail, newspapers, literature, weapons and ammunition. The four-engine giants were used very intensively by the Civil Air Fleet. In 1940, the G-2 was one of the few types of aircraft whose ton-kilometer output turned out to be higher than planned.
As of June 22, 1941, there were 45 four-engine aircraft in civil aviation (excluding polar aircraft). To help the front, by July 1, five air groups and three air detachments were formed. They included 25 G-2. Most of them were in the Moscow Special Purpose Air Group (MAGON).
In the first months of the war, transport aviation losses were especially high. By August 1, they had already lost seven G-2s. Three were destroyed by the Germans, two were destroyed in accidents and two more were shot down by their own. Yes, at first both pilots and anti-aircraft gunners often confused the types of vehicles, which led to tragic consequences. So, on July 15, our anti-aircraft artillery in the Smolensk area fired at and damaged another plane.
In August we lost another G-2, destroyed during the retreat. Civil aircraft began to be armed this month. They installed what was at hand - both YES and ShKAS. By the end of the month, four G-2s received machine guns.
In October 1941, civilian aircraft were used to transport units of the 5th Airborne Corps near Orel and Mtsensk. At the same time, the vehicles were overloaded almost twice as much as normal. The planes landed on sites close to the front edge, often under artillery fire.
By January 1, 1941, the total list of G-2 losses reached 11 vehicles, with a total of 29 left in the Civil Air Fleet (of which four were M-34). Due to the replenishment of front-line air groups from rear departments, the total number of four-engine aircraft in them remained approximately constant - 18-19 aircraft.
Already in February 1,942, transport units began to move to PS-84 (Li-2), and G-2 was transferred to the rear. At the same time, air groups were reorganized into transport regiments and divisions. For the entire 1942, the Civil Air Fleet lost only three G-2s, and one was written off after an accident in the rear. Of the two lost at the front, one plane hit a flock of ducks on March 20 near Kerch and made an emergency landing in the floodplains. A fire started and the car was completely burned out; the pilots survived. The second was shot by German fighters on August 1, 7, during takeoff from the Srednyaya Akhtuba airfield; the entire crew of five was killed. On May 1, 1942, only six G-2s remained at the front, of which only three were serviceable. In the rear there were 28 vehicles (18 of them could take off).
Among the regiments that retained Tupolev aircraft in service was the 5th, which operated in Karelia. On October 10, 1943, Captain Sobchik's TB-ZRN was shot down during a landing. The plane did not reach the airfield, landing on the forest. The crew was saved. During 1943, the number of corrugated giants slowly decreased, reaching 24 vehicles by the beginning of 1944. But individual G-2s remained at the front until the victory over Germany.
In the rear, there were also fewer and fewer of them - due to wear and tear, accidents, and lack of spare parts. By the beginning of 1944, there were 17 of them left. They worked mainly in Siberia and Central Asia. So, they used them to export gold from the Magadan region. Due to the lack of equipment in the rear, aircraft were used very intensively. The pilot V.T. Bulgin alone in Siberia transported 700 tons of various cargo and more than 700 passengers on his plane during three years of war.
The intensive supply of Li-2s and S-47s made it possible in 944 to write off a large number of obsolete equipment, including 13 G-2s. On January 1, 1945, the Civil Air Fleet had ten G-2s, on June 1 there were two left, and on December 1 - one, the last. He, still in good working order, transported sulfur in Turkmenistan. This aircraft was written off in August 1946.
Sources
- "Aviation and Cosmonautics 2003 No. 5-6. "TB-3". /Vladimir Kotelnikov/
Requirements for the bomber's performance grew, forcing it to continue its modernization. The next step was to improve his altitude data. This was a response to the resolution of the Council of Labor and Defense (STO), which stated: “Recognize that the TB-3 ships in their range (1150-1200 km) satisfy the minimum operational requirements, but have a completely insufficient ceiling of about 3000 m in the area targets after 6-8 hours of flight)..."
M-34RN engines with driven centrifugal superchargers were supposed to raise the ceiling. The use of supercharging promised to significantly improve the altitude characteristics of the vehicle. It was planned to have prototypes of the engine of this modification back in December 1932. In reality, this happened much later.
