Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
Rare Soviet Supersonic Myasishchev M-50 Bounder
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 10. 2021
- The Myasishchev M-50 'Bounder' was a rare Soviet Air Force four-jet engine supersonic strategic bomber prototype conceived to strike against the Americans in case the Cold War escalated.
The M50 was equipped with four engines and enough fuel to handle strategic strike capabilities with a range of up to 10,000 kilometers. It was also capable of achieving speeds of almost 2,000 kilometers per hour, and was armed with an arsenal of lethal M61 cruise missiles.
However, the M50 revealed a lack of understanding of supersonic flight, and the rise of intercontinental ballistic missiles and the initial victories of the Soviets during the Space Race soon became a priority for the Russian industry.
Stalin himself approved the development of the Bounder, but it came at a considerable cost.
---
Join Dark Skies as we explore the world of aviation with cinematic short documentaries featuring the biggest and fastest airplanes ever built, top-secret military projects, and classified missions with hidden untold true stories. Including US, German, and Soviet warplanes, along with aircraft developments that took place during World War I, World War 2, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Cold War, the Gulf War, and special operations mission in between.
As images and footage of actual events are not always available, Dark Skies sometimes utilizes similar historical images and footage for dramatic effect and soundtracks for emotional impact. We do our best to keep it as visually accurate as possible.
All content on Dark Skies is researched, produced, and presented in historical context for educational purposes. We are history enthusiasts and are not always experts in some areas, so please don't hesitate to reach out to us with corrections, additional information, or new ideas.
If anyone is looking for info on the notional armament of the Bounder, like I just was, the M-59 and M-61 cruise missiles were also paper projects that never got anywhere. They were supersonic cruise missiles that resembled the large, winged creations like the relatively contemporaneous Hound Dog and Snark missiles, but there are only some basic technical diagrams and footnote references. The whole thing was only ever developed in a very limited way.
I wish I'd read this first before I wasted almost an hour looking! Thanks for clarifying this.
@@rockbutcher You're welcome, I was trying to spare fellow aficionados of Soviet weapons tech the irritation. I'd never heard of those before and they're not in many web sources. The M- designation should have been a clue for me, same designer as the Bounder.
I've got some additional information courtesy of literature. The M-61 is mentioned by Yefim Gordon in Soviet X-Planes, and is described as being 11 meters long, as mentioned in the video. But what's not mentioned is that this forced an exorbitantly long Weapons Bay onto the M-50/52, moving the now primary weightbearing rear truck to the tail, which created takeoff problems. Additionally Gordon states that the M-50/52 could to carry 4 Kh-22s ''scabbed onto the fuselage semi-externally in pairs", which is the provisions for additional missiles mentioned in this video.
@@noecarrier5035 Well said, "Noe". By the way, the USAF unofficially called the M-50 "The Bullshit Bomber". The speed figures given here are "notional", which means meaningless in the real world. And any idea of range should be answered by the lack of external fuel tanks. No strategic bomber of the era could do without them, this one included.
@@paulkellman5477 Nice one! Thanks for the info. I was imagining those giant things mated to the exterior, like how the Hound Dogs were deployed on B-52s slung under the wings, and it perhaps having the capability to carry two.
For a whole five minutes at maximum thrust! It's a very ambitious design, to put it mildly.
This always reminded me of something out of a Thunderbirds episode.
AGREED! i hadn't thought of that, but you nailed it!:-) 🏆🖖
Thunderbirds are going. Uh, Grammarly corrected the moniker yes I discovered that show and I loved it and all the shows the G. Anderson made well, the ones I found and watched :)
Tru-Dat
about the Firefly?
@@Verklunkenzwiebel I totally forgot that series
As a pilot, those wingtip mounted engines would scare the heck out of me. I can only imagine how much rudder it would have taken to hold a heading had you lost the #1 or #4 engine at V1.
The word "flutter" makes me clench diamonds with that design...
That first v1 cut during your 2nd training flight in the plane... Yikes!
@@BobbyGeneric145 in soviet russia, pilots not afraid. in soviet russia, plane is afraid!
Roger that.
