Jump to content

Myasischev M-50 Bounder


Recommended Posts

m-50_01.jpg

I have just posted some 59 walkround piccies on my website at :- http://www.flankers-site.co.uk/m-50.htm

I put them there to help those modellers who are contemplating building the new Amodel kit.....

m-50_015.jpg

My build is at :- http://www.flankers-site.co.uk/modl_m-50.html

There are more of my walkrounds at :- http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/aircra...raft_portal.htm

Just click on the appropriate thumbnail.....

Enjoy....

Ken

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nice photos of the beast. Since the outer engines pods do not contain engines, is it possible the afterburners stuck out when installed, (like the inner pods)?

Darwin

The outers never had afterburners fitted.

The M-50 was designed to have had four Zubets M16-17 turbojets of 40,764lb thrust, but these were never available - so the early flight tests were done with 4 x RKBM VD-7A turbojets of 107.91-kN (24,250lb) thrust.

After a number of flights to asses the handling, in order to continue the tests at higher speeds, the decision was made to instal two VD-7MA afterburning turbojets...

In April 1961, the two inner VD-7A engines were replaced with 157-kN (35,274lb) VD-7MAs

In this configuration (and now designated M-50A) it made only eight flights - including the Tushino parade - and the true performance of the aircraft was never tested as the afterburners were only ever used on take-off

In total, the M-50 made 19 flights before the programme was closed and OKB-23 was shut down.

All the above is in International Air Power Review - Volume 4, pages 172 to 181.

Ken

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, here's a quick question- HAD afterburners been fitted to all four engines, and/or the engines were tested at their full performance specs, OR the original planned engines had been fitted, would the airframe have ever broken the sound barrier?

I know that it's unlikely the M-50 exceeded Mach 1 in it's current configuration, but I've also heard that the airframe itself (due to the way it was designed and a lack of understanding of supersonic aircraft on the designers part) was doomed to subsonic speeds from the get-go.

Just something that's intrigued me once I began learning of the M-50....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, here's a quick question- HAD afterburners been fitted to all four engines, and/or the engines were tested at their full performance specs, OR the original planned engines had been fitted, would the airframe have ever broken the sound barrier?

I know that it's unlikely the M-50 exceeded Mach 1 in it's current configuration, but I've also heard that the airframe itself (due to the way it was designed and a lack of understanding of supersonic aircraft on the designers part) was doomed to subsonic speeds from the get-go.

Just something that's intrigued me once I began learning of the M-50....

From IAPR Vol 4 (itself a translation of Udalov's book on Myasischev...)

"On 16 September 1960 a speed of 1090 km/h (677mph) was achieved. According to the flight data this corresponded to Mach 1.01 although subsequent calculations by LII engineers quoted Mach 0.99 as the speed reached. It is impossible to define the true Mach number achieved due to a lack of sophisticated equipment on the aircraft. However, the physical phenomena experienced by the pilots in this flight, such as the disappearance of jolting and lagging of the engine noise give credence to the belief that the aircraft had reached supersonic speed"

This was before the afterburners were fitted to the inner engines, so whether it would or would not have been truly supersonic is all a bit academic now.

Interesting to speculate though what might have been had it not been cancelled due to Kruschev's 'missiles are all' campaign.

Ken

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...