Prototypes of the M-34RN were first delivered to the TB-3 at the beginning of 1934. In this case, aircraft No. 22202, which was previously a prototype of the TB-3R, was used. Factory tests began on March 7, 1934, and state tests took place in August-September. It turned out that the new engines significantly improved speed, climb rate and ceiling. At the factory, the aircraft reached a speed of 280 km/h - approximately 30 km/h higher than the production TB-3R.
UVVS expected to receive serial TB-3s with M-34RN engines (often abbreviated as TB-3RN) already in the same year. Initially it was assumed that the TB-3R airframe with a new power plant would be used. The chassis was still made in the form of two-wheeled bogies, but the bogies were covered with fairings. The main differences lay in the composition of the weapons. The Der-9 cassettes were replaced with more modern KD-2, but with the same number of locks - 26. Instead of YES machine guns, they wanted to install new ShKAS with belt feed at all points. It was assumed that the TB-3RN would first be equipped with five ShKAS machine guns: one in the forward fuselage, two in the upper turret, two in the rear mount. One YES remained in the lower hatch. From February 1935, ShKAS was supposed to appear at this point. The total ammunition was 4,000 rounds.
A few months later they came to the conclusion that, given the high rate of fire of the ShKAS, we could limit ourselves to four machine guns. Three were to be mounted on the new Tur-Tok turrets designed by Tokarev. The fourth is on a pivot in the hatch, with power from the “beard” - the under-barrel box.
Aircraft TB-3 4 M-34RN No. 22570. State tests, October 1935
But the path from the prototype to the series was long. The determining factor here was the reliability of the supercharger. Its first version, two-speed, designed by P.I. Orlov, A.A. Mikulin and A.I. Danilevsky, turned out to be overly complicated. There was no way they could fix the device for switching from one speed to another. Then Danilevsky created a simpler, single-speed supercharger. Its characteristics were lower, the rated power was maintained only up to an altitude of 3000 m (in the first version - up to 5000 m). But the experienced motor worked quite reliably with it.
There were also problems with heat stress and unstable operation at low gas. The M-34RN was removed from repeated state tests in September 1934 - the pistons burned out and the piston rings collapsed. The development of the engine plant was carried out jointly by plant No. 22, the Air Force Research Institute, CIAM and engine plant No. 24.
The second reason for the delay in the introduction of the new modification into production was a change in the requirements for small arms. Serial TB-3Rs had a maximum flight speed of about 250 km/h. During their operation in units, it became clear that even at 200-220 km/h it is impossible to conduct aimed fire from open installations, and at 250 km/h it is not even possible to turn the turret forward. On October 2, 1934, the UVVS proposed to postpone the deadline for presenting the standard with M-34RN engines, subject to the modernization of its weapons. It was planned to install an electrified shielded (closed) turret in the nose, moving it down from the position of the old Tur-6 to improve pilots' forward visibility. The middle and aft installations also had to be shielded and mechanized. In the future, they were going to install ShVAK cannons at all these points.
The plan for 1934 included 100 TB-3RN. But already in September, People's Commissar of Heavy Industry Ordzhonikidze proposed cutting this figure by four. Alksnis protested violently, but then was forced to give up: “... assessing the actual situation... we have to agree with the proposals of the People's Commissar of Heavy Industry...”. The plan was reduced to 25 cars.
But they were not built in 1934 either. Moreover, the development of the reference TB-3RN actually took another year. This was partly due to changing requirements for the new modification. On January 25, Alksnis approved new tactical and technical requirements for the TB-3RN. They greatly increased the amount of rework. The UVVS demanded the introduction of a lightweight wing with an increased span (up to 41.65 m), and with spars made of titanium alloy. At the same time, they wanted to completely replace imported chromium-nickel steels with domestic chromium steels in the design. The carts had to be replaced again with single wheels of large diameter, but with brakes and domestic production. The entire chassis was subject to reinforcement taking into account the increase in take-off weight. It was proposed to introduce electrified control of radiators and emergency draining of fuel from console gas tanks. They demanded changes to the equipment: install SPU, radio station 15SUD (RES), rearrange the instrument panels, as well as bombs and small arms. Rifle mounts for ShKAS machine guns have already been discussed. The internal Der-9 cassettes were supposed to be replaced with KD-2 with 26 locks, and additional KD-2 cassettes with 8 locks for sighting and flare bombs were installed in the wing. The UVVS required the TB-3RN standard to be put up for testing by June 1st.
