March | 2014 | Old Machine Press

By William Pearce

In the midst of the cold war, the United States and the Soviet Union constantly sought to outdo one another or at least match each other. As the United States was developing the Convair B-58 Hustler bomber capable of Mach 2 speeds, the Soviet Union endeavored to design and build its own Mach 2 bomber. In 1955, the V. M. Myasishchev Experimental Design Bureau, or OKB-23 (Opytno-Konstruktorskoye Byuro-23), was tasked to develop the new Mach 2 strategic bomber. Under chief designer Georgi Nazarov and with the assistance of the TsAGI (Tsentral’nyy Aerogidrodinamicheskiy Institut, the Central Aerohydrodynamic Institute), a number of designs were evaluated and tested in a wind tunnel. Ultimately, a design was chosen that could meet the desired performance goals and was technically feasible to build. This aircraft became the Myasishchev M-50.

The Myasishchev M-50 with a MiG-21 escort, giving some perspective to the size of the M-50.

In general, the M-50 resembled an enlarged Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21. The M-50 was comprised of a long, slender fuselage with a large delta wing mounted in the middle. The fuselage had a circular cross-section with a bulge that ran down its spine for control and fuel lines. All fuel was housed in the fuselage and could be transferred between the extreme fore and aft tanks to counteract trim changes as the M-50 accelerated to or decelerated from supersonic flight.

The pilot and co-pilot sat in tandem at the very front of the aircraft. The M-50 was designed to operate at very high altitudes, and the crew was required to wear pressure suits in case of cabin depressurization or ejection. The aircraft was fitted with downward-ejecting seats. This configuration also facilitated crew entry and exit; the hatch under each seat opened and the seat lowered for access.

The M-50 with the hatches under the crew positions open. Also note the open bomb bay. The sole M-50 was painted with various radio call numbers.

The M-50’s wings were very thin and could not house any fuel. Under each wing was a pylon-mounted engine about 2/3 of the way toward the wingtip. On the top of the wing and above the engine pylon was a wing fence. Each wing had a second engine mounted at its tip. The wing was swept back 50 degrees from its root to the inboard engine and 41.5 degrees to the second engine at its tip (some sources say the sweep was 57.57 and 54.42 degrees respectively). The wing featured large, rectangular, double-slotted flaps and tapered outboard ailerons. Reportedly, when the flaps were deployed, the ailerons dropped down to further reduce the M-50’s landing speed. All three tail surfaces, including the vertical stabilizer, were all-moving. Each tail surfaces had an anti-flutter weight barb extending from its tip. All flight control surfaces were hydraulically operated.

The M-50’s landing gear was of bicycle configuration, with a four-wheel bogie located both fore and aft of the bomb bay. Additional forward retracting outrigger gear was mounted just inboard of each wingtip engine. In order to accommodate a weapons bay large enough to carry the 36 ft 1 in (11 m) long M-61 cruise missile, the rear main gear was placed near the tail, well behind the aircraft’s center of gravity. This gear placement drastically increased the speed needed for rotation at takeoff, perhaps even making takeoff impossible. To alleviate this issue, the M-50’s nose gear was equipped with a double-extension hydraulic strut. At 186 mph (300 km/h) the strut would automatically extend, rotating the aircraft 10 degrees nose-up. The gear also had an emergency steel skid that could be hydraulically lowered to the runway upon landing, acting as a drag anchor, in case there was an issue with the standard three-parachute braking system.

A rear view of the Myasishchev M-50 showing its all-movable tail surfaces. Also note the hump that housed fuel and control lines running along the aircraft’s spine.

The M-50 was 188 ft 7 in (57.48 m) long, had an 82 ft 4 in (25.1 m) wingspan, and was 27 ft 1 in (8.25 m) tall. The aircraft’s empty weight was 173,855 lb (78,860 kg), and its maximum weight was 319,670 lb (145,000 kg). The M-50’s forecasted performance included a service ceiling of 45,930 ft (14,000 m), a range of 8,075 mi (13,000 km), a bomb load of 11,000 lb (5,000 kg), and a top speed of 1,210 mph (1,950 km/h), or Mach 1.84.

