WesWorld

ANT-26
Wingspan - 26m; Length - 16.8m; Height - 3.5m; Wing Area - 93m2
Crew - 4; Engines - 2x 676HP Lorraine in-line engines; Empty weight - 5,200kg; Maximum weight - 8,167kg
Defensive armament - 4x 7.62mm ShTAS machineguns
Top speed - 125kts; Maximum altitude - 4,500m; Maximum range with no bombload - 1,900nm
Combat radius with 1,000kg bombload - 500nm
Combat radius with 500kg bombload - 700nm


ANT-28
Wingspan - 39.6m; Length - 24.4; Height - 4.5m; Wing Area - 223m2
Crew - 7; Engines - 4x 800HP Klimov in-line engines; Empty weight - 11,800kg; Maximum weight - 20,000kg
Defensive armament - 6x 7.62mm ShTAS machineguns in 3 turrets (Dorsal, Tail, Belly), 2x 7.62mm ShTAS machineguns in nose
Top speed - 175kts; Maximum altitude - 7,500; Maximum range with no bombload - 3,000nm
Combat radius with 2,000kg bombload - 1,125nm
Combat radius with 4,000kg bombload - 750nm

ANT-31 - A development of ANT-28
Wingspan - 39.6m; Length - 24.4; Height - 4.5m; Wing Area - 223m2
Crew - 7; Engines - 4x 950HP Klimov in-line engines; Empty weight - 11,800kg; Maximum weight - 20,500kg
Defensive armament - 6x 7.62mm ShTAS machineguns in 3 turrets (Dorsal, Tail, Belly), 2x 7.62mm ShTAS machineguns in nose
Top speed - 191kts; Maximum altitude - 10,500; Maximum range with no bombload - 3,000nm at 170 kts
Combat radius with 2,000kg bombload - 1,150nm
Combat radius with 4,000kg bombload - 800nm


ANT-32
Wingspan - 26m; Length - 17m; Height - 3.5m; Wing Area - 102m2
Crew - 4; Engines - 2x 866HP Klimov in-line engines; Empty weight - 5,415kg; Maximum weight - 8,620kg
Defensive armament - 4x 7.62mm ShTAS machineguns
Top speed - 164kts; Maximum altitude - 6,600m; Maximum range with no bombload - 2,200nm
Combat radius with 1,000kg bombload - 650nm
Combat radius with 500kg bombload - 850nm

ANT-35 Heavy Bomber
Wingspan - 39m; Length - 23.6m; Height - 6.2m; Wing Area - 188m2
Crew - 8; Engines - 4x 1650HP Miliukov-35 in-line engines; Empty weight - 19,000kg; Maximum weight - 35,000kg
Defensive armament - 6x 14mm machineguns in 3 turrets (Dorsal, Tail, Belly), 2x 14mm machineguns in nose
Top speed - 265kts; Maximum altitude - 10,000m; Maximum range with no bombload - 5,300nm at 200kts
Combat radius with 10,000kg bombload - 1,000nm
Combat radius with 4,000kg bombload - 2,000nm

Gah. Have to kick Heinkel and Junkers, and more importantly BMW (since without better engines, the Ju-90S and He-177 won't work).

Not sure what the range is for. Japan isn't that far from Vladivostock or Kamchatka.

Getting a 10ton bombload will likely prove problematic unless adopting bombs ~ 4000/5000kg in size. Theres a limit on how large the bombbay can be. With current weapons of 250 / 500kg size, space rapidly becomes an issue. Theres always external stowage underneath the wings.

The RL Fokker D.115 design also had cells within the wings (which were fairly thick) which held bombs.
But I can see the point.

RA : One thing I've wondered about Planebuilder is how reasonable it is to treat payload as interchangable with fuel. Frequently these planes hit volume limitations.The bomb bay is a void space consuming volume. Shouldn't there be a penalty due to the need for temporary tanks to be fitted in the bay? Or is that to minor to bother with?

Hrolf: While the Dutch aren't building it, Fokker's D.120 design is like the ANT-35

Planebuilder calculates the total internal volume. In practice, much less than this would be available for fuel. Typically you'd have a standard size of fuel tanks in the plane which would be filled up to the required level to make it to the target and back + reserve. For longer missions the plane gets more overloaded which'll limit the runways it can use. The range values in Planebuilder for fighters can be massively overstated as there aren't many fuel tanks in them. The P51 getting it's range from a rear fuselage tank that made it unstable on takeoffs. Using drop tanks the range will be lower than planebuilder gives because of the added drag.