Plant No. 22 responded to the innovation immediately. There are no titanium pipes in the country, just as there are no suitable electric motors to drive radiator shutters. The required electrical equipment does not exist even in prototypes. New instrument panels have not yet been designed at TsAGI. The plant does not have any drawings of the KD-2. And further in the same spirit...
And the most important thing about the new modification is that the M-34RN engines were far from being fully ready. For example, in May 1935, a problem with condensation of the mixture in the supercharger was discovered. Complaints reached Voroshilov himself, who began to threaten GUAP with refusal to accept aircraft with the M-34RN.
Plant No. 24 struggled with the development of serial production of engines. The superchargers kept falling apart. It turned out that their hulls did not correspond to the prototype tested at CIAM. They were thinner, with sharper thickness transitions and casting defects. Only in October 1935 did they receive the first batch of truly suitable engines.
As a result, the standard was fine-tuned by the plant and the Air Force Research Institute for almost the entire 1935. Then they calculated that the fine-tuning took four times longer than planned. Only in October the prototype completed state tests and was approved as the “standard of 1936.” The bomber has changed significantly in terms of airframe, equipment and weapons. Many points of the task were actually completed. The characteristic ledge of the forward fuselage has disappeared. The wingspan increased by more than 2 m. They switched from paired bogies to large brake wheels with a diameter of 2 m. The engines received new hoods and radiators. Now they rotated four-blade propellers with a diameter of 4.1 m. The propellers were still wooden and of a fixed pitch, which was already archaic. True, in the future it was planned to install metal propellers with variable pitch; they were tested at the Air Force Research Institute in 1935. The defensive armament consisted of two shielded Tur-8 turrets - one on top and one in the bow. They were covered with hemispherical plexiglass domes on a metal frame. Each of them had a ShKAS machine gun. The third machine gun of the same type was located in the rear installation. There, the Tur-8 did not have a screen, but if necessary, it was covered with a sliding visor, the sections of which folded like a shell on the tail of a crayfish. The fourth ShKAS on the Tur-7 turret fired into the hatch in the bottom of the fuselage. The Tur-8 was equipped with ANII sights, and the Tur-7 - KPT with an MF-5 front sight.
Bomb FAB-2000 under TB-3RN, 1936
Turret TsKB SV#17
As an alternative to the Tur-8, they tested the TsKB SV No. 1 7 turret designed by Tokarev (aka Tur-Tok). Its rotation was carried out by a pneumatic drive, and the raising and lowering of the barrel was carried out manually. The accuracy of fire during testing turned out to be higher than that of the Tur-8, but the pneumatic motor worked jerkily, and the view through the screen was considered unsatisfactory. In addition, the diameter of the new turret exceeded a meter (they could not fit the pneumatic drive), and installing it on the TB-3 required significant design modifications. I had to give it up.
The range of bomb weapons for the aircraft has expanded significantly - from small “lighters” ZAB-1 weighing a kilogram and 8-kg fragmentation weapons AO-8M2 to the two-ton AF-2000. A novelty was the use of “rotational dispersal” (cluster) bombs RRAB-250, RRAB-500 and RRAB-1000. It was in them that ammunition with a caliber of less than 50 kg was loaded. On the external sling, the TB-3RN could carry chemical weapons - four VAP-500 pouring devices and two VAP-6K. To suspend them from the bomb rack beams, special bridges were attached.
The equipment of the machine has been enriched. In particular, the SPU-7 intercom device appeared on the bomber. This device was created at TsVIRL in 1934 and was first tested on the TB-3 with M-1 7 engines in May of the same year. A year later it was tested on an experimental TB-3 with an M-34RN. The system did not work completely reliably, but communication between crew members was still better than before.
