ArmchairGeneral

Dang it, I can't remember that last one. Ahh, here 'tis: From the fabled stables of Myasishchev, I present to you the Bounder! Myasishchev M-50 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

__________________
"Apocalyptic thought is curiously pleasurable."
-Theodore Dalrymple

Scrapdog

The F-22 does not have variable intakes, nor does the F-16. The F-15 does. All other Russian garbage - who cares.

pdf27

The B-52 was also apparently supersonic at altitude, and the Handley-Page Victor was supersonic in a dive.

__________________
Rule 1: Never trust a Frenchman
Rule 2: Treat all members of the press as French

gunnut

Isn't the B-1B, the actual operational version of the B-1 family, a high subsonic bomber?

Also that was the Tu-26 Backfire you're thinking of.

How about the Mirage IV? It's not quite a true bomber, but it's not a multi-role or fighter-bomber/interdictor either.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

Maxor

The B-1B can break the sound barrier in level flight so it is supersonic.

glyn

__________________
Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

Injecteer

3M is the name.

The design was and IS not that bad. The point was that the plane didn't reach the pre-defined operational radius due to low efficiency of it's engines.
Nevertheless, the 3M is still operational, but not as a bomber anymore. It's used as a tanker or for transport of very specific stuff, e.g. the components of russian shuttle system.

ArmchairGeneral

Wow. That's impressive. Makes sense though. At fifty or sixty thousand feet I guess Mach 1 probably goes down to about 650 mph or so, which is around the BUFF's speed. And the Victor too? Interesting. I wonder if the banana wings were a help or hindrance.

ArmchairGeneral

The B-1B is subsonic at its designed operational altitude, i.e. skimming the treetops. I think its top speed is something like 800 mph, just barely supersonic. IIRC, the loss of speed compared to the B-1A is largely due to the removal of the variable geometry intakes, which neatly ties back to the actual topic.

Yes, the Tu-26 is what I was thinking of. It was originally known as the Tu-22M, then the name was changed, and I wasn't entirely sure what the number was.

I thought about the Mirage IV, and the FB-111 as well. Both fighter derived, but dedicated to medium range nuclear deterrence. However I figured since I could beat Jimmy's measly 4 supersonic bombers without resorting to marginal cases, why bother?

ArmchairGeneral

Sorry, I should have made clear that I wasn't referring to the Myasishchev 3M/M-4 Bison. Not supersonic, and quite a good design, despite the lack of range. Probably would have rivaled the B-52 if it had comparable engines. Set several world records. As I mentioned in a post above, I was talking about the M-50 Bounder, a plane which, according to Wiki was "an outstanding failure which revealed an embarrassing lack of understanding of the problems of high-speed flight." Here's a pic:

Attached Images

M-50.jpg (58.6 KB, 27 views)

pdf27

The B-52 is yet another example of an American aircraft where the true performance is a great deal better than the published performance. OK, that isn't exactly true - what the US tends to do is publish slightly misleading figures and let everyone else draw the wrong conclusions. A good example is ceiling - the US tends to define ceiling as the point where climb rate drops below a certain value (IIRC either 100 or 500 feet per minute). Just about everyone else defines it as the maximum altitude an aircraft can reach - with obvious potential for confusion with people underestimating the capability of the US aircraft. The B-36 is another classic example - until the MiG-17 came into common service, it could fly over any defence on earth with impunity.

The crescent wings on the Victor are an absolutely beautiful piece of aerodynamics, possibly my favourite piece of engineering of all time. They're pretty much everything at once - long root chord letting you bury engines for minimal drag penalty, constant critical Mach along the span, Kuchemann tips, and the design even inherently counteracts the wing twist associated with changing speed. It truly is an absolutely amazing design, and it's a crying shame that it doesn't get used more.

Tin Man

Saw a nice quote recently, a USAF type on the Victor..."It looks like it is doing Mach 1 sat on the ground!"

The wing concept was actually designed by a German I believe for the Arado jet bomber? With a possible 4 Skybolts or 35 , 1000lb bombs, an impressive aircraft. A pity the advanced Sapphire 9 engine was canceled and the idea to fit Olympus fell through, what an aircraft THAT would have been.

__________________
"Liberty is a thing beyond all price.

glyn

[quote=pdf27;389140]The B-52 is yet another example of an American aircraft where the true performance is a great deal better than the published performance.

I very much doubt whether any B-52 has exceeded mach unity!

The B-36 is another classic example - until the MiG-17 came into common service, it could fly over any defence on earth with impunity.

I was airborne over RAF Sylt in a clean Hunter F6 (no drop tanks) when we were given a practice intercept on a B-36. It was visible for miles because of its 10 (TEN, count them!) contrails. Established in a fast climb I realised that the gunsight bars did not go up to the 230' span of the Peacemaker. I had to guess the tailplane span. Even that was a waste of effort as we could not reach the B-36. We were much faster, but about 2,000' below it. I can't recall what altitude we were at, but probably over 50,000'. What a sight it was, as it was decorated in a fancy scheme. Later we heard that it was probably the 'featherweight' version. Some feather! Mind you, Canberras could fly higher than us, and were equally immune from interception.

glyn

pdf27

Designed by a German, yes (Gustav Lachmann). However, it is unlikely that it ever found it's way onto an Arado jet bomber being as Lachmann had been working for Handley-Page continuously since 1929, apart from a short period interned as an enemy alien. German WW2 aircraft really weren't all that advanced in practice - most of the really "futuristic" aircraft turned out to be complete dogs when built.

Source on that is private comments by a former B-52 groundcrewman. It didn't particularly surprise me though - official figures quote a maximum speed of 550kts at 20,000ft, or about 0.95 Mach. 20,000ft is implausibly low for maxiumum speed to be measured at for a jet aircraft - the official figures note "limited by structure". Move up to a more normal operating height of 40-50,000ft and that structural limit pretty much goes away due to reduced air density. The thrust figures used are also for "military power" - again, suggesting that more power was available.

1957 or later, correct? It would have been pretty much obselescent by then, as the last were retired in February 1959. Incidentally, their combat ceiling was rated at 40,000ft or so with their service ceiling (rate at which climb drops to 100 fpm) at around 30,000ft. At least, that's what the official numbers say