AIRCRAFT DEVELOPMENT AT ZAVOD #1, PODBERESJE, USSR

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP81-01028R000100020005-3
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 13
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 4, 2012
• Sequence Number: 5
• Publication Date: January 20, 1952
• Content Type: REPORT

Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/04: CIA-RDP81-01028R000100020005-3
-a- - - - - - - - - - - SECURITY INFORMATION
CENTRAL I NTIL E CE AGEN'aE
INFORMATION REPORT
COUNTRY ; USSR
SUBJECT Aircraft Development at Zavod #l,
Podberesje, USSR
THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS INFORMATION AFFECTING THE NATIONAL DEFENSE
OF THE UNITED STATES WITHIN THE MEANING OF TITLE 18, SECTIONS 793
AND 794, OF THE U.N. CODE, AS AMENDED. ITS TRANSMISSION OR REVE?
LIT ION OF ITS CONTENTS TO OR RECEIPT BV AN UNAUTHORIZED PERSON 19
PROHIBITED BY LAS. THE REPRODUCTION OF THIS FORM 19 PROHIBITED.
DATE DISTR. JAN 52
50X1-HUM
NO. OF PAGES 13
NO. OF ENCLS.: 2
THIS IS UNEVALUATED INFORMATION
50X1-HUM'
information on the EF-12 aircraft-.
Type : Interceptor'
Range 1/2 hour flying time
Armament: Two fixed guns ("less than 37 mm")
Crew : One
Power
Plants-. One pulse jet (Angus Rohr)
,Weight Unknown
Sp%h' 4.8 meters
Length a 4.5 to 5 meters
Speed : Designed for 650 kpm; actual speed: unknown
Ceiling : Unknown
(a) The engine was mounted above the fuselage like that in the
V-i "Buzz Bomb".. It was planned to catapult the airplane
into the air and have it land on skids. Three were built
and one was test flown in Dessau. It was towed up and
glided down without using power. On the second flight, the
pilot was killed. In Podberesje, one was towed up to alti-
tude, started, and flown without incident.
(b) The oxygen system, as on all airplanes built in Podberesje,
was a German wartime development, The JU-288 had-the same
oxygen system. i',
SECRET
SECURITY INFORMATION'
DISTRIBUTION
"ORM NO. 51-4F
CT 1951
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/04: CIA-RDP81-01028R000100020005-3
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/04: CIA-RDP81-01028R000100020005-3
SECRET
SECURITY INFORMATION
?3?
This airplane was based on the JU-390. Design was started
but the projant was t . , ter the mock
12 sets of prints. This sudden change in attitude lead
up was u' At this time, he Russians 50X1-HUM
professed no further interest but still took the customary
me to believe that the Russiane are building this plane.
(b) The preliminary drawings and mockup were made wit" ?m,??4.
back wings and T-shaped empennage, 50X1-HUM
(o Three jet engines were buried in line in each wing. One
version was planned to use the Jo 008, and the other
to use a Mikulin engine of unknown designation. The
thrust is not known for either engine, For added take. off
thrust and 8-12 second duration or four rockets with 1500
kilo thrust and l2-16 second duration, The type of Rato
fuel used is unknown.
(d) The main fuselage fuel tank had cylindrical compartments
The single bomb bay (20 meters long, three meters maximum
diameter) could carry three 1000 kilogram bombs in line or
six 500 kilogram bombs, No definite plans Were made for
anything larger although there was talk of carrying one
3000 kg bomb. The bomb bay doors were made in twelve
sections, six on. each side, that slid up inside the bomb
bay. When closed, the sections were interlocked.
top turret were manned, The others were remotely controlled
by a hydraulic se vo-mechanism designed during World War II
by Junkers and known as the FA-15 system.
inside the tank designed to reduce the effect of gun fire,
There were also provisions for emergency dumping of all
fuel.