I feel like it would be better to cut the other outboard engine if one quit (assuming the aircraft is still flightworthy!).
The understanding lacked by Soviet Aerodynamicists when they laid out the original M-50 design was the idea of the "Area Rule". We discovered the same limitation with our F102 2nd Gen Jet Fighter.
From the wiki:
"A member of the Century Series, the F-102 was the USAF's first operational supersonic interceptor and delta-wing fighter. It used an internal weapons bay to carry both guided missiles and rockets. As originally designed, it could not achieve Mach 1 supersonic flight until redesigned with area ruling."
Note that the F102 would have been the enemy the Bounder would have to face if the cold war went hot.
Within less than 5 years of the F-102 entering service the F-101B and F-106 were available and both would have been in service before the M-50.
@@Ushio01 …. Except the F-106 only augmented the F-102, not replaced it. With Soviet ICBMs in service replacing them all wasn’t worth it. The first challenge to Soviet intercontinental bombers were RCAF F-101 Voodoo.
Area rule is nonsense. But it played vital role when early jet engines lack its power.
right, mig31 and sr-71 all follow this "Area Rule".
@@alexlo7708 except it wasn't nonsense because it worked.
"Stalin approved, but it came at a cost."
-yeah, that seems to be Stalin doctrine on anything he approved.
Imagine being in the group that opposed Stalin's plans, calling them 'stupid, vulgar, ansd idotic',
@@crankychris2 what group? lmao
Fantastic footage of the parade flybys.Imagine the pride and thrill to see those monster's overhead,then imagine the fear of other nations.I have always enjoyed Russian aircraft but it was a Cold War story well veiled that I can now enjoy thru this awesome channel.Job well done on The fantastic M-50!
Actually, it's trash. Some nice video, often completely irrelevant to the subject (showing random GTA missiles while talking about ICBMs is typical), and complete howlers in the nartration (Soviet nuclear weapons acquired by abducting German scientists, anyone?). Plus there's the overwrought nattation style.... SMH. Next on this channel: Flying Saucers from Space!
@@gandydancer9710 You feel better? I encourage you to make a better one.
@@gandydancer9710 uh oh, someone offended the american~
@@TheTmieBandit It's telling that there's no refutation of anything I said in the responses by the brown-nosers.
Vinnie Moreno - "The fantastic M-50!" - you are marveling the tool that was built to destroy you and your family and raise your neighborhood in nuclear dust. Are you guys insane? - this soviet crap should go to hell and under!
Thank you for playing back your voice in real time. It makes you easier to understand.
true but still pretty fast✌️🤔
Put speed at 1.25 for nostalgia purposes.
I never even noticed man it never felt fast to me
... set it for 0.25 to view that atomic blast . . . you could still understand him!
I hate his Ben Shapiro delivery. Not because of the political views but because voice is so annoying .
First time I saw a photo of this aircraft I fell in love with it’s design. Shame the engines just weren’t powerful enough and guzzled fuel.
Soviet plane designer: 'Is same as Hustler. You pull lever, very fast, is good!"
It does seem to be a response to our B-58 program announced earlier.
😂
Davai
NOWHERE NEAR the sophistication of the b58!
The Soviets struck gold when they discovered the trouble(s) with delta winged aircraft, and resolved by incorporating a stabilizer into a delta winged airframe. This is true Soviet/Russian aero pragmatism and practicality in high form. The Mig 21 success story is based on this. Carrying the hybrid form factor to M-50 size of course made sense, and the culture of that period permitted very exotic designs and projects. They took the chance. So many projects of that era were very design bold. What might have happened if the M-50 actually did get the engines it was designed for? Might it have become the base for a Russian SST? Again, if they had the engines called for, I would easily guess greater attention would be paid to area ruling over time, subsequently applied to civilian transport. Imagine the airframe as an airliner today with tip mounted engines that feature thrust vectoring. Talk about vortice management. The M-50 to a point was on it, way ahead of its time. Here's one for you to research. Check out the full history of the Boeing HSCT. (High Speed Civil Transport) Concept drawings of airframes of mach 3 - 6 would remind one of the M-50. Great post.
