No XB-70 Clone. That is the Sukhot T-4 Supersonic high-altitude experimental bomber. Possibly the first fly-by-wire plane(considered too secret to say at the time). XB-70, different aircraft design. XB-70, 1964, Sukhoi T-4, 1972
The Soviets were never adverse to ripping-off a good idea, when they saw one.
Note their B-29 copy, the Tu-4, read how they stole the plans for the Concord, and produced the Tu-144, learn how they stole the metallurgy for the MIG-15's engine, also note the uncanny similarity of the MIG-25 to the US Navy's A-5 Vigilante, as well as the Soviet's miniaturized copy of the US Space Shuttle.
So yes, clearly, the Sukhot T-4 was a poor man's knock-off of the US XB-70.
Tu4=B29 copy, with the Tu144, all they stole were inital plans, not enough to create their own machine, but enough to give them the thought.
MiG25 & A5, no real similarity. 2 different design proposals, 2 different purposes, drastically different performance. The MiG15's engine was a reverse engineered Rolls-Royce nene, bought from the UK. Blame Cripps.
With the Buran, similar design, why change something that works.
The T4 and XB70 have different designs. It is easy enough to spot. XB-70 wings can fold, with a twin tail and 6 engines. T-4, single tail, 4 engines, drop nose.
Seriously, the design differs. All Russian military machines are cheaper for the same effectiveness (few exeptions). the spec was issued to capitalise on the achievements seen in the XB-70, for a smaller anti-aricraft carrier bomber.
I have doubts as to its tactical effectiveness, but as experimental aircraft, both encountered financial & airframe difficulties.
Whether a "poor man's" or not, there are many differeing features which make it a plane influenced, not a copy of XB70
How can you let sleeping dogs lie, if you let the cat out of the bag? T-4 is not a copy! Like MiG 29 & Su27 not F15 copies, and Su25 not an A10 copy. Different design.
XB-70 project cost $1.5bn, $750000 per unit. The T-4 still cost A LOT. Figures unknown. The 250 order was revoked because funds were needed for a larger order of MiG23s (approx $15m per plane).
Frankly, any country that afford either project isn't a poor country.
That was it's projected speed, but in reality it barely made it past M1 .. The engines were underpowered & the front nacelle's didn't have shock cones or some other device to slow the air down to sub mach to continue to feed the engines properly.
I do not mean this in a pejoratively sense, but the M-50 reminds me of an imaginative futuristic design you would find in the sketch book of a day-dreaming 10 year boy. That is what I find fascinating about it.
This plane 'should' have been very FAST ... but for some stupid reason, NO shock wave reduction systems were in place at the front of the engine pods to keep the airspeed below mach 1at the engine face ... Thus the aircraft could barely get over mach 1, when it was designed to be Mach 2+.
Rediculous really considering that other Soviet agencies had built other supersonic aircraft, & knew about shockwave compression. Just look at the nose cone of the Mig-21, this is what the M-50 needed.
@xoio Another problem was the large area of the fuselage and the subsequent drag. There didn't appear to be any attempt to design the fuselage along the "area rule" parameters in the way that other supersonic planes of the time were.
It's an historical aircraft . In 1958 , the americans believed that it was a nuclear powered bomber . The magazine "Aviation Week" , in December 1958 , sayed : "Soviets flight testing nuclear bomber" . The magazine published some pictures of the "nuclear bomber" , and years later all the world discovered that this plane was in real life just a modern conventional aircraft : Myasishchev M-50 ( NATO code : "Bounder" ) .
It was a huge MIG-21 :)
Modellpecs 1 week ago 3
Might not have met its design objectives, but it looks incredible doing that flypast!
MrNorthernRed 6 months ago
(00:12) Note the crude XB-70 clone sitting beside it.
skeilak 8 months ago
@skeilak
No XB-70 Clone. That is the Sukhot T-4 Supersonic high-altitude experimental bomber. Possibly the first fly-by-wire plane(considered too secret to say at the time). XB-70, different aircraft design. XB-70, 1964, Sukhoi T-4, 1972
boffinboy100 1 month ago
@boffinboy100
The Soviets were never adverse to ripping-off a good idea, when they saw one.
Note their B-29 copy, the Tu-4, read how they stole the plans for the Concord, and produced the Tu-144, learn how they stole the metallurgy for the MIG-15's engine, also note the uncanny similarity of the MIG-25 to the US Navy's A-5 Vigilante, as well as the Soviet's miniaturized copy of the US Space Shuttle.
