Shipbucket

I'm amused by these name suggestions. Zinovy Petrovich Rozhestvensky was the choleric and overly fatalistic commander of the ill-fated Russian 2nd Pacific Squadron which was practically annhiliated by the Japanese under Togo May 27-28, 1905. Nikolay Ivanovich Nebogatov was the commander of the 3rd Pacific Squadron - the "self-sinkers", and was the one who surrendered what was left of the Russian fleet in the morning hours of May 28, 1905.

Without any self-promoting (only coincidence!) I'd suggest as far better, more worthy names: SRN Bezobrazov and SRN Jessen, after:

Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov was the most successful commander of all Russian commanders during the Russo-Japanese War, leading the 1st Cruiser Brigade of Vladivostok on numerous sorties, and even fighting adm. Kamimura's superior cruiser squadron with success in the First Battle of Tsushima (Straits) July 1st, 1904.

Karel Petrovich Jessen was the commander of the same squadron in the glorious defeat off Ulsan, Aug. 14, 1904, a deafeat both the Russian Admiraltyboard of Inquiry and subsequent historians have absolved him the responsibility of.

Just my five cents...

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen

I agree with you completely. The Army would indeed be around only that size in peacetime, hence the idea of using the reserves (being all males of age) who are trained in basic military operations and tactics. If war is declared, the army's numbers would be boosted by calling in these militia reservists.

Bezobrazov: those are also potential names yes. The key reason I chose those two is largely the result of that defeat having been pivotal in the formation of the nation as its own independent entity. It is thus seen as a crucial point in their nations identity. The names are indeed still open for question but I do like those suggestions.

_________________
"The first rule is not to lose; The second rule is not to forget the first rule"

Here's an actual drawing, again returning to postwar with the Stechovsky S-2 Moyevka and some of its developments;



Designed to replace the myriad of types in service after the end of the Second World War, namely the Li-2, Sieran sought to develop a new civil airliner taking advantage of experience gained in the war with building more advanced machines and engines as well as utilising 'new' technology such as the tricycle landing gear. Initially the fuselage was to have been pressurized however the equipment was not ready in time so the Government gave the go ahead to build a non-pressurized prototype.

The end result was the S-2A Moyevka, named after the noisy seabirds after the test pilots complained of excessive noise and vibration in the cockpit and cabin. The S-2A-1, as the prototype was designated, was also found to be rather heavy on the controls whilst the new Movich MSh-190c (formerly M-19, 190 refers to single row, 900hp) was found to be somewhat maintenance intensive, which was no surprise given the original design dated back to the MSh-175 which had been a developed version of the Pratt & Whitney R-1340 Wasp. The New engine was pushing the limits of the limits of the design hard and after spiraling engine trouble plagued the flight test program, the Government stepped in and forced Movich to abandon the engine and produce a more reliable engine that would later be known as the MSh-2120. This engine delayed the development of the S-2 and Ilyushin Il-14s were imported instead, eating away at the original market for the new plane.
By the time the S-2A-2 was ready with the new engines, the company had effectively missed the boat, with the Ilyushin type fulfilling the role it had been designed for.



Not all was lost however. With the Il-14s being locally produced in small numbers, Stechovsky had the opportunity to analyze the new design. The S-2 continued to be developed at the companies own expense in the hope of attracting Military or foreign orders for the type. A cargo version was developed which included a strengthened cabin floor and a large double cargo door in the starboard rear fuselage.



The passenger version was also further developed, with the delayed pressurization system installed and noise-dampening lining added to the cabin in an attempt to counter the loud internal noise. Another inclusion with this variant, dubbed the A-4, was a weather radar housed within a re profiled nose.



Even with these developments, the S-2A was proving to be a less than satisfactory machine. Whilst the MSh-2120 proved more reliable than the engine it replaced, it was incapable of providing power efficiently at high altitudes and as a result speed and ceiling suffered. The control problems had also not been resolved, the plane was hard to control in the pitch and pilots found the placement of the trim wheels awkward and hard to reach. Perhaps more serious, the aircraft was found to suffer unexpected loss of control at high angles of attack. The crash of A-1 on approach after a test flight almost killed the program.
During the lengthy investigation after the accident, it was discovered that when at high angles of attack, the aircrafts broad wings created sufficient turbulent air to disrupt the smooth airflow over the tailplane, effectively resulting in the tailplane becoming useless. This phenomena, later known as a deep stall, was still relatively unknown at this time and it took some time before the S-2B-1 emerged.