Construction of the M-50 began in April 1956. Originally, the M-50 was to be powered by four Zubets RD-16-17 afterburning turbojets with 40,765 lb (181.32 kN) of thrust. However, the aircraft’s construction outpaced the engine’s development. When the M-50 was rolled out in July 1958, four non-afterburning Dobrynin VD-7BA turbojets of 21,495 1b (95.61 kN) thrust had been temporarily installed. The aircraft was re-designated M-50A as a result of the engine change.

In October 1958, the M-50A was disassembled and moved to the Zhukovskiy flight test center. Here it underwent taxi tests that indicated further modifications were needed. After the modifications, M-50A finally took to the air on 27 October 1959 with Nikolay I Goryainov and A S Lipko at the controls. Initial flight testing progressed rapidly; however, the M-50A was damaged in a ground accident on 12 May 1960. During an engine run-up, the aircraft jumped its wheel chocks and collided with the parked Myasishchev 3ME bomber prototype. The 3ME was scrapped as a result of the damage, but the M-50A was repaired and flying again in two months.

The Myasishchev M-50 makes a pass at the Tushino Air Show on 9 July 1961. Note the similar layout of the M-50 and its MiG-21 escorts.

In April 1961, the two inner VD-7BA turbojets were swapped with afterburning VD-7AM engines of 35,275 lb (156.91 kN) thrust. Slightly derated VD-7BA engines of 20,945 lb (93.16 kN) thrust were installed on new wingtip mounts. These mounts were wingtip extensions that housed new rearward retracting outrigger gear and increased the wingspan by 32 ft 10 in (10 m) to 115 ft 2 in (35.1 m). All engine installations were redesigned to incorporate ram inlets above the nacelle for additional cooling airflow.

Flight tests continued. With the underpowered engines installed, the M-50A was unable to achieve supersonic flight. Even in a shallow dive from altitude, the aircraft’s speed would not go above Mach 0.99, or 650 mph (1,050 km/h). In addition, the M-50A’s range fell 2,110 mi (3,400 km) short of expectations to 5,965 mi (9,600 km). During flight tests, the sole M-50A was painted with a various radio call numbers—023, 022, 12, and 05—to confuse any western observers.

The Myasishchev M-52 mockup. Note the side-by-side cockpit configuration and the missile positioned near its mount under the wing. The small horizontal stabilizer is barely visible on top of the tail.

On 9 July 1961, the M-50A was escorted by two MiG-21 fighters as it made a flyby pass at the Tushino Air Show near Moscow. Western observers were impressed by the large, exotic, and loud aircraft. This appearance resulted in NATO assigning the codename “Bounder” to the M-50. However, what the observers did not know was that this was the M-50A’s last flight. It had only flown 19 times.

The M-52, a further development of the M-50, had been under construction since November 1958. The M-52 retained the four Zubets RD-16-17 engines (some say RD-17-18 engines rated at 39,020 lb / 173.58 kN). The wingtip engines were mounted on larger extensions. The M-52 had side-by-side seating for the pilot and co-pilot, and a third crew member was stationed in its nose. A small, delta-shaped horizontal surface was added to the top of the vertical stabilizer. Planned weapon upgrades for the M-52 included twin tail guns and provisions to attach a cruise missile on each side of its fuselage, under the wings.

Myasischev_M-50_@_Central_Air_Force_Museum OMP

The Myasischev M-50 on display in the Central Air Force Museum at Monino Airfield. (Maarten image via Wikimedia Commons)

Soviet Premier Nikita Krushchev felt future offensive and defensive weapons would be based on intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) rather than strategic bombers. As a result, the Myasishchev M-50 and M-52 projects were cancelled. OKB-23 was closed, and its personnel were redirected to another organization for ICBM work.

The M-50A and the nearly finished M-52 eventually ended up parked at Ramenskoye Airport in Zhukovsky (near Moscow), Russia. In 1968, the M-50A was relocated to the Central Air Force Museum at Monino Airfield (also near Moscow) where it is currently on display. The M-52 was scrapped in the 1970s.

Below is a video of the Myasishchev M-50 uploaded to YouTube.