VVS leadership directed the Tupelov Design Bureau to develop replacements for Russia's present strike aircraft, the obsolescent I-3U and I-6U fighters. Tupelov's bureau offered the following design in 1935:

ANT-36 Tactical Bomber
Wingspan - 14.6m; Length - 10.1m; Height - 3m; Wing Area - 29.75m2
Crew - 1; Engines - 1x 1000HP Miliukov-37 radial engine; Empty weight - 2,925kg; Maximum weight - 4,080kg
Armament - 2x 14mm machineguns in wings, 1x 14mm MG in dorsal mount, 1x 20mm cannon mounted above engine
Armor - 12mm for pilot and gunner

Top speed - 245kts; Maximum altitude - 8,300m; Maximum range with no bombload - 1,800nm at 150kts
Combat radius with 500kg bombload - 300nm

Quoted

Originally posted by AdmKuznetsov
VVS leadership directed the Tupelov Design Bureau to develop replacements for Russia's present strike aircraft, the obsolescent I-3U and I-6U fighters. Tupelov's bureau offered the following design in 1935:

ANT-36 Tactical Bomber
Wingspan - 14.6m; Length - 10.1m; Height - 3m; Wing Area - 29.75m2
Crew - 1; Engines - 1x 1000HP Miliukov-37 radial engine; Empty weight - 2,925kg; Maximum weight - 4,080kg
Armament - 2x 14mm machineguns in wings, 1x 14mm MG in dorsal mount, 1x 20mm cannon firing through spinner
Armor - 12mm for pilot and gunner

Top speed - 245kts; Maximum altitude - 8,300m; Maximum range with no bombload - 1,800nm at 150kts
Combat radius with 500kg bombload - 300nm

Hmmmm. Fairly heavy to very heavy gun armament (the twin 14mm wing guns AND an engine-mounted 20mm). The range with 500 kg of bombs is reasonable, but the ferry range is VERY high. Where is all that fuel going to be put?

It can physically carry that fuel but in practice would only be able to if there is enough fuel tank space, which there won't be without big external tanks.

Quoted

Originally posted by AdmKuznetsov
VVS leadership directed the Tupelov Design Bureau to develop replacements for Russia's present strike aircraft, the obsolescent I-3U and I-6U fighters. Tupelov's bureau offered the following design in 1935:

ANT-36 Tactical Bomber
Wingspan - 14.6m; Length - 10.1m; Height - 3m; Wing Area - 29.75m2
Crew - 1; Engines - 1x 1000HP Miliukov-37 radial engine; Empty weight - 2,925kg; Maximum weight - 4,080kg
Armament - 2x 14mm machineguns in wings, 1x 14mm MG in dorsal mount, 1x 20mm cannon firing through spinner
Armor - 12mm for pilot and gunner

Top speed - 245kts; Maximum altitude - 8,300m; Maximum range with no bombload - 1,800nm at 150kts
Combat radius with 500kg bombload - 300nm

Hmmmm, wait a second: a radial engine and a cannon firing THROUGH the propeller spinner (ie, the crankshaft)?? I don't think that's possible.....

No, that wouldn't be possible. A ventral arrangement with a syncronised 20mm would be an alternative. I wondering about the combined 20mm + 14mm armament, 20mm + 7.62mm would probably be more effective against ground targets.

Alternatively, and very historically Russian, a 20mm or two could be mounted in the cowling and be synchronized to fire through the propeller arc. For strafing infantry, 7.62mm MGs would probably be superior to 14mm HMGs, because of the higher rate of fire. Or the 20mm cannon could be replaced by a pair of 7.62mm MGs for anti-infantry service and the 14mms retained for anti-armor work.

Attack aviation is for the conduct of Deep Battle, to strike simultaneously throughout the entire depth of the enemy operational deployment, as the 1936 Polnoye Ustav put it. Its targets will be armored vehicles (the 20mm takes care of those ), and trains/trucks/wagons (I figure 1 incendary round per 4 AP will do nicely for those ).

For support against infantry, in offense or defense, artillery is the thing, and Russia's Army has no shortage of that.

Quoted

Originally posted by AdmKuznetsov
ANT-35 Heavy Bomber
Wingspan - 39m; Length - 23.6m; Height - 6.2m; Wing Area - 188m2
Crew - 8; Engines - 4x 1650HP Miliukov-35 in-line engines

Sorry, but I need to ask: What´s that planes date of maiden flight?

Even with ~5-years ahead OTL I have a problem with a 1650HP engine....... We are in 1935 which allow UP TO 1940 OTL for planes. So that would be max. 1200HP Merlins, DB601Aa and the like, right? But 1650HP would require at least a DB603AS or DB0605L for example...

No comments on the engine power?

I'm inclined to agree with you, HOo, the rated power seems rather too high for current in-line engines.

It just depends how big and how heavy it is. If its similar to the historical AM-35 then its producing rather too much power at the moment.

Its not the current most powerful inline in production at 1650hp.

it weighs 1986 lb. It's efficiency is 22.5%, and it produces 0.83 hp/lb.

So, 50 pounds lighter (dry) than a DB-603A, but 150 hp less max power, resulting in a slightly more efficient engine (hp/lb wise). The fuel efficiency is good (but within bounds for the period). Weight is the same as the RR Griffon.

I'd say de-rate it a bit more for the period (say 1400 hp), unless it's a larger engine than a V-12 like the DB-603 or the Griffon. Then it would be a fair amount heavier (the DB-609, a 16 cylinder -603 derivative, was 1400 kg, vs 910 for the -603).

1986 lb for 1650hp is 0.8308 hp/lb
1986 lb for 1400hp would be 0.705 hp/lb, dropping the efficiency to 19.1% from 22.5%

For a mid-1930s design 19.1% efficiency is pretty low.

DB-603A 2036 lb for 1800hp is 0.8841 hp/lb, and its efficiency is 23.9%

I don't see how I'm pushing any design envelope here, and the one suggestion would drop the efficiency to a level not seen in many years.

I think the ANT-35 engines should stay the way they are.