For armament, the airplane had one chin, one top, one belly
(between cabin and bomb bay) and one tail turret.. The tail
turret was jettisonable Each turret had two guns of the
same caliber as previous airplanes, The tail turret and the
(g) Tricycle landing gear was used. The. main gear folded into
the fuselage and had a joint in. the strut so that the wheel
was still in the vertical position when retracted. Each of
.the main gear wheels was dual tired.(side.by side). The
nose gear folded aft and pivoted to lie flat in the fuselage,
(h) When the Russian mockup board first came to look at the
EF-132, they told the Germans a new crew arrangement would
be required as follows:
(1)
"Commandant", who sat farthest forward in the.nose. He
was in charge of the airplane, did the navigating and
also the sighting of the bomb run.
dier when to release the bomb
He told the bombar-
2
Pilot
3
Co-pilot
Gunner-bombardier
5
Radio operator
6
Tail gunner
This new arrangement required considerable: ;..hange in the instru-
ment panels, I believe that this was Impractical arrangement`
but it was a Russian regtd.irement made without explanation, The
main cockpit and tail gunners comp arrment were to be pressurized,.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/04: CIA-RDP81-01028R000100020005-3
 tinvi _ul 1RA
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/04: CIA-RDP81-01028R000100020005-3
SECRET arks.
SECURITY INFORMATION
-5-
(h) Juelge had finished his ' test flights without encountering
any vibration. However, Feodorow, the Russian test pilot,
encountered 'violent tail flutter when he flew this air-
plane. This occurred in level flight at 36O~1t20 kph,
50X1-HUM
(i)
(j)
stabilizer tip. I remember that these streamlined objects
lation of stream lined steel weights, under each horizontal
The.EF-140 was ready for flight but sat on the ground
for four to six weeks before flying because orders. to
fly were held up and fuel was not made available,
.Bonuses for flight testing were repeatedly put off until
na`later date" but were never paid,
At Ramenskoje, Freytag complained bitterly to
Ministerialrat Jangel, calling the delay in the. EF 14o
programs "sabotegees. Freytag was warned by Jangel.that
if he continued this attitude, he might find himself
in dauaer ' of personal harm,
here he gave progress reports to e
of the Soviet, Union". On his return, )uA I fl"IVI
Baade stated that he had received the impression from
the discussions following the talks, that there were
two factions in the Kremlin. One was in favor of
letting the Germans have a free hand, but the majority
seemed to favor helping the Russian designers get a
medium bomber built before the Germans did. ?Baade said
that he hoped they might be able to offset this
diecrim$nation by exerting extra effort. The trips to
the Kremlin were on general matters and not in reference
to any particular airplane.
(k) I feel that it was the belief of the Germans that the Russian
designers had access to information on German projects and
were using it in an' effort to be the first to get a medium
bomber built.
information on the EF-150
Type o Heavy Bomber and Reconnaisance
Range a Bomber 4200 1cm; reconnaisance 5500 km
Armament: Two fixed guns and tail turret
Crew. : Four
Power
Plant : Two Mikulin. (1900-5000 kgJ
Two Lulko 5000?5200 kg
Weight : .55-60 ton
Span : 3738 meters
Length : 28-30 meter
Speed 1050 kph top; 900 kph c.sing (design)
Ceiling 12000 meters
sefc UT "te Pr
Baade made two trips to Moscow 50X1-HUM
a 15 cm in diameter but
Materials used in the EF -140 were half Rus an and half
German, I believe that the-Russian-materials were inferior
in strength and more inconsistent in their . dimensions and
properties.
The Germans in Podberes je were of tae -opinion' that the
Russians were not expediting the German development; 'probably
because. of the Russian designers # Jealousy of German ac-
complishments. Reasons given to support this belief were
aircraft:
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/04: CIA-RDP81-01028R000100020005-3
 tinu'I _ul IiA
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/04: CIA-RDP81-01028R000100020005-3
ECT
SECRET
SECURITY INFORMATION
-6-
(a) Plans and Progress
(1)
(3)
(4
(5
nor did I hear any discussion of series pro uc on
plans,
series production drawings had been made
would have to be reworked for series production. No
the experimental airplanes were completed but these
The detail design was started
re all of the preliminary design
p e . vidst of the detail design drawings. for
starter
The Russians were very interested in this airplane,
Very-great pressure was exerted to get the airplane
built -- "Norms", obligations for the first of May,
etc,, were yet gip, The preliminary design work was
Three models of type EF-150 were to be built as usual,
except that the static test airplane (V-2) was to be
postponed in order to finish the first flight test
airplane (Vol), This was in contrast to the usual
procedure. of completing all static tests prior to
flight, In this case, only static tests on critical
parts or sections were to be completed before the
first flight.