So yes, clearly, the Sukhot T-4 was a poor man's knock-off of the US XB-70.
skeilak 1 month ago
@skeilak
The soviets took the concept, not the design.
Tu4=B29 copy, with the Tu144, all they stole were inital plans, not enough to create their own machine, but enough to give them the thought.
MiG25 & A5, no real similarity. 2 different design proposals, 2 different purposes, drastically different performance. The MiG15's engine was a reverse engineered Rolls-Royce nene, bought from the UK. Blame Cripps.
With the Buran, similar design, why change something that works.
boffinboy100 1 month ago
@skeilak
The T4 and XB70 have different designs. It is easy enough to spot. XB-70 wings can fold, with a twin tail and 6 engines. T-4, single tail, 4 engines, drop nose.
boffinboy100 1 month ago
@boffinboy100
Dude, look at the aircraft. It is an obvious copy of the XB-70.
Also, I specifically said, it was a "poor man's" copy.
Additionally, I would suggest you do a bit more reading, and a bit less pontificating.
skeilak 1 month ago
@skeilak
Seriously, the design differs. All Russian military machines are cheaper for the same effectiveness (few exeptions). the spec was issued to capitalise on the achievements seen in the XB-70, for a smaller anti-aricraft carrier bomber.
I have doubts as to its tactical effectiveness, but as experimental aircraft, both encountered financial & airframe difficulties.
Whether a "poor man's" or not, there are many differeing features which make it a plane influenced, not a copy of XB70
boffinboy100 1 month ago
@boffinboy100
You can split hairs 'til the cows come home, but you are as much as admitting the T-4 is a cheap-ass copy of the XB-70.
skeilak 1 month ago
@skeilak
How can you let sleeping dogs lie, if you let the cat out of the bag? T-4 is not a copy! Like MiG 29 & Su27 not F15 copies, and Su25 not an A10 copy. Different design.
XB-70 project cost $1.5bn, $750000 per unit. The T-4 still cost A LOT. Figures unknown. The 250 order was revoked because funds were needed for a larger order of MiG23s (approx $15m per plane).
Frankly, any country that afford either project isn't a poor country.
Some class JSF as a Yak141 copy,
boffinboy100 1 month ago
@boffinboy100
Dude, just stop it.
Congratulations, you're a swell troll. But now, you're just making a fool of yourself.
skeilak 1 month ago
NATO cannot avoid using those gay code names.
EminidisMike 8 months ago
nice plane.
sortabli 11 months ago
@HeildemKrieg
That was it's projected speed, but in reality it barely made it past M1 .. The engines were underpowered & the front nacelle's didn't have shock cones or some other device to slow the air down to sub mach to continue to feed the engines properly.
xoio 1 year ago
I say, what a bounder!
nowoolovermine 1 year ago
T-4 and M-50 stands together!
kuluku 1 year ago
Comment removed
Chuckjagermeister 2 years ago
good no problem have a super sonic aircraft that give them fast
instink04 2 years ago
I do not mean this in a pejoratively sense, but the M-50 reminds me of an imaginative futuristic design you would find in the sketch book of a day-dreaming 10 year boy. That is what I find fascinating about it.
cupwithhandles 2 years ago 12
most beautiful aircraft ever built....shame it was a cold war bodge job
jordyboy321 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Looks like they tried to copy the B-58...
madvlad666 2 years ago
This plane 'should' have been very FAST ... but for some stupid reason, NO shock wave reduction systems were in place at the front of the engine pods to keep the airspeed below mach 1at the engine face ... Thus the aircraft could barely get over mach 1, when it was designed to be Mach 2+.
Rediculous really considering that other Soviet agencies had built other supersonic aircraft, & knew about shockwave compression. Just look at the nose cone of the Mig-21, this is what the M-50 needed.
xoio 2 years ago 5
@xoio Another problem was the large area of the fuselage and the subsequent drag. There didn't appear to be any attempt to design the fuselage along the "area rule" parameters in the way that other supersonic planes of the time were.
suhail3920 1 year ago
It was also released as a plastic kit by Aurora in early Sixties.
My friend used to have one!
kloakovalimonada 2 years ago
The nose gear is interesting! A nose truck!
TrainTrackTrav 2 years ago
It's an historical aircraft . In 1958 , the americans believed that it was a nuclear powered bomber . The magazine "Aviation Week" , in December 1958 , sayed : "Soviets flight testing nuclear bomber" . The magazine published some pictures of the "nuclear bomber" , and years later all the world discovered that this plane was in real life just a modern conventional aircraft : Myasishchev M-50 ( NATO code : "Bounder" ) .
312b3 3 years ago