 |
 | |
 | ||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Caudron Aircraft in the Soviet Union From the Soviet archives © Lennart Andersson |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 This Caudron C.690 was acquired by the Soviet Government and evaluated at the NII VVS in Moscow in 1939. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Like many other nations the Soviet Union acquired samples and production rights from prominent aviation firms in other countries and on 23 April 1936 the Mar'yamov Commission in France was instructed to acquire the licence production rights for a number of Caudron types. Additional specialists were assigned to the commission and the designers Yakovlev (from Factory No 115) and Tairov (from Factory No 43) were sent to France as well. The commission was asked to purchase two prototypes each of the Simoun, Goeland, Taifun, C.670 and an unspecified fighter-trainer. By August the C.720 had been chosen as the fighter-trainer and it was to be built under the supervision of the Grokhovsky design bureau at Factory No 47. The VVS (Soviet Air Force) had a requirement for 300 aircraft of this type in 1937 and 500-600 in 1938. The commission was instructed to ask if Caudron could offer a two-seat trainer with the 220 hp Renault engine. That type was to be built at Factory No 115 by the Yakovlev bureau. The C.670, to be built at Factory No 43 by the Tairov bureau, was intended as an advanced multi-engine trainer and one of the two prototypes was to be fitted with Soviet armament and equipment. A contract was finally signed on 26 February 1937. The company was to deliver all technical documentation for the licence production of the C.690 fighter-trainer (220 hp Renault 6Q-03), the C.713 fighter (450 hp Renault) and the C.444 transport (two 220 hp Renault 6Q-01). In addition nine prototypes were to be delivered by the French company for evaluation: two C.635 Simouns, a C.640 Taifun, a C.690, a C.720, two C.444 Goelands, a C.710, and a C.713. A second contract was signed on the dame day with the "Mess'e" (Messier?) firm, which was to design the undercarriages for the Caudron aircraft. Production plans had now changed and Factory No 23 was to build the C.690, Factory No 43 the C.444 and Factory No 115 the C.713. Responsibility for the C.690 was later moved first to Factory No 115 and then to Factory No 301. This facility also took over the C.713 in August 1937. Deliveries were delayed due to the crash of the C.690 in May 1937 and a break down of the engine in the C.713 in February 1938. In October these and other problems with the contract were discussed. Modern trainers were urgently needed. In the meantime Yakovlev had built his own aircraft, "No 20", with the 140 hp Renault and a decision had been taken to build this type at Factory No 301 (as the UT-2). In order to create a possible replacement for the C.690, Yakovlev was instructed to fit his UT-1 trainer with a 220 hp Renault engine for tests. By spring 1938 Soviet prototype production plans included two C.690s and two C.713s, which were to be completed by Dubrovin at Factory No 301 in May and December 1938, and Factory No 43 was to build a C.444 prototype. By 1 April 1938, 68 960 USD of the total cost of the contract, 190 000 USD, had been paid. Fiften Russian engineers had been sent to the Caudron factory to acquaint themselves with French production methods. By 19 June all C.690 and C.713 drawings and technical documents had still not been delivered. In fact not a single item had been received on time and discussions were under way to terminate parts of the agreement. The situation was as follows:
Deliveries of aircraft
Factory No 301 had built and delivered the first example of the Russian C.690 using French drawings and the second prototype was being assembled. Parts for a first series of ten were under work, as well as some components for the C.713. The C.444 had not been started upon at Factory No 43 because the necessary documents had not been delivered from France. In any way the Russians were no longer interested in the Goeland and the construction of this prototype was cancelled. On 25 November 1938 the Russian C.713 was damaged on its first flight. It was later repaired and fitted with a fixed undercarriage, after which it was referred to as a C.710. By 1 April 1939 the C.710 (ex-C.713) had still not been flown after repairs because the factory "had no suitable pilot available". As the VVS had now lost interest in this type as well, the factory was ordered to stop working on it. The French-built C.713 had arrived in the USSR and was being readied for its first test flights at Evpatoriya without armament. Some of the delay was caused by a defective undercarriage and engine malfunctions. The licence-built C.690 had been tested at the NII VVS and the French example had been assembled and test-flown at Evpatoriya. On the second example from Factory No 301 synchronised armament had been installed, but that aircraft had not yet flown. Dubrovin was preparing drawings for a modified C.690. Factory No 301 was now ordered to stop work on the C.690, but construction of the second example (C.690/2) was to be finished. The French machines were to be dismantled and used for technical investigation of their design features. The NII test report on the French C.690 was signed on 19 July 1939, followed by the report on the C.713 on 9 September. The tests with the latter type had been discontinued prematurely and the aircraft had been sent to Factory No 156 for technical examination. Already on 21 April 1938 the Russians had decided to propose cancellation of parts of the agreement. The contract period ended on 10 May 1939 and by the end of August 1939 the Russians decided to try to settle the whole affair without undue conflict with the French company. Outstanding payments for the C.690 and C.713 were to be made immediately. The C.713 had not met specifications, the Hispano-Suiza 404 cannon and the radio stipulated in the contract had not been fitted so a price reduction was to be asked for. The C.710, C.720, C.444, C.445 and C.640 had not been delivered, but as there was no longer any interest in these types, this part of the contract could be cancelled. The C.640 had been cancelled on 28 March, the C.710 on 7 April, the C.720 on 28 April. Obviously the two C.444s included in the original order had been changed into one C.444 and one C.445.  Factory No 301 built a copy of the Caudron C.690. Summing up, out of nine aircraft ordered it seems that only four were delivered, two C.635s, one C.690 and one C.713. Two C.690s and one C.713 (modified to C.710 standard) were built by Factory No 301. The fate of the two C.635 Simouns in the USSR is not known. Apparently they were not entered into the civil aircraft register. Note: My sincere thanks to Ivan Rodionov for making available the documents on which this article is based. |