Quality control had
rejected the fuselage center section which was built
by a purely Russian group. It was rejected because
the dimensions were not per drawing4 the riveting done
was very poor, and there were many oil cans" in the
feeiage skin. The bomb bay doors were being built
at this time and their dimensions were also inaccurate,
to have a new.section built by the Germans,
date of the airplane would be about April 1951, instead
of late 1950 as originally scheduled. If a new fuselage
center section were built, the V-i would fly about
May - June 1951. In the event that a completely new
section were made, parts from the V-3 would ;arobabl be
used, From my experience in the plant, 50X1-HUM
the most logical and probable decision wcau ave eon
acugse whether the fuselage should be reworked or
a new section should be builte,and whether the Russians
or the Germans should build the center section. If
the fuselage were reworked, he earliest flying50X1-HUM
it was still being 50X1-HUM
but after the experience with the V-i1
this plan was probably changed,
e uaa as use age weal er sec on group was a ao
supposed to construct the V-2 and V-3 ,center sections.:
Russian personnel in the plant. Russian quality control
was used on this section of the fuselage. The other
parts.of the airplane were built under German super--
vision. Overall quality control was still under German
supervision and was as exact as that for the EEC-l~#o. 50X1-HUM
Th R i. f, 1 t ti 1
only Russian workers and foremen were 50X1-HUM
.e...ec -e - to au ld the center section of the fuselage
as the first attempt.to replace the Germans with
Or p-
zoi:
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/04: CIA-RDP81-01028R000100020005-3
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/04: CIA-RDP81-01028R000100020005-3
SECRET
SECURITY INFORMATION
-7-
(6) the 50X1-HUM
following parts were under construction for the V-l:
wings, empennage, cockpit, gas tanks (tubular internal
construction), tail section of fuselage, and the
landing gear. The mock-up of this plane had been
completed with the left wing omitted, The mock-up
was 90% wood construction although the engine housing
was made of metal and the cockpit had a tubular steel
framework. the V-2 gas tanks and 50X1-HUM
cockpit were oeing resmea. =6 wings, fuselage,
empennage, and landing gear were not yet ready'for
testing, although they were under construction. For
the V-3, only individual parts 'were being made.
(`} Feodorow, a Russian test pilot and hero of the Sov$et
Union, was scheduled to f ly the EF-1550 a The V-3
might possibly have flown in August or September 1951.
This opinion is based partly on my knowledge of the
capabilities of the plant and partly on
letters from friends in Podberesje, telling of
.bonuses which they received. I have no definite
information as to whether either airplane has flown;
however; Baade wrote to ;Riohter in September 1951
asking questions about housing, transportation, etc, so
I assumed the. work in which Baade had been engaged was
finished and that Baade contemplates returning to
Germany,
(b) General Description
(1 The project, as initially conceived in the preliminary
design seetion, had low swept back wings and had the
horizontal stabilizer located in.the center of the
vertical stabilizer, The Russians had the horizontal
stabilizer moved up into a "T" configuration,
?(2) The sketches, Enclosures (A) and (B) of this report,
were made under my direction and in such a way that..
the wing location was left until last, so that other
items such as engine and fuselage height above.the
ound would aid in determining the wing conf.igv ation.
ote that the wing configuration does not agree with
previous reports,$ in particular,
mation on ese craw ngs is asea ubon
was necessary for workmen to use a work stand to get ' up
to the tip tank,'indicating an appreciable amount of
wing dihedral.
(3) There were no wing stall fences but the 50X1-HUM
preliminary design.included moveable leading edge slots.
Further details are unknown.
(k) The horizontal stabilizer could be adjusted electrically
`between minus four and plus eight degrees angle of inci-
dence during flight,
(5) The. Russians also increased the range require ents of
the recox naisa,nce version f ^O n about 4800 lei to 5-500 km,
The final design range c the bomber Brae 4200 k :, with
a bomb load of 3000 kg.
SECRET AzE~
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/04: CIA-RDP81-01028R000100020005-3
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/04: CIA-RDP81-01028R000100020005-3
EEC E
SECRET-SECURITY INFORMATION
(a)
(6). The reconnaieance airplane was to have a bomb bay
tank 10 x 4 x 1,8 meters. On both versions, the wing
tip caps could be removed and fuel tanks installed.
It was planned tea .provide a means of dumping all fuel,
but there were no plans for single point refueling.
(7)
(8
The EF-15O had bicycle type landing gear. Each main
gear wheel had dual tires. The outrigger gear consisted
of all single tired wheels retracting into the engine 50x1-HUM
that one camera was to be placed in the nose or 'e
reeonnaieance version.
nacelles.