I agree but they only needed for just the once .,., Goodbye Europe.,...all depending on the wind ,, they will bucker down , an how bout our town? No Bees no pollination no earth , once again , no WINNER,,,., Can't stay down in your protected ???? Shelter for ever ,,. ,.an where's the earth , no more mammals , not even a fly ? ERADICATED ,!¡!!! But , it will still look green , ..if you look for it , the sky , not so much!!! Know watch you gonna DUE ..start inbreeding, cannibalism , before that , you thought u could rule the World.,,,, lol happy Halloween
@@joehuelskamp9711 Well, if this is your reaction/response to 50-60's Soviet aero design (Not accounting for purpose of course; design exclusively) I say bully to you sir. Bully.
Well said my friend!
@@sseim5654 > bully to you sir. Bully.
What does this mean?
It means you like bullies, Like the Soviets. It's a old time put down, for those who liked to be put in a subservient position to a master! Sad really.
I hope you recover from such usage.
J/K it's a term from the turn of the 19th century to the 20th. Popularized by the Great American president Theodore Roosevelt to show both satisfaction and admiration.
Sorry for the joke, I was imagining all those who study history or Teddy or both, mashing of teeth and the the expelling of invectives my way.
I laughed heartily at their imagined anger...
"Easily shot down plenty of B-29's" isn't really accurate. While they were obviously extremely vulnerable a total of 16 were shot down by Mig-15's throughout the entire war. B-29's also shot down at least twice as many Mig-15's. Total losses from all causes was less than 1 per 1,000 sorties so for an older design B-29's and their crews still performed extremely well in Korea.
That is pretty awesome that the B-29s took down THAT MANY fast moving Mig 15s.
Given the weight balance issues the MiG21 had, I can only imagine what a nightmare this must have been.
Something about soviet plane design look so shape and fierce.
I love it when something looks like shape!
Yeah this plane looks cool as hell!
I'm a big fan of the more recent sukhois, flanker and felon especially, there's a very unique look to them
@@donaldfrankcheadlejr.1244 Agree, the Su-57 Felon is a work of Art! It's very capable but Very expensive. Not sure Ivan can afford to build many of them ... ^v^
I have a picture of me standing in front of this aircraft at the air force museum in Monino in about 2 feet of snow with a giant smile on my face. To be honest, I had no idea what it was until now. Thank you so much for doing this. I’m so glad to finally know.
Great design, glad that the prototype was preserved.. Beautiful airframe. I love the early and mid cold war aircraft..
It looks gorgeous
This design has a fatal flaw. If the wingtip engine unstarts while at supersonic speeds I can guarantee you it will yaw and roll out of control and break up.
@@dougball328 also the Russian engines aren't reliable
In America: Plane obey laws of Physics
In Soviet Russia: Physics obey laws of Plane
Even the physics fears the gulag
Great design, glad that the prototype was preserved.
USA: "Let's spend decades coming up with more and more vastly expensive military projects that we know are a dead end. We expect the Soviets will copy us and lose money they don't have. Sooner or later, they'll simply go broke"
USSR: "Challenge accepted!"
The USSR did not go broke it was destroyed by traitors from within and that's a lie that the west trying to say that the USSR economy was poor. How can USSR be broke if it could just print money just like America does today. American economy is trillion in debt and yet it does not go bankrupt how they just print more money. USSR could do the same thing since they had their own currency. USSR economy was growing steadily at a slower rate compared to American economy. But the American economy had it issues also with 8 recession same as depression in its economic the USSR had none.
USSR should have kept increasing the investment into their economy to raise the GDP per person to match the US but they put too much money into military that was one mistake and the USSR had a lot of economic mistakes just like the US. It just the US could turn into a hybrid western communism economy where the US government just gives out EBT cards, food stamps, increase welfare system spending, keeps bailing out large companies like banks or auto industry instead of letting them fail and go bankrupt like a true free competition economy. What happened to the idea of the strongest survives or the free market idea and government should not interfere.