Initially, they wanted to equip the TB-3RN with 11SK-2 radio stations, designed to be powered by an electric generator on a motor, but then they decided to release the first series with the old 1 1SK-2, the dynamo of which was rotated by a windmill.
For 1936, the Air Force ordered 185 TB-3RN. In fact, preparations for their production had been underway since mid-1935, and the plant was just waiting for the final approval of the standard. As of September 1, 60 vehicles had already been docked and 20 of them had installed motors. But the bombers lacked propellers, wheels, and bomb racks. The aircraft was considered especially important for the Air Force along with the Security Service, so daily reports on the state of production and acceptance of finished aircraft were placed on Alksnis’s desk. On February 1, 1936, 82 TB-3RNs were already brought to the factory airfield, where various modifications were made. On February 27, the first three vehicles were flown, and on March 3 they went to Monino for military tests. On the same day, while flying another bomber, No. 22686, an emergency occurred. The plane caught fire in the air - the engine suction pipe fell apart. After this, plant No. 24 sent a team that replaced the cast pipes on all TB-3RNs with welded steel ones.
On April 3, 14 TB-3RNs were already undergoing military trials in Monino. During the tests, the actual consumption of fuel and oil was determined, and training bombings were carried out with various ammunition. For the first time, aircraft of this modification successfully bombed from an altitude of 8000 m. On June 1, one aircraft covered a closed route of 2870 km in 13.5 hours, dropping a ton of bombs on the test site along the way. Thus, they proved the practical range of the vehicle and its radius of action, equal to 1,100-1,200 km. Five days later, the TB-3RN took off from Shchelkovo and landed in Yevpatoria, before dropping bombs into the sea. They also carried out shooting along the route, testing all the machine guns.
TB-3RN was diligently shown to foreign guests. In August 1936, it was demonstrated to the British and French aviation delegations, and a little later to the Minister of War of Afghanistan. When showing the car, they lied - they said that the flight range with two tons of bombs was supposedly 3,500 km. Whether they believed this or not is unknown. But the British were surprised by the installation of fixed-pitch propellers on the plane - they considered it long ago outdated.
TB-3RN in flight
By June 7, 1936, 18 aircraft were sent to various combat units. Priority in receiving new bombers was given to the 23rd Tab in Monino, where military tests were carried out, and units of the OKDVA Air Force. Planes were again flown to the Far East by air. This event was carried out by the combined squadron of the 26th Tab, which underwent retraining in Moscow. Aircraft departing for the Far East were equipped with APR-1 or APR-3 direction finders.
At one of the last stages of the route, Domno - Khabarovsk, an accident occurred. It all started when the command ship got stuck on takeoff. The remaining bombers walked in circles for half an hour, waiting for him to take off. Without waiting, the deputy commander led the group forward. The commander took off only an hour and a half later and went to catch up with his own. Meanwhile, fifteen TB-3RNs were flying above the clouds at an altitude of 5600 m. Having become tired, the crews descended into the clouds. This is where it all started. As it turned out later, even almost all the ship commanders did not know how to truly fly blind. The group dispersed. Four planes landed safely in Bochkarevo, seven in Khabarovsk, and one of the latter without two crew members. The young navigator, in the fifth hour of the flight in the "milk", freaked out and jumped overboard with a parachute. He was followed by a technician who decided that the plane was in an accident. These two were then searched for a long time in the taiga.
Of the five remaining aircraft, three were found the next day. Two made emergency landings and broke down, but the people were alive. The third was destroyed, the crew died. The same thing happened with two more TB-3RNs discovered later.
Nevertheless, distillation was resumed, and a year later there were 45 TB-3RNs in the Far East. They partially staffed the 26th and 28th TB. Aircraft of this type also entered the Leningrad Military District. On January 1, 1937, the Red Army Air Force had 67 TB-3RNs, about two-thirds of them were in combat units.