No cameras were intended for the bomber
Power Plants
(1)
.For the V- airplane,. drawings were made for
either of
two en Ines; an improved Mikulin (about k900-
hr a
u or a Lulko (5000-5200 kilo thrust)...
completed engines of either version 50X1-HUM
_ae a mock-ups of both engines; these mock-ups. no 50X1-HUM
include engine accessories. It was the opinion of Baade
and other German engineers, that neither of the engines
were ready, and that the first engine available would
ire-the, one installed. The two engineers, Hoch and
DuBois' who with Baade were responsible for engine
installation, had discussions with both Lulko and
Mikul.in engineers raegardin the construction and instal50X1-HUM
atio of these en rye
arna 1va$cui n wi n venom as a talked to personally in
Moscow. ) Hoch and Du Bois stated that these engineers
could answer any technical questions put to them, but'
Gould not or would not tell the Germans if the engines
were ready. The Russian deputy to Baade, Obrubow, told
the German engineers that of these engines were
available for use. no other engine planned 50X1-HUM
for the EF-1501
(21 There was talk of after-burners but if ? 50X1-HUM
(3) .Engine drawings available to the Germ a indicated no
factory location, and any plant sites. 50X1-HUM
(d) Crew and Pacilitie
The crew consisted of four men who had duties similar to those
described for the EP-132: commandant-navigator, pilot, cc-
pilot'-bomb4rdier, rear turret gunner. Ejection seats were
provided for the crew in the front compartment. The comman-
dant was ejected downward, the other two upward.. The tail
schedule was.
how pressure was maintained or what the pressure-a.] titu
these engines actually had any means of - rrus augmen-
tation. Both en le cones to adjust the 50X1-HUM
tail pipe area. this could be accomplielm,.
in flight. There were also provisions for two 1000 kilo
Rates of 12 to 16 sec duration, attached to the fuselage
about two-thirds of the way aft.
ter was provided with an exit door which was operated
hydraulically and held open to act as a wind deflector. All
compartments were pressurized but the, front and rear com-.v
partments were not connected. At 12,000 meters, the cabin
pressure was to be that of ZrOO,0- 3,000 meters. 50X1-HUM
xECRET SST
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/04: CIA-RDP81-01028R000100020005-3
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/04: CIA-RDP81-01028R000100020005-3
SECRET
IN i. W Waal
, 50X1-HUM
SECURITY INFOF,MATI0
Armament
(1) Believing that the speed of the aircraft reduced
the armament requirement, the designers.provided
only the rear revolving turret with twin cannon
("less than 37 mm") and a fixed single cannon on
each side of the cockpit. There were no remote control
features for the tail turret. Optical sights were used,
There was a "Naehtvisier" attachment which was used at
night and in fog, but I have no further details on this
attachment. I do not know if it was simply an electri-
cal eight illumination,, an infra-red system, or What
but it was not radars
(2) Bomb sighting could be accomplished by means of radar,
The bomb load was 3000 k (one 3000 kg bomb or various
numbers of smaller bombs), A hand operated bomb hoist
was provided, The hoist was removed after the bombs
had been hung, Bomb doors were sectional and slid
inside the bomb bay like the EF-1326 On the test stand,
45-50 seconds were required to open the doors,
Equipment
(1) Filtered exhaust gases were used for anti-icing the
leading edges of wings and empennage, There were no
provisions for anti-icing the air intake of the engines,
although there was a screen in the air intake, There
was a chemical cartridge between the glass panes of the
windshield which was used for g moisture and
possibly frost. provisions for
tapping off air from zae engine compressor section,
(2) Pneumatic systems were not used in this airplane, but
hydraulics were used for landing gear, bomb bay door,
tail gunner's escape hatch, and brakes.
(3) Electrical actuators were used to adjust the horizontal
stabilizer and the trim tabs on the rudder and ai.lermonns_
, nowever., p s r or the ins , a . -
a can c more than one battery but I do not know what
the electrical connection was to be,
(4) The liaison engineers had very little contact with the
electrical sections and I have no knowledge of radar;
however, the head of the electrical section said . that
any radar used was of German design and had been brought
from Dessau. Cockpit instruments were reworked German
equipment,
(5)
Flight control surfaces were actuated by dural pushrode,
torque tubes, and combinations of both. Cables had not 50X1-HUM
been used in any Junker_s~ airplane since
-Junkers engineers wanted to avoid
rigging maintenance difficulties. A hydraulic servo 50X1-HUM
boost mechanism for all axes had been built, had passed
tests, and was, to be used on the ,F-150, I know of no
research being conducted on purp..:,pcwer flight control
systems, although the FA-15 l trcDitLic'gun turret system
wads operated without mecharj,ce,1_linkage between the
sight and turret,
SECRET
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/04: CIA-RDP81-01028R000100020005-3
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/04: CIA-RDP81-01028R000100020005-3
SECRET SECRET
SECURITY INFORMATION
-1O-
Production Problems
gear were defective and looked like castings full of blow
holes. These parts were later replaced by new.ones, Spar
.caps had to be milled from round stock as the proper size
extrusions were unavailable. There was practically no German
material available for this airplane.,, and. it was built- almost
entirely of Russian. material,, which was quite.. inferior to the
German. The only main structural members ' made from steel.