@@warrior3614 Please learn about the Bretton Woods Agreement of 1944. This convention games the system of international trade to keep the US dollar perpetually in worldwide circulation, which largely prevents inflationary spirals like the one Greece went through, and the one that is ruining Venezuela. The same thing would have happened in the USSR, and it's a credit to your former country's leadership that they must have realized this.
@@warrior3614 Не зря говорят - хорошие вещи не разваливаются... Какие уж там "traitors from within"! Распад Союза был делом времени, что обуславливалось социальными и экономическими аспектами его существования. И корыстные желания действующих элит, пусть даже подпитываемые извне, могли быть только сопутствующим но уж никак не определяющим фактором. При это стоит помнить, что моральный облик массового числа этих самых предателей, мнимых и настоящих, были сформированы в условиях советской действительности, что тоже на многое намекает. Но, обобщая, можно отметить, что вызовы, с которыми столкнулся Союз на последнем этапе своего существования, явились результатом непродуманной экономической и социальной политики, проводимой фактически с самого образования государства. В итоге заложенные и накопленные дефекты в конце концов сдетонировали и привели не просто к очередной рецессии, как это бывает на западе, но к полноценному экзистенциальному кризису политической системы, из которого она так и не вышла. Задачи, которые стояли в то время перед политиками, попросту не могли быть решены в рамках той парадигмы, которая идеологически и политически действовала в стране. Не могли быть решены без глубокой и всесторонней модернизации, на которую так до конца и не отважились. Предпосылки и причины распада СССР лежат в многих плоскостях. Аргументы в сторону конкретных лиц - "предателей" - это лишь удобный пропагандистский штамп, который приводит нас к аргументации типа ad hominem: мол, в стане всё было в целом нормально, а за её развал ответственны конкретные люди. А между тем в стране всё было отнюдь не нормально, и именно в этом кроются корни её распада.
@@warrior3614 I am guessing you were not alive during this timeframe.
Never heard of this aircraft. Thanks for the video. Also, thanks for slowing down your voice speed somewhat, makes it a bit more enjoyable.
Your episodes are getting better and more error free. This channel is getting traction! I'd recommend getting a group of volunteers to review the script then preview a draft.
regardless of it's ability to actually function, it's a damn gorgeous airplane.
This Channel is amazing. So many great footage and information. I can't even believe how he finds most of this stuff!! Amazing, and thank you!!
Awesome stuff Dark! I love your narration and I know you do a great job of finding footage for rare aircraft; some people act like you can just get an hour of footage off Getty or something
SOME PEOPLE think that maybe the videos don't need to be 10 minutes long, with 5 minutes of repeated video clips while he narrates what we're seeing on the clips we've already seen 15 times in 5 minutes. DERP maybe if original video can't be found, the video itself shouldn't be 10 minutes. Narration that literally repeats itself just to stretch video and view times are clickbaity as hell.
@@gravit8ed really now?
Perhaps you can do a better job looking for soviet footage of soviet era bombers or any classic footage for the related topi that is not owned by a selfish company named "Critical Past LLC" that charges beyond $200 per Footage with an indemnifiable licences.
Have some lateral thinking.
Cool vid.
These Dark channels are turning out to some of the best on here.
Some great Cold War content. & here we are now in 2021 ...& back into another 'Cold War'.
One big difference no one can afford the huge cold war era production runs so a hot war won't last long before attrition forces everyone to the negotiation table.
@Brian Roome what civil War is about to start? Please explain.
What a gorgeous machine. Straight out of a 1930's era space adventure comic.
It looks like a custom Estes model rocket that a kid cobbled together with the leftovers at the bottom of his spare parts box.
Not far off from what it probably was. Lol
Always great content. Thank you for that!
I absolutely love your videos. Back in the 90s there was a show called Wings (about aircraft not the comedy). I could watch them over and over. Same with these...I'm a product of serving in the US military during and after the cold war. I was always (and still am) fascinated with the old Soviet designs and the comparison to the NATO counterparts. With the state of affairs in the world now, it makes me long for the security of the cold war and policy of mutual annihilation. Things were MUCH safer when we knew who our enemies were.
Without that huge red ellipse in the thumbnail I would not have noticed that plane!