Sources:
– Soviet X-Planes by Yefim Gordon and Bill Gunston (2000)
– Aircraft of the Soviet Union by Bill Gunston (1983)
– http://www.airvectors.net/avbison.html
– http://www.testpilot.ru/russia/myasishchev/m/50/m50_e.htm
– http://www.testpilot.ru/russia/myasishchev/m/52/m52.htm
– Unflown Wings by Yefim Gordon and Sergey Komissarov (2013) *No real info on the M-50 or M-52 but does contain a number of other projects that are often attributed to these aircraft.

By William Pearce

Vincenzo Lancia was born near Turin, Italy in 1881. From an early age, he demonstrated an aptitude in mathematics, and his father encouraged him to become an accountant. However, Lancia was mainly interested in machinery and engineering. By the age of 17, he worked as a bookkeeper for a small bicycle and auto repair shop, operated by the Ceirano brothers. There, he became more of a mechanic’s assistant than a bookkeeper. When the shop built an automobile, FIAT bought the business and made Lancia, who was only 19, chief inspector of their new factory and also a test driver. His driving skills impressed FIAT, and they later made him a race car driver.

The Lancia Tipo 4 V-12 aircraft engine displaying its individual cylinders and distinct valve train. The engine was configured for pusher installations, which is why exhaust was expelled toward the propeller.

But Lancia wanted to design. In 1906, at the age of 25, he and another FIAT worker founded their own car company: Lancia & Company. Lancia and his company produced a number of vehicles and engines and became known throughout Europe. Always experimenting and innovating, Lancia took out patents for a narrow Vee engine configuration and an offset crankshaft in 1915. World War I interrupted plans to use the design for an automotive engine but gave Lancia incentive to build an aircraft engine.

Known as the Tipo 4 (Type 4), the Lancia V-12 aircraft engine was water cooled and had a 50-degree angle between the cylinder banks. The engine’s individual steel cylinders were mounted to its aluminum crankcase, with a deep oil pan. Each cylinder had one intake and one exhaust valve perpendicular to the cylinder axis. These horizontal valves opened into a small, rectangular clearance space above the cylinders that extended the combustion chamber above the piston. The valves were actuated by long rocker arms positioned in the Vee of the engine. A single hollow camshaft positioned in the middle of the Vee acted upon the rocker arms. The camshaft was driven from the crankshaft at the rear of the engine. The valve train was very similar to that later used on the Duesenberg Model H aircraft engine.

Two technicians stand next to the Tipo 4 engine. Note the straight exhaust stacks. This is thought to be the prototype Tipo 4, and it closely resembles the engine that is preserved in the FIAT/Lancia archives.

Each cylinder had two spark plugs that were positioned on the opposite side from the valves. Two magnetos were located at the rear of the engine, each firing one spark plug per cylinder. One of the magnetos could be replaced by a distributor. Two Claudel-Lancia carburetors were mounted on each side of the engine. Each carburetor supplied air to three cylinders via a manifold that looped above the cylinders. A section of the intake manifold was jacketed to use engine cooling water to heat the air/fuel mixture as it traveled to the cylinders. Exhaust was expelled via a short manifold extending above each cylinder.

The hollow crankshaft had six throws and used a side-by-side connecting rod arrangement. However, to compensate for the odd Vee angle, each cylinder had its own crankpin that was slightly offset (displaced) from the crankshaft’s center. Cast aluminum pistons and pressure lubrication were used. Cooling water was pumped into the jacket around each cylinder’s barrel via manifolds on each side of the engine. The water then flowed up into the cylinder head and finally into a manifold that took it back to the radiator.

Side view of the Lancia Tipo 4 illustrating the two carburetors and intake manifolds on the side of the engine. Note the two spark plugs for each cylinder.

The Tipo 4 had a 4.75 in (120.7 mm) bore and a 7.09 in (180 mm) stroke. Many sources state the bore was 4.72 in (120 mm); however, all primary source material from Lancia indicates the bore was 120.7 mm (4.75 in). The engine’s total displacement was 1,508 cu in (24.7 L). It produced 320 hp (237 kW) at 1,380 rpm and 380 hp (283 kW) at 1,420 rpm. The Tipo 4 engine was direct drive and weighed 740 lb (335 kg).

A good view of the Lancia Tipo 4 showing the two magnetos, open gear train, coolant manifolds, and hand crank at the rear of the engine used for starting.

