Profile image

Myasischev M-4 "Bison-A"

705 jmonty450  7.1 years ago

Developed for the Soviets as a heavy bomber, the Myasischev M-4 was a direct competitor the B-52 Stratofortress. The M-4 was the first of over 30 variants of the Myasischev heavy bombers, the most produced (I believe) was the 3M (1955).

Spotlights

  • YTho 7.1 years ago

General Characteristics

  • Successors 1 airplane(s)
  • Created On Windows
  • Wingspan 81.9ft (25.0m)
  • Length 84.6ft (25.8m)
  • Height 22.6ft (6.9m)
  • Empty Weight 35,516lbs (16,109kg)
  • Loaded Weight 38,042lbs (17,255kg)

Performance

  • Power/Weight Ratio 3.544
  • Wing Loading 56.8lbs/ft2 (277.3kg/m2)
  • Wing Area 669.7ft2 (62.2m2)
  • Drag Points 15364

Parts

  • Number of Parts 119
  • Control Surfaces 5
  • Performance Cost 711
  • Log in to leave a comment
  • Profile image
    705 jmonty450

    @vonhubert Strange, I could have sworn the Navy used them as maritime patrol aircraft. Thanks for the information!

    7.1 years ago
  • Profile image
    13.8k vonhubert

    @jmonty450 neither 3m or m4 never served with the navy, navy only received tu-16 and later tu-22m medium bombers. 3m (also m-6) is no more than an update of m-4 that was developed due to m-4 failing to reach the required range. Thus it was decided to refine the wing aerodinamics, decrease weight and change the engines to Vedeneev VD-7 (although the engines were only fitted to the last 3md version due to reliability issues)

    Futhermore, 3m requiring long and wide high quality runways is definitely no use for a navy. Even when the navy adopted reconaissance and patrol version of tu-95, the tu-142, they specifically required a heavy duty 3axle landing gear boogies for operatons from low quality and unpaved runways. And tu-142 is 35 tonn lighter and dont have tiny vulnerable wing tip landing gear struts.

    7.1 years ago
  • Profile image
    705 jmonty450

    @vonhubert "This time, it was not the Soviet Air Force (VVS) that wanted the 3M, but rather Naval Aviation (AV-MF)." The 3M was a slightly more powerful version of the M-4.

    7.1 years ago
  • Profile image
    13.8k vonhubert

    Well, it was never intended for a Navy) strategic bombers are an airforce toys)

    7.1 years ago
  • Profile image
    705 jmonty450

    I forgot to add fuel! My bad.

    7.1 years ago