In operation, the TB-3RN revealed a number of shortcomings. As before, M-34RN engines suffered from fuel condensation in the cold. The motor mounts turned out to be not strong enough, and they began to be replaced with reinforced ones. The oil consumption of the M-34RN was higher than that of the M-34R, and the volume of the oil tanks was the same; On long flights there was not enough oil. Due to the fact that all four engines had the same direction of rotation, the plane turned to the right during takeoff - it was difficult to maintain the takeoff direction. The TB-3RN was equipped with pneumatic tail wheels; With a lot of weight, they often burst on uneven field airfields.
Like the “ceremonial ten”, three “representative” cars for foreign flights were also produced with M-34RN engines. The Soviet aviation delegation led by Alksnis flew to Prague in 1936.
This year was the last year when TB-3s were built in large quantities. The designers continued to work. Back in 1935, even more powerful M-34FRN engines were tested on the aircraft. This engine also took a long time to perfect and went into production only at the end of 1936. It managed to pass state tests only in 1937. Two modifications were produced - M-34FRNA (with four carburetors) and M-34FRNB (with six). Both had a power of 1000/1050 hp.
A disarmed TB-3R, leased by Osoaviakhim, flies to an air festival in Bucharest
TB-3D (No. 22638)
These engines were installed on some aircraft produced in 1937. Several of the latest aircraft received even more powerful M-34FRNV (1050/1200 hp). On the latest TB-3 series, additional gas tanks were installed in the consoles, the aerodynamics were somewhat improved, the control system and equipment were improved, in particular, an SPU-7R intercom and a VHF radio station RES were installed. Vehicles with M-34FRN engines were distinguished by rounded stabilizer tips and developed fairings between the wing and fuselage.
In September-October 1936, on a specially prepared aircraft with then experimental M-34FRNV engines, A.B. Yumashev’s crew set four world altitude records with various loads (up to 12 tons).
Unfortunately, none of the TB-3s received sealed fuel tanks. The first version of such a tank for TB-3 was proposed by engineer Stezhinsky back in 1934. Inside the tank, a brass mesh was stretched parallel to the bottoms, and on the outside the tank was covered with a rubber shell, under which there was... a layer of thick molasses! The new tank weighed 186 kg, 126 kg heavier than usual. The tests ended unsuccessfully. The bullet-ridden “sweet” tanks flowed just like the old ones, without a protector. In January 1935, Stezhinsky took a new sample to the test site, even heavier - 270 kg. The meshes became thicker, and the outer shell was made multi-layered (rubber and molasses were again interspersed). This time the design passed the test. There was a government decree to introduce protected tanks on serial TB-3.
At the same time, the Research Institute of the Rubber Industry (NIIRP) proposed its own tread made from layers of gasoline-resistant and gasoline-swellable rubber, as well as a cord with raw rubber. The NIIRP tank weighed significantly less - 130 kg. In response, Stezhinsky also prepared lightweight tanks - 96 kg. In April 1936, comparative tests were carried out. The NIIRP design won. But such tanks never appeared on the TB-3.
But in 1937 they planned to introduce a completely enclosed heated pilot's cabin and a cannon top mount (with a 20-mm ShVAK cannon).
In parallel, work was carried out on TB-3D with diesel engines. They have been flying since 1935. One of the aircraft was equipped with four AN-1A engines of 900 hp each. These were four-stroke V-shaped 12-cylinder diesel engines, created at CIAM under the leadership of A.D. Charomsky. With lower fuel consumption, they could significantly increase flight range. The experimental TB-3D entered testing in August 1937. The serial TB-3RN was converted to a diesel engine. We made new engine mounts, strengthened the wing by adding two new ribs against each engine, reinforced the fuselage connectors with aluminum tapes, and strengthened the empennage braces. The fuel and oil systems have been changed. The new engines were covered with new hoods and new exhaust manifolds were installed. The diesel engines were rotated by three-bladed metal fixed-pitch propellers with a diameter of 3.45 m. The aircraft became significantly heavier. The empty weight of the TB-3D with incomplete military equipment and weapons was 1,3566 kg, while the serial TB-3RN with full equipment weighed 12,585 kg. This extra weight paid for itself in the form of lower fuel consumption after about 7-8 hours of flight.