The Tipo 4 aircraft engine was built in 1916. It was installed in the Caproni Ca 37 and Ca 38 aircraft. These relatively fast aircraft were light-bomber / ground attack prototypes. The Ca 37 flew in 1916, and the Ca 38 was a more refined version of the aircraft that flew in 1917. Neither aircraft entered production, and it is not clear if the Tipo 4 engine was installed in any other types.

At least one Tipo 4 engine was shipped to the United States in late 1917. Thomas Evarts Adams, Inc represented Lancia & Company in New York and initiated the process of producing the engine in the United States. The engine was on display until early 1918 when it was sent to McCook Field, Ohio for testing by the US government. The Tipo 4 was tested in May and July 1918 and did not develop the anticipated power. On test, the Tipo 4 produced 279 hp (208 kW) at 1,250 rpm and 305 hp (227 kW) at 1,400 rpm. Plans for producing the Lancia Tipo 4 V-12 never moved forward. The end of World War I caused a large influx of surplus aircraft engines that left aircraft engine manufacturers with a very small market. In addition, the US government was interested in the more powerful Tipo 5 (Type 5) engine that Lancia was designing. A Tipo 4 engine is preserved in the FIAT/Lancia Archives in Turin, Italy.

The Caproni Ca 37 was the first aircraft powered by the Lancia Tipo 4 V-12 engine. The Ca 37 first flew in the summer of 1916. Note the engine’s exhaust tips. The Ca 37 had a top speed of 103 mph (165 km/h.)

The design for the Lancia Tipo 5 V-12 engine was well underway by the end of 1918. The Tipo 5 was very similar to the Tipo 4; however, there were a number of differences between the two engines. The Tipo 5 had a larger bore and a 53-degree angle between its cylinder banks. The Tipo 5 did not have offset crankpins; the engine used an early style of a fork-and-blade connecting rod design. The straight fork rod was relatively thick, and this size allowed the blade rod to connect to the same crankpin via a cut-out section of the fork rod. The Tipo 5 did not have the deep oil pan like the Tipo 4. The Tipo 5 had a 5.91 in (150 mm) bore and a 7.09 in (180 mm stroke). The engine’s total displacement was 2,329 cu in (38.2 L), and it was forecasted to produce approximately 600 hp (447 kW) at 1,700 rpm. The Tipo 5 weighed 992 lb (450 kg). No verifiable proof has been found that a Tipo 5 engine was ever built.

The Caproni Ca 38’s fuselage and tail booms were more rounded and streamlined compared to those of the Ca 37, but the aircraft were otherwise very similar. The Ca 38 flew in 1917 and had a top speed of 106 mph (170 km/h). The Ca 37 and Ca 38 never entered production. They are the only known applications of the Lancia Tipo 4 engine.

Through the early 1920s, Lancia designed at least two additional V-12 engines for automotive use, one of which had a cylinder bank angle of 14 degrees (connecting rod angle was 22 degrees). None of the V-12 engines entered production. However, these engines led to a range of narrow V-8s and V-4s that Lancia produced starting in the 1920s. Narrow V-4 types were in production until the 1960s.

Sectional view of the Lancia Tipo 5 V-12 aircraft engine showing a 53-degree angle between the cylinder banks. Note the long rocker arms, horizontal valves, and small space above the combustion chambers. This configuration was very similar to the Tipo 4 and early Duesenberg engines.

Sources:
– Correspondence with Geoff Goldberg, Lancia Historian
– Textbook of Aero Engines by E. H. Sherbondy and G. Douglas Wardrop (1920)
– Aerosphere 1939 by Glenn Angle (1940)
– “To Build Lancia Airplane Engine,” Automobile Topics (17 November 1917)
– Air Service Handbook by Iskander Hourwich (1925)
– Los Motores Aeroespaciales: A-Z by Ricardo Miguel Vidal (2012)
– The V-12 Engine by Karl Ludvigsen (2005)
– Aeroplani Caproni by Rosario Abate, Gregory Alegi, and Giorgio Apostolo (1992)
– Gli Aeroplani Caproni by Gianni Caproni (1937)
– http://www.sportscars.tv/Newfiles/histlancia.html