When Stalin mentions you by name.... You have a problem
Dah. with only one exception J Tito, Stalin challenged to a staring contest but Stalin blinked oops and he outlived Stain too another oops despite the attempts on his life a few more oops.
I'm glad for your international fans that you use the metric system. Keep up the good work 👍👍👍👍
Imagine if the outboard engine failed. The thrust vectoring would have been a bear...
It's Fat Bear Week, BTW. ;-)
I see what you did there...
@@mrichar9 Yeah, Tu clever by half.
Fantastic content, thank you!
I only wish I got the noise from the highlighted aircraft.
Love all these unusual aircraft you present!
Beautiful airframe. I love the early and mid cold war aircraft.
It's interesting that this M-50 bomber is reminiscent of the B-58 Hustler, albeit with a separate tailplane
Оба эти самолета роднит одно...они были сделаны в условиях когда не было пригодных для них двигателей..поэтому и жизнь у них такая короткая..
Reminds me of fireball XL5
You mention the Shorts Stirling and ignore the Avro Lancaster!!!
A good comparison to the Russian prop bomber since the Stirling was not allowed to be developed/ improved like the Manchester/ Lancaster was.
@@georgebarnes8163 that was largely because the original design had called for a much longer wingspan but it was shortened to allow it to fit in RAF hangers. With the shorter wings it's service ceiling was reduced, it was already slow and had a smaller bomb load than both the Halifax and Lancaster.
@@mickmegson6241 The Stirling had the same top speed and bomb load as the Lancaster and used the 120 feet wings of the Sunderland flying boat since conception, the hanger story is a myth which claimed to limit wing size to under 100 feet yet the Lancaster had a wingspan of 102 feet on early models and more on the later variants while the Stirling was reduced to a 99 feet wingspan for no good reason other than politics. The Halifax has a wingspan of 104 feet and a smaller bomb load than the Stirling, top speed was the same.
Kinda looks like a F104 Starfighter or an X3 Stiletto on steroids
at least they are consistent with costly failures, TU144 comes to mind ;)
Competition to the B58 Hustler I am to assume?
The star wars style music was awesome with this video, felt like I was watching Darth Vader flying over
Lol yes! 😆
Congratulations. This episode doubles my understanding of the technological and historical backstory of this bomber. Where did you find your facts?
Even the aviation writers of the time had trouble saying anything new, to the extent that Winchester could only say, “The quote that one hears again and again is that this failure showed the lack of understanding implicit in supersonic aircraft,“ as have you now.
This is a documentary lovers caviar.......amazing!
Makes you wonder why it has all the dislikes.
So glad they didn't scrap it as is the fate of many developmental aircraft through history.
@darkskies, you need to do a video of the Vickers Valiant!
and that strange looking one at 3:43. . . what is that?
I still have one of these in my base.
My first thought seeing the plane was "That looks vaguely like a B-58!"
A scaled up hustler.
The wings and engine configuration
And just as useless.
@@fredrickmillstead6397 yep, the Hustler was a great design but lacked the range needed for a strategic bomber.
I want to know is if the design work for the mig 19 and mig-21 were started before or after this.
Certainly and courtesy of TsAGI area rule AKA wasp waisting would have been known aerodynamic design features necessary for supersonic flight also the wingtip engines are easily the most noticeable no bueno feature of this aircraft
I mean if this would have had proper area rule and maybe if the wingtip engines would have just been snuck under the outer wings this would have worked
The fact that they were able to get enough power to even get this beyond the sound barrier with not after burning turbo Jets is still pretty impressive
This is one of those if they had just done that and tweaked this it would have been an achievement but thankfully just as they were starting to figure things out Khrushchev dumped Siberian ice water on most strategic bomber programs
On a side note Wikipedia said this thing cruised at 930 miles an hour and last time I checked around 740 mph the speed of sound so 🤔
Hi, can you do a Beaufighter video? I'm intrigued by this plane and it seems like it should've been used more, and has some good stories about it's use and would love your approach on it. Thanks.
