Skip to main content

The history of aviation is littered with promising designs that never quite got it all together. Such was the Myasishchev M-4.

Developed in the early 1950s, the M-4 "Molot" (Hammer) was supposed to give the Soviet Union an intercontinental jet bomber. They got the jet part, the intercontinental - not so much.

Stalin's sledgehammer, the M-4

When the Soviets wanted a jet bomber with the range to strike targets in North America, they turned to talented designer Vladimir Myasishchev. Myasishchev had worked with Tupolev in the 1920s. After falling out of favor in the late 1930s, he actually helped design the famous Pe-2 bomber from his prison cell. He was released from prison in 1940 to assist the Soviet war effort.

In 1951 he was given his own design bureau and in a surprising move tasked to design the new bomber. The result was the promising M-4, given the code name "Bison" by NATO.

The Russians are often dismissively accused of copying Western designs, and the M-4 does have some similarities to Western aircraft. The landing gear configuration mimics the B-47 and the wing-root mounted engines mimic several British designs. Otherwise it looks like most modern jet aircraft with a swept wing and a conventional tail. For a first try they got a lot right.

M-4 in flight
I personally think it's more a case of parallel development. There were only so many ways to build a jet bomber in 1952 and the Myasishchev design was a logical one.

Let's look at the numbers:

Length: 154 feet
Wingspan: 165 feet
Height: 46 feet
Empty weight: 175,700 lb
Max takeoff weight: 400,000 lb

This puts it in the same class as the B-52 but roughly 20% smaller.

Defensive armament consisted of six 23mm guns grouped in 3 turrets. The upper and lower turrets were remotely controlled while the tail turret was manned.

Offensive weapons load two nuclear bombs or 28 conventional bombs of up to 1000 lbs each.

A pair of RAF Lightnings escort an M-4
Top speed is supposedly 510 knots, but I suspect that's True Airspeed at high altitude. I don't believe a plane with that wing sweep would be capable of 510 knots indicated, probably optimistic by 100 knots or so. A B-52 was limited to 390 indicated and would noticeably mach-tuck at 430.

Myasishchev managed to get this aircraft from design to production in a very short time, one year by some accounts. Having Stalin looking over your shoulder would be plenty of incentive. Talk about being under the gun!

The aircraft had some advanced features for its time. Flight controls were hydraulically powered. There was a system to automatically balance the fuel between the 18 fuel tanks. An inert gas system helped prevent fuel fires in the event of combat damage. There was a fire extinguishing system for the engines. This turned out to be a good thing since the engines were prone to fires.

Another interesting feature was the nose strut that would automatically extend to position the nose for takeoff. Due to the fore-aft landing gear configuration this was the only way to get the wing to the proper angle for the aircraft to un-stick. It also caused a few accidents until crews were trained not to attempt to rotate like a normal aircraft.

M-4 with gear and flaps down. This shows the unique landing gear configuration.
Seven crew members sat in the main pressurized compartment while the tail gunner had his own pressurized compartment. There was no way to move between the two compartments.

Each crew member had a downward firing ejection seat. Since there were only 5 ejection hatches for the seven forward crew members, an ingenious pneumatic system shuttled the navigator and the two pilots around to fire through the same hatch in succession.

M-4/3M cockpit. Interior shots of these are tough to find.
One odd feature was that only the rear truck had brakes and these were pneumatically powered. Three drag chutes were required for stopping. I can only imagine that landing runs were quite long.
Three drag chutes attempting to stop an M-4. Whoa big fella! Whoa!
First flight was in 1953 and it was officially unveiled in 1954. We got our first real look at the Bison in 1955 during a Soviet air show. Western observers saw 28 aircraft fly over in two large formations and promptly set a world record for hissy fits.

The CIA claimed the Russians would have 800 of these by 1960 ready to rain nuclear destruction down on the United States. Politicians and the Pentagon screamed about a "bomber gap".

There was, of course, no bomber gap. We built 744 B-52s and they built 93 Bison of which only 35 or so were even configured as bombers. More on that later.

It seems that the Soviet flyby was a clever ruse. Those devious commies flew the same group of bombers over twice. Doh!

Fortunately we learned our lesson and that's the only time we've ever overreacted to the Russians unveiling a new piece of military hardware (yeah right).

Then there was the minor problem of the M-4 not having the range to hit targets in the United States. Like I said initially, it was a promising design but they could never quite put all the pieces together. The Soviets knew how to make a jet engine with plenty of power, but even to this day have trouble making one that's efficient. The Mikulin AM-3 turbojets put out an impressive 19,000 lbs of thrust each but they were huge gas hogs.

Later model M-4 with air refueling probe.
Attempts to turn the aircraft into a cruise missile carrier were problematic because of the M-4's low ground clearance. By the time they got that sorted out the Myasishchev design bureau had fallen out of favor and been disbanded. Ultimately only nine were actually built as missile carriers.

So what to do with a bomber that can't get to where it's supposed to bomb? By equipping it with better engines and considerably lightening the aircraft they were able to give it enough range to make a decent naval reconnaissance aircraft, designated the 3M.

There was also a tanker version which ironically enough ended up refueling Tupolev's TU-95 bomber. The Soviets had been smart enough to hedge their bets and develop two bombers at the same time, as the British had done with their "V bombers". It was the TU-95 that ultimately became the backbone of the Soviet bomber force.

Don't worry, we'll be looking at the TU-95 later. I got to sit in one. It was cool.

3M tanker refueling a TU-95
The M-4/3M ended up having a surprisingly long service life for a plane that failed it's initial design spec in a big way. The tanker version served all the way to 1994. A few were even modified for civilian use as oversize cargo carriers. The Buran space shuttle was originally transported on the back of a modified 3M.
VM-T with oversize cargo container on top.
You think that one is weird? Take a look at this one!
So whatever happened to Vladimir? He did all right. When his design bureau got the axe in 1960 he was "kicked upstairs" to head TsAGI, the Soviet aeronautics research institute. After his death in 1978 the modified 3M cargo carriers were designated VM-T for "Vladimir Myasishchev Transport".
A group of M-4s literally put out to pasture.

Originally posted to Kossack Air Force on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 04:35 PM PDT.

Also republished by Central Ohio Kossacks and Aviation & Pilots.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site