Diesel AN-1 on TB-3 aircraft
M-34RN with TK-1 turbochargers and VRSh-34 propellers on the TB-3 aircraft No. 22682
The results of the tests, which took place in two stages - in August-November 1937 and in March 1938, were twofold. On the one hand, the increase in length turned out to be quite significant. Thus, with 1000 kg of bombs, the range increased by 710 km (approximately 20%). The testers successfully completed the flights Kashin - Shchelkovo - Zaporozhye - Evpatoria and Evpatoria - Kharkov - Kyiv - Evpatoria. The speed at the ground dropped slightly compared to vehicles with the M-34RN, and at altitude it increased by 15-30 km/h. The rate of climb has improved - climbing 5000 m took 1.5-2.5 minutes less. The takeoff distance has decreased by more than 40%.
It would seem that there are only advantages. But the reliability of diesel engines left much to be desired. The main problem was unreliable operation at low speeds. The engines stalled while taxiing and, what was much more dangerous, during landing. They wanted to find a solution in the use of new AN-1RTK diesel engines with turbocharging. They planned to install them on the TB-3D and repeat the tests. The next stage was planned to convert ten TB-3RNs into diesel engines and conduct military tests. But these decisions remained unfulfilled. In 1938, the TB-3D crashed, in which the aircraft technician died.
We also worked to improve the altitude characteristics of the motor unit. There were two directions here. Group S.A. Treskina from the Moscow Aviation Institute in 1935 created the central pressurization unit ACN-1. The fifth M-34 engine, located in the fuselage, rotated a powerful compressor that supplied compressed air to the four main engines. ACN-1 was built and successfully tested on TB-3. The disadvantage of this scheme was the cumbersome system of long air ducts. Subsequently, a similar ACN-2 system (driven by an M-YUZA engine) was used on early TB-7s.
The use of turbocharging was considered a more promising direction. In April-July 1939, the Air Force Research Institute tested the TB-3RN, on which TK-1 turbochargers were installed in the Research Institute's workshops
(two on each motor). During the modification, it was necessary to replace the engine hoods, suction pipes, and redo the cooling system. The changes raised the empty weight of the car by 463 kg. At first, the aircraft was tested with standard wooden four-blade propellers, but at altitudes of more than 6500 m (almost at the practical ceiling of a regular TB-3RN), overspin of the propellers appeared. We had to throttle the engines, which affected the speed. Then the bomber was equipped with experimental VRSh-34 automatic propellers, created at the Air Force Design Bureau under the leadership of Bas-Dubov.
Testers Lisitsin, Datsko and Khripkov were tasked with determining whether it would be advisable to remake aircraft in the Air Force units in a similar way. Turbocharging raised the bomber's ceiling to 8900 m - more than 2000 m. But the aircraft did not receive any other advantages. The maximum speed increased by 10-15 km/h, and it was achieved at an altitude of 7000-8000 m. Below, there was almost no gain, and near the ground the speed even dropped a little. The rate of climb up to the 5000 m mark has deteriorated. The automatic propellers provided some reduction in the take-off run, but did not provide anything else. Moreover, the pitch switching mechanism constantly failed due to fluid leaks.
TB-3 4M-34RN TK No. 22682
The reliability of the first Soviet turbochargers was also very low. This was determined, first of all, by the lag of the domestic metallurgy - there were no suitable heat-resistant alloys. Turbochargers did not last long and constantly suffered from burnouts of manifolds, broken blades and destruction of turbine disks.
Flights at high altitudes also revealed the archaism of the open cockpit. Increasing the ceiling urgently required the transition to an enclosed heated cabin.
All this together led to the conclusion of the Air Force Research Institute: “It is not practical to modernize the serial TB3-4AM34PH aircraft located in combat units of the Red Army Air Force...”
But all this is the development of traditional power plants with piston aircraft engines. Much more exotic designs were also prepared for TB-3. For example, they tried to convert the bomber to steam propulsion. On August 14, 1934, the head of the Air Force approved the technical specifications for the PT-1 steam turbine unit with a total power of 3000/3600 hp. The main goal was to switch to cheaper and more accessible fuel - crude oil or fuel oil.