Honestly like the early Northrop Flying wing it design was ahead of technology. The Flying wing needed fly by wire digital computer controls to make it a daily flyer. With the Soviet m50 the real issue was construction materials. today with stronger lightweight composite and man made materials not available in the late 50s the m50 could have been a sucess. Sure fly by wire and more fuel efficient engines would have been great. It was the issues of wing flex and fuel load that caused the cancelation of the m50 . Build it today and I am sure it would work but be expensive as all hell.
I remember building a plastic kit of it when I was a kid. It was called a nuclear bomber as in propulsion
Light gray in color made by Aurora if I remember correctly. I had a hard time understanding how nuclear propulsion could be light enough while not killing the crew by radiation to work; The USA's attempt used an NB-36H.
I think this channel deserves millions of subscribers 🤔
Very nice content
You are speaking slower than the previous videos. I appreciate that
Thanks for the amazing videos and info!!!
Ever notice how those old Soviet bombers look like 50's rocketships?
This one kinda reminds me of a very large lawn dart...
I keep looking for the string it's sliding along and the sparkler in its tail! LOL
Soviet bombers were test flown by Crash Gordon!
Thank You very much for this footage. Very informative ... 10minutes ago, all I knew about it was what my grandfather once told me: "Soviets HAD a 4 engine nuclear capable supersonic monster jet" (his words) ... i guess he wasn't bluffing, even though it's just a prototype.
Keep up the good work, love your content on this and your other channels.
"With the increasing importance of intercontinental ballistic missiles, long-range strategic bombers suddenly became obsolete."
✳B-52, B-1, and B-2 designers, builders, crews, support personnel and SAC & ACC Generals howl with laughter✳
Have you done a video on the F-107? I’d love to see that.
Thank you so much for this video. Can we please have one about the Sukhoi T4-Sotka .
Pov : youre here cuz mustard didnt post the video about m50 in yt its only on nebula and u need money to watch his vids.
Needed to raise the elevator to increase stability. Elevator in wing jetstream would adversely affect drag coefficient. Raising would put it in clean air and control would return.
Or lowering it (elevators over the plane of wings can be suscettibile to ”superstall" when the plane reach's higher angles of attack).
Never knew this existed, great video!
It was almost an object lesson in how not to build a supersonic bomber. No area rule, for one. It's like the took a Bison fuselage and put the tailed delta planform and a pointy nose on it.
What the former Soviets never said, until decades later if ever, was all the strange and often fatal problems they had trying to fast-track technology they were not fully equipped to exploit. The Flanker bomber, for example, had a potentially catastrophic issue with vibration in the fuselage at certain speeds (in fact Saddam Hussein's own nephew was killed by a Flanker in the 1980's, as in the book "Saddam's secrets".) And plenty of times aircraft were developed at great expense, turned out to be flying failures, but were kept alive merely to deceive the west. Soviet technology could often be good, but no one ever seriously believed they could out-develop the western nations and the reason was simple: In a closed communist system, with limited resources and no profit motive, it was realized even by the Soviets, there were going to be serious limits to what they could achieve. The fundamental reason being there was ultimately not a lot of motivation to take risks with technology. When the "rewards" of success might be something like a fast track to a 450 square foot apartment, but the punishment for failure might result in a failed designer winding up in a Gulag - which Stalin did to people who failed, all the time - it was not hard to understand the general conservatism of most Russian designers from that era.
LOL Looks like a B-58 Hustler... Amazing the thing got off the ground. Have to give Soviet engineers lots of credit for pulling off some of their designs.
Showed a lot more Tupolevs than Myas.
Footage availability is always an issue with prototype or limited run aircraft.
Tupolev don't do crop delta wing.
The Soviet version of the B 58. Cool.
I agree with the thunderbirds comment , no country had a hard understanding of supersonic flight.
Unusual for it's time, and even now, are it's bogie nosewheel and wingtip engines. I can only imagine that the nosewheel is hard to steer. Ground taxiing would be difficult. Similarly the wingtip engines present problems of flight handling if either engine were to quit.
