Overview
Aircraft overview
The Myasishchev M-50 "Bounder" represented an ambitious Soviet attempt to develop a supersonic strategic bomber in the late 1950s. Though never entering production, the M-50 demonstrated advanced aerodynamic concepts and pushed boundaries of Soviet aviation technology during the Cold War arms race.
Development context
Strategic bomber competition: Soviet Air Force requirement for supersonic bomber matching or exceeding American B-58 Hustler capabilities.
Design bureau rivalry: Competition between Myasishchev, Tupolev, and Sukhoi design bureaus for strategic bomber contracts.
Technological challenges: Achieving supersonic cruise at high altitude while maintaining intercontinental range and heavy payload capacity.
Program cancellation: M-50 program terminated after limited prototype testing in favor of Tupolev designs and shift toward ICBMs for strategic nuclear delivery.
Technical specifications
General characteristics
Length: 57.48 meters (188 ft 7 in) Wingspan: 35.70 meters (117 ft 2 in) Height: 8.25 meters (27 ft 1 in) Empty weight: Approximately 90,000 kg (198,416 lb) Maximum takeoff weight: 210,000 kg (462,970 lb) Crew: 2 (pilot and navigator/systems operator)
Powerplant
Engines: 4 × Dobrynin VD-7B turbojet engines Thrust: Each engine producing approximately 13,000 kgf (127.5 kN; 28,660 lbf) Engine placement: Two engines buried in wing roots, two engines mounted in nacelles under wing
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 1.4 (approximately 1,700 km/h; 1,056 mph) at altitude Cruise speed: Mach 0.9-1.0 (subsonic to transonic cruise) Service ceiling: 16,500 meters (54,130 ft) Range: Estimated 7,400 km (4,600 mi) at subsonic cruise Wing loading: High wing loading typical of supersonic designs
Armament
Design payload: 30,000 kg (66,139 lb) bomb capacity in internal weapons bay Nuclear weapons: Intended to carry thermonuclear free-fall bombs for strategic strikes Defensive armament: No defensive guns; relied on speed and altitude for survivability
Design features
Aerodynamic configuration
High-wing monoplane: Wing mounted high on fuselage optimizing supersonic aerodynamics and providing ground clearance for large weapons bay.
Swept wing: Moderate sweep angle balancing supersonic performance with subsonic cruise efficiency and low-speed handling.
Area ruling: Fuselage cross-section carefully shaped following area rule principles reducing transonic drag.
Innovative engine placement: Unconventional arrangement with wingtip-mounted engines in addition to conventional nacelles, though this proved problematic.
Structural considerations
High-strength alloys: Extensive use of titanium and advanced aluminum alloys managing kinetic heating from supersonic flight.
Stressed skin construction: Monocoque fuselage structure distributing loads and maintaining structural integrity at high speeds.
Landing gear: Retractable tricycle landing gear with multiple wheel bogies distributing weight on unprepared runways.
Crew compartment: Tandem seating for pilot and navigator with limited forward visibility common in bomber designs.
Development history
Program origins
1954 requirement: Soviet Air Force specification for supersonic strategic bomber capable of penetrating modern air defenses.
Myasishchev proposal: OKB-23 design bureau submitting M-50 concept featuring advanced aerodynamic configuration.
Prototype authorization: Government approval for prototype construction in mid-1950s with accelerated development schedule.
Design challenges: Balancing supersonic performance, intercontinental range, and heavy payload proving technically difficult.
Prototype testing
First flight: Maiden flight occurred October 27, 1959, piloted by test pilot N. Goryainov.
Flight test program: Limited testing conducted at Zhukovsky flight test center demonstrating basic performance capabilities.
Public appearance: M-50 displayed at Tushino airshow July 9, 1961, creating significant Western intelligence interest.
Program termination: Testing concluded after limited flights due to poor performance and strategic policy shifts.
Cancellation factors
Insufficient range: Actual range fell significantly short of requirements for intercontinental strategic missions.
Engine problems: Wingtip engine installation created control difficulties and failed to meet expectations.
ICBM priority: Soviet leadership shifting strategic emphasis toward ballistic missiles over manned bombers.
Tupolev competition: Tupolev Tu-22 and subsequent Tu-160 programs receiving priority over Myasishchev designs.