The development of the PT-1 was carried out by the design bureau at the Kirov plant in Leningrad. Two turbines of 1500 hp each. (with a short-term boost to 1800 hp) were installed on the wing on sub-engine frames. A common boiler-steam generator with a turbofan, a pump group with an auxiliary turbine and all plant controls were located in the fuselage. There were also starting pumps and a blower fan, powered by an auxiliary gasoline engine. They wanted to install the capacitors, each of four sections, in the “slots” in the wing. The TB-3 flight engineer was supposed to operate the installation.
By 1937, the pilot unit was manufactured and brought to the required level of reliability (a TBO of at least 100 flight hours was required). But tests on the ground showed that the two turbines together developed only 1,600 hp, which was significantly less than the minimum power required for takeoff of the TB-3RN (about 2,200 hp). If we consider that the installation weighed more than three tons, then the feasibility of its installation on an aircraft became very doubtful. They tried to modify it, but in September 1938 they decided to leave it as a ground test bench for testing design innovations.
Can you imagine a turboprop TB-3? There was such a project. The GT-1 engine (“aviation internal combustion turbine”) was more likely a turboshaft engine – akin to modern tank and helicopter engines; it did not use the energy of exhaust gases; it did not have a jet nozzle. The order for the gas turbine plant was issued in October 1934. It was developed by the Thermotechnical Institute. Even before the official issuance of the assignment, they prepared the general layout of the installation.
The layout was more consistent with the traditions of shipbuilders than with the “real” turboprop engines that appeared later. The compressor with its own turbine and intermediate radiator-intercooler stood separately in the fuselage. From there, the air went into the wing, where the “gas generators” (combustion chambers) and working turbines that rotated the propellers were located. A reduction gearbox was located between the propeller and the turbine. They wanted to move the turbine and gearbox forward of the wing, placing it on the sub-engine frame. Since Soviet metallurgy could not provide the designers with the necessary heat-resistant alloys, the disks and blades of the turbines were going to be cooled with water. The plane had to carry a supply of water for 15 hours of flight. Interestingly, they again wanted to use crude oil or fuel oil as fuel, as on ships. The installation was going to be started from some kind of “starting drive”, most likely from an auxiliary piston motor.
One turbine was supposed to produce 1000 hp. The weight of the installation was specified as two tons, the service life was 100 hours.
GT-1 was considered a purely experimental work, the purpose of which was to study the applicability of gas turbine plants on aircraft. It was planned to convert one TB-3 into a flying laboratory equipped with two turbines. External cylinder engines were going to be retained, since the GT-1 did not have enough power for takeoff and for in-flight insurance.
Unfortunately, we have not yet been able to find any materials on the implementation of this idea. Whether the GT-1 was built is unknown. In any case, it was not installed on the plane.
In 1936, the RNII worked on reducing the take-off distance using rocket boosters. It turned out that installing missiles required a serious change in the design of the machine (against the harmful effects of the gas jet), which no one wanted to do.
Missile weapons were also designed there for the four-engine giant. Also in 1936, they proposed a project to equip the TB-3 with 245 mm caliber rockets. And in December 1938, an aircraft with YuFS-203 shells was tested at the Scientific Research Site of Aviation Weapons (NIPAV).
TB-3 with rocket guns
But all these new features were not adopted on the serial TB-3. And in general, the time of the slow corrugated bomb carrier is gone. The modification of the TB-3 with the M-34FRN was the pinnacle of improvement of the TB-3, but by this time the aircraft had already begun to become obsolete. Representatives of a new generation of heavy bombers - high-altitude and high-speed - have appeared in the world. In December 1936, the ANT-42 (TB-7) entered testing, and in 1937 the United States created the Boeing 299, the future “Flying Fortress” B-17. Against this background, the corrugated skin, fixed landing gear and open pilot's cabin of the TB-3 looked anachronistic. The aircraft’s lag behind the latest developments of other countries was already noted in the conclusion based on the results of state tests of the M-34RN variant. Therefore, car production gradually began to decline. In 1937, Plant No. 22 delivered only 22 bombers, and another one - Plant No. 18. In the spring of 1938, the last TB-3 was released in Moscow, and in May the 23rd TBB received it in Monino.