I always enjoy all the "Dark" channels and find them well written and interesting, but this is the first one that didn't seem to align the pictures with the text. One minute you are talking about the M-50 and showing it's almost "Flash Gordon" design, then the next video is of a different huge bomber that looks like a copy of a Comet with engines in the wing roots - while still talking about the M-50. Just a little odd for such a fine series. As always, enjoyed the discussion.
Excellent, as always.
Thank you for the video report.
Pictures of two different planes, while talking about M50 - one apparently a swing-wing Backfire? Showing Bear after describing Bison? Consider some still shots to let your visuals and narrative synch up.
This thing would have been a bitch to fly in an engine-out situation, especially with an outboard engine gone~
It´s so fascinating who the technology went from bombers that got constantly bigger and faster to then pretty much being dropped in favor of missiles, as the missiles both became able to transport a serious amount of nukes themselves while also becoming able to intercept and destroy the bombers.
Good for the crews, given just HOW dangerous some of those bombers were, today the only bombers that are not a leftover of the cold war are stealth ones, basically.
Newer bombers pretty much do not exist, since the B2 Spirit was introduced there is not a single significant purebred bomber presented globally that i have heard of.
Very unique and unusual Soviet aircraft...very interesting. Keep up the good work.
wow, what an impressive plane. this and the b58 hustler. fast. next to the xb70.
There is the old adage "If it looks right, it is right!" Dat don't look right.
Now THAT was Very Thunderbirds .
First time I have heard or seen film of the B50. Interesting
what do they mean by "cruise missles"? Cruise missles didnt exist until the 1980s. So how could a soviet bomber in Stalin's lifetime have carried "cruise missles"?
My favourite looking jet aircraft
Three generations on, these machines are still causing nightmares. Nuclear saber rattling continues to this day.😔
I remember flying these back then
6:41 "trim charges" should be trim changes, I think. Makes a little more sense.
Regardless, it sure is a cool-looking plane.
"... the SOVIET'S scarce undetstanding of supersonic flight..." I'd say they made up for it "smartly" with the MiG-29 Fulcrum (Stormy Petrel) and subsequent variants. It is, in the Russian tradition, a typically complex machine but "easy" (LOL) to fly.
If you haven't already done so, I'd like to suggest a send-up of the POLIKARPOV I-16 Type 24. It is an "interesting", albeit ungainly, ill-fated casualty to superior German tech. My interest is held by the PK's unique wing chord profile and the forward-looking anti-stall "channel" at the wing root. Although hopelessly underpowered and under-gunned, its maneuverability was remarkable; giving rise to an evasion tactic which would ultimately come to be known as "The Crazy Ivan". This anecdote from the lips of a Russian fighter pilot who flew one (briefly, LOL) against the German Messerschmidt(s) and survived. 🤪
✋
If I'm not wrong-
The most advance variant of the Mig-29 is the Mig-29 UPG 🤔
This was a terrific piece on an aircraft I knew next to nothing about. Thanks!
What I would *LOVE* to see you tackle as it comes to Soviet / Russian planes is that old classic, the TU-95 Bear turboprop bomber. I'm sure there's one hell of a story behind that piece of hardware, never mind all of its variants. How about it?
1:40 uh it wasn't the Germans who helped the Soviets developing nukes
But its where there early rocket designs came from. They got V2s and nazi rocket scientists just like everyone else.
He meant the rockets. Americans had Operation Paperclip and the Russians had Operation Paperclipchev.
@@Mumblix and project Manhattangrad
Downward ejection seats are veritable deathtrap.
I saw this trap at Monino museum , near Moscow , pretty impressive , like the T4
Pricey stepping stone...
The Bounder?? The Brits had the Vulcan, Victor and Valliant, the Russians had the Bounder, The Cad and the Rotter...
"Bounder" was a western (probably NATO) codename. I don't know of any airplane called "Cad" and don't know what airplane would have gotten "rotter" there are specific rules for aircraft codenames.
Kelly Johnson had a concept, a "paper bomber", that looked just like it. It's depicted in the Francillon Lockheed history.
What is the music at 0:42?
Looks like something from the Gerry Anderson studios in the 1960s.
Great work Sir thank you