Nepal Air Force М-28 Skytruck:
http://spotters.net.ua/file/?id=2488

Bangladesh Airforce:
http://spotters.net.ua/search/?user=BST

Excuse me, propfans of course.

I agree, the F-5 seems to be better in most of the ways. How did they both do in combat, against each other? I think they were involved in Iraq-Iran War and few other wars.

One F-5E was captured by northern vietnamese and tranferred to the USSR to evaluation. There were several combats against Mig-21bis and Mig-23M, and F-5 won all combats. Source: Kondaurov, test-pilot of Mig.

The wheel track of a 3M – with its outriggers at the wingtips – was MUCH wider that a Tu-95 !!

Same as on a B-52.

It would therfore require a WIDER runway/taxiway not narrower – unless the outriggers extend out over the grass ??

In 60-x 3Ms used to land on fighters’ runways (operational dispersal). Bears couldn’t be based on such runways.

You see — outriggers are on the grass.

It requires quite an imagination to say the U-2-like 3M planform, which was converted for use in a stratospheric research aircraft, has better “low-level capabilities” than the Tu-95 airframe, which was converted to hunt submarines.

SwingKid, large turboprops couldn’t be more effective than turbojets. There are a lot of problems with turboprops — aerodynamics problems with wing airflow, vibration, acoustic load, structural strength. Choosing turboprops for heavy bomber was a great fault. There are no any another sweep-wings high-speed turboprops in the world.

It takes an impressive bias to say that the bicycle 3M, which achieved a 30% self-destruction rate to catastrophic accidents in the first 3 years, has better “reliability” and “takeoff and landing characteristics”.

What about Tu-95? 🙂

… bicycle 3M …

Bicycle gears allowed 3M to takeoff and land on short and narrow runways. A nose gear with two-position strut provided automatic takeoff with max. weights.

But to say the turbojet 3M had greater range than the turboprop Tu-95 requires… a little more reading, to be polite. :rolleyes:

Bear:
Tu-95M, 1958 — (takeoff weight 182 t, 5695 kg bombs, V=720 (!) km/hour) — 13 200 km
Tu-95KM 1962 — (takeoff weight 182 t) — 12 500 km.
Tu-95MS 1979 — (takeoff weight 185 t) — 10 500 km.

cruising speed — 720 km/hour.

The range dropped as you see. A bit strange? If you studied aerodynamics you’d understand why.

Ranges of 3M:
M-4 1958 — 10.500 km
3M 1959 — 12.000 km
3ME 1963 — 13.000 km

cruising speed — 900 km/hour.

The true story is that when Stalin demanded a Soviet intercontinental jet bomber, Myasischev the fantasizer told the Soviet leader what he wanted to hear, while Tupolev insisted that Soviet turbojet technology was not yet sufficiently mature for such a task.

Not at all. Tupolev followed the americans and britains investigations in large turboprops.

Historics in Russia consider this design was a source of future Tu-95.
And I insist that development of Tu-95 has exceptionally political reasons.

Tupolev enraged Stalin, but was respected because of his proven

SwingKid, you don’t understand — Tupolev was a humble servant of every soviet leader. It was his role. “Tupolev enraged Stalin” — it’s a soviet fairy-tale.
Tupolev has never enraged any leader. Never. They wanted turboprops — and Tupolev made turboprops. They wanted B-1 — Tupolev made soviet B-1, they wanted soviet Concorde — Tupolev made soviet Concorde. Tu-144 “Concordsky”. His career began with copying Junkerses.

You read soviet aviation books and trust in that books. The real life was different.

If you can read russian I recommend you to read this book. “Thorny path to nowhere” by Seliakov. Seliakov was famous designer, worked with Myasischev and Tupolev. Chapters 26-28 are about 3M and Tu-95.

This is a joke, right?

The 3M’s life as a bomber did not end by its retirement, but rather by the conversion of the entire fleet into tankers, because the aircraft was too new to be thrown away, yet totally inadequate as a weapon

It is not true that 3M was inadequate as a weapon. 3M was the best soviet heavy bomber; it was better than Tu-95 : speed, range, weights, takeoff and landing characteristics, low-level capabilities, crew, reliability. There was one weakness — Myasishev wasn’t as faithful to communist party as Tupolev was. The only technical problem was tandem landing gear — in time of early huge missiles and 20-tonn’s nuclear bombs. After the new generation of missiles and bombs were developed this problem solved. And long gear of Tu-95 became very inconvenient.

People in west don’t understand situation in soviet military aviation and soviet politics on the whole. Soviet Union was a world of Machiavelli, it was world of plots and incompetence. You see on the pictures and think “what the great plane, what the great coaxial propellers! ” and you think that it’s the best soviet bomber. It wasn’t.

If it wasn’t good at launching missiles then why are they converting it to fire Kh-102 and Kh-101 missiles? ..the latter being conventionally armed cruise missiles.

RusAF has no choice. Bears became out of date 30 years ago, 3M, the best soviet hevy bombers, were retired. Tu-160 undoubtedly is the best choice, but it’s necessary to upgrade all avionics and electronic warfare systems.

Russians regret of retired 3M…