were the bomb racks and. the structure to carry the wing spar
loads through the fuselage, Main control columns and rudder
pedals were made of "electron" (magnesium .,alloy). ' The
magnesium parts were not made'at Podberesje and I have no idea
where they were obtained.
In addition to the poor work on the fuselage, other
production problems existed. Difficulties were encountered
An securing. the- large sizes of sheet..metal required in
building the EF-154. The drawing .speoifications called for
aluminum 4 thick and larger than 2,5=m x 3 and Some of
these sheets had to be spliced by spot-welding'"to'get the
required size. The first forgings received. for. the landing
(h.) Wind Tunnel Work
Wind tunnel work were done bo~h in Podberea je and in Moscow.
All wind tunnel models were constructed is the; model work-
shop connected with the wind tunnel at Podberes1je. Steel
models of various scales were tested and,-as far as I know,
no wood. models of the 'EF-150 were tested, both full , 50X1-HUM'
models; the largest full spear steel model
ad.1,80 meters wing span and was about 1.50 50X1-HUM
The motor nacelles.were solid. This model
was sent to Moscow for testing.
activities of the 50X1-HUM
Siebel group at.Podberes e, who were working on.a supersonic
liquid rocket interceptor:
Type.
Range.
Armaments
Crew
Power
Plant
Weight
Span.
Interceptor
Unknown
Unknown
One (prone position)
One liquid rocket (""Walther OfenT)
'Unknown
Unknown
whether this aircraft was model
346 or 426, The plane had one "Walther Ofen1? using NT&C'
fuel.: It had a sharp nose (ogive), swept back wings, and
high horizontal stabilizer. The pilot rode in the prone
position in ajettisonable.cockpit.
b) During the first test flights, it was towed. upstairs by a
TW-k. (I believe that this plane was described in an
American publication in 19 7 or 1918.-) Letters from
Podberesje indicate that two' satisfactory flights were made
in May 1951,
.While this was the only Siebel alroraft actually built at
Podberes jep many designs-were maude and sent to Moscow. All
of these designs were for 3&personic aircraft,, but I do not
know if they were piloted o not,
-end-
SECRET 4-C
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/04: CIA-RDP81-01028R000100020005-3
x-.88. In later tests, it was carried under the wing of a
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/04: CIA-RDP81-01028R000100020005-3
SECRET
SECURITY INFORMATION
? 11
Bio ?a hical Index of Names Appearing in this Report
1. Baade, Brunolf (Dipl Engineer) Chief Designer for the
DuBois, Georg (Engineer)
Junkers group at Zavod
#1, Podberesje, USSR
Engine installation
designer with the Junkers
group
Feodorow, (fnu) Russian Test Pilot
Freitag, Fritz (Engineer) Deputy Chief Designer of
Hoch, Hans (Engineer)
Jangel, (fnu)
Juelge, Paul
Obrubow, (fnu)
Richter,, Erich (Engineer)
the Junkers group
Engine installation
designer with the Junkers
group
Russian Ministry official
in Moscow; exact position
unknown
Chief Test Pilot with the
Junkers group
Russian Deputy to Chief
Designer Baade
Formerly a technician
liaison engineer with the
Junkers group and now
living in the East Zone
SECRET
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/04: CIA-RDP81-01028R000100020005-3
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/04: CIA-RDP81-01028R000100020005-3
SEC'
SECRET
SECURITY INFORMATION
5mE 4 r-
i~?IJT U I EV~J
1~D~L C F 150
- toSL re (A)
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/04: CIA-RDP81-01028R000100020005-3
 wt f
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/04: CIA-RDP81-01028R000100020005-3
SEC
SECRET ~za
SECURITY INFORMATION
? 13
cloy Y e1( )
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/04: CIA-RDP81-01028R000100020005-3