The B-1 was a radically redesigned machine from its predecessors. Most notably the tailplane was now fixed to the fuselage instead of the vertical tail in an attempt to provide more clean air over the tail surfaces during high angles of attack. Another significant change was yet another re-engining of the type, this time to the new Movich MSh-2240 engine that produced almost double the power of the old engines. This significantly improved the aircrafts performance, both in terms of speed and ceiling. Internally the fuel tanks had been enlarged to increase range and the cabin had again been fitted with even thicker sound proofing to quieten the space. The engine mounts too featured rubber blocks to reduce the vibration, another effort to increase the aircrafts comfort.



With sales still poor, Stechovsky decided to take another radical step in the design of the S-2 by lengthening the fuselage, primarily with the intent of increasing cargo and mail space though increased passenger seating was also offered. This version, the C-1, had an increased MTOW over its smaller siblings thanks to strengthened landing gear but it still suffered from a shorter range given the comparatively small wing. Otherwise the machine was considered reasonably effective at lifting heavier loads.

With both the B-1 and C-1, Stechovsky marketed aggressively in an attempt to get foreign sales for the aircraft which had by this point placed considerable strain on the company over its prolonged development and poor sales. The aircraft was positioned as being as effective as any European or American twin but with superior reliability and ruggedness available at a lower price point.

---

More variants are to come along with liveries for the various versions. I am also pondering doing a turboprop conversion as a last attempt by Stechovsky to squeeze as much out of the airframe as they can.
In terms of crediting, these drawings feature a number of sections from both Eswubes and Kilmouses drawings of various types from this period, namely the Convair and Ilyushin families. However I have modified these quite a bit to produce a look I like so I am not sure how much is worth crediting given the nature of them.

Also, anybody want to help the strain and order some of these? xD

_________________
"The first rule is not to lose; The second rule is not to forget the first rule"

And - I'm asking just out of curiosity, regarding crediting - how much of them is not taken off from Convair CV-240/340/440/580 and Ilyushin 12/14, besides the tail? ;P

Out of memory, the nose in the original pre-radar version, the gear was very slightly modified, the larger engines were tweaked as I didn't like the originals cowl flap arrangement, redrew some panel lines and that's probably about it. I have no problems adding the credits if you'd like them, just left them off as I have no clue what was used where and how much other than the original types. Started these months ago but forgot about them.

_________________
"The first rule is not to lose; The second rule is not to forget the first rule"

Also another one I got around to finishing off tonight, the old Potez 54;



Delivered in 1934, the Potez 54 was at the time considered one of the better aircraft of its day yet within two years it would already be obsolete with the arrival of the more modern, faster Bloch MB.210 and the Tupolev SB. The Potez 54 was swiftly relegated to secondary duties with its turrets removed and faired over. In this role, the Potez aircraft became a transport primarily where it saw moderate success given its simplicity.

Perhaps the most unusual Potez 54's to see service with Sieran were those assigned to the SAR squadrons. With their fuselages painted a deep red, they stood out both from the air and on the ground. The saw primary use over the tundra where they would often be retrofitted with skis. It was in these roles that the Potez 54 was still found when Sieran was dragged into war in 1942.

_________________
"The first rule is not to lose; The second rule is not to forget the first rule"

Nice adaptation of Potez.

Yeah, I'd like to see the credits changed in S-2. I totally don't expect to be asked for permission if someone else wants to do more paint schemes or AU conversions of stuff I drawn - it's completely ok to me if someone just grabs them and does good use of them - but I expect being credited.

Hi denodon,

I like the plane, and the history's good, but I have a question - I'd thought deep stall affected particularly T-tail types like the Victor rather than cruciform tails - is it that they're still affected, but not to the same degree, or have I just misunderstood?

Regards,
Adam

_________________
Public Service Announcement: This is the preferred SB / FD font.

NSWE: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5695

Thanks. Credits have been updated along with a few minor pixel errors that I spotted in some of the drawings.

As for the Deep Stall, cruciform tails were also vulnerable to the phenomenon depending upon their placement. In this case, you have a broad straight wing that provides significant turbulent air upon a pitch up. If the angle of attack gets too step, the raised tail will get hit by this unclean air.
That is one of the reasons why the conventional tail is so common now. On pitch up the tail is pushed down and remains clear of the uneven air.

_________________
"The first rule is not to lose; The second rule is not to forget the first rule"

Alright quick question for you all for a current drawing I'm working on, what would be about the ideal size and armament for a 1920s period destroyer? I'm looking at doing a ship to link between the old R21 class and the 'modern' Veters but I'm having trouble finding good refs for vessels of this time.

I've been thinking of something roughly like the Italian Soldati class but older but I'm not sure of the best approach. Role would be still primarily as 'torpedo boat destroyers' but with increasing awareness of the utility of destroyers for anti-submarine work.

Something like a bastard child of a Clemson and Minekaze perhaps?

_________________
"The first rule is not to lose; The second rule is not to forget the first rule"