Operational concept
Strategic role
Penetration bomber: Designed to penetrate enemy air defenses at high altitude and supersonic speed reaching strategic targets.
Nuclear strike: Primary mission delivering thermonuclear weapons against strategic targets in North America and Western Europe.
High-altitude ingress: Flight profile emphasized high-altitude supersonic dash minimizing exposure to air defenses.
Unescorted operations: Speed and altitude intended to provide survivability without fighter escort requirements.
Tactical employment
Dispersed basing: Concept assumed deployment across multiple airbases in Soviet territory for survivability against first strike.
In-flight refueling: Required aerial refueling to achieve intercontinental ranges extending operational radius.
Alert posture: Peacetime ground alert and wartime airborne alert considered for maintaining deterrent credibility.
EMP hardening: Design included some protection against electromagnetic pulse effects from nuclear detonations.
Western intelligence
NATO reporting
NATO reporting name: "Bounder" assigned following standard Western naming convention for Soviet aircraft.
Intelligence assessment: Western analysts initially concerned about M-50 capabilities based on public displays and scarce intelligence.
Capability estimates: Range and payload capabilities likely overestimated initially before accurate intelligence gathering.
Threat perception: M-50 contributed to bomber gap fears though program cancelation reduced strategic significance.
Intelligence gathering
Photographic reconnaissance: U-2 and satellite imagery capturing M-50 prototypes at Soviet test facilities.
Technical analysis: Western aviation experts analyzing publicly displayed aircraft attempting to deduce capabilities.
Defector information: Occasional information from Soviet émigrés providing insights into development challenges.
Comparative assessment: M-50 compared to contemporary American programs like B-58 Hustler and XB-70 Valkyrie.
Legacy and significance
Technical contributions
Aerodynamic research: M-50 testing provided valuable data on supersonic bomber aerodynamics informing future designs.
Structural techniques: Advanced manufacturing and materials processing techniques developed for subsequent programs.
Systems integration: Experience integrating complex avionics, weapons systems, and propulsion in large supersonic aircraft.
Design lessons: Understanding limitations of specific design approaches guiding Tupolev's subsequent Tu-22M and Tu-160 programs.
Strategic implications
Bomber gap myth: M-50 contributed to Western perceptions of Soviet strategic bomber capabilities influencing defense spending.
ICBM transition: Program cancellation reflected broader shift in nuclear deterrence strategy toward ballistic missiles.
Technological competition: M-50 development part of broader Cold War technological competition driving aviation advancement.
Historical record: Aircraft represents specific moment in strategic thinking before ICBM dominance became apparent.
Comparison with contemporaries
American B-58 Hustler
Similar mission: Both designed as supersonic strategic bombers for nuclear strike role.
Better range: B-58 achieved superior range through more efficient engines and design.
Production difference: B-58 entered limited production; M-50 remained experimental prototype.
Operational timing: B-58 operational service began 1960; M-50 never achieved operational status.
Tupolev Tu-22
Production success: Tu-22 entered service as Soviet supersonic bomber where M-50 failed.
Different approach: Tu-22 used different aerodynamic configuration with engines in tail.
Operational limitations: Tu-22 also had range issues but proved adequate for regional missions.
Evolutionary development: Tu-22M (Backfire) evolved from Tu-22 achieving strategic capability.
Museum preservation
Central Air Force Museum: M-50 prototype preserved at museum in Monino near Moscow.
Display condition: Aircraft displayed outdoors showing deterioration from weather exposure.
Public access: Museum visitors can view external details though interior access typically restricted.
Historical significance: Rare survivor of cancelled program providing important aviation history documentation.
Photographic resource: Museum aircraft serves as reference for aviation historians and modelers.
Related aircraft
For related Soviet strategic aviation:
Tu-16 Badger (/guide/air/b/tu16.shtml): Subsonic strategic bomber contemporary with M-50 development.
Tu-4 Bull (/guide/air/b/tu4.shtml): Earlier strategic bomber design representing pre-supersonic generation.
Bomber section (/guide/air/b/): Index of Soviet and Russian bomber aircraft documentation.
M-50 represents ambitious but ultimately unsuccessful attempt to field supersonic strategic bomber. Technical challenges and strategic policy changes led to program cancellation after limited prototype testing.