• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

The so-called "Myasishchev M-13" bomber: real project or myth?

ucon

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 27, 2008
Messages
538
Reaction score
22
Website
www.avicopress.ru
My dear Hesham!
Designation M-13 never exist in any officials MDB documents.
See DVB-202, 302
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,767
Reaction score
813
My dear Ucon,


but I saw in a Russian site,something like this;


MYASISHCHEV


M-13 : Tu-85
 

Cy-27

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2008
Messages
519
Reaction score
14
I have a note that says see Russian Civil & Military Aircraft 1884-1969 Nowarra & Duval, Heinz J. & G.R. - Harleyford ..... I will dig it out and see what it says
 

ucon

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 27, 2008
Messages
538
Reaction score
22
Website
www.avicopress.ru
My dear Hesham!
Till now I was sure you are an expert in aviation, but not a collector of old mistakes and western fairy tales of russian designations from the CW period. And second - please always give a link.
Anyway, my respect to you
 

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
7,991
Reaction score
145
Maybe I've found the source, or at least one source of the ominous "Myasishchev M-13", although it isn't a
russian site, as hesham stated :http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/m-4.htm
Now it's up to the experts for russian aviation to tell us the truth ! ;)

Something I would like to bring back to and fix deep in our memories: There's no way to make sure, that something,
may it be an aircraft or anything else, actually existed, because it is mentioned on a website !
And unfortunately not even being mentioned in an "oldfashioned" book prevents us from being fooled by errors and even
fakes. Otherwise the "Haunebu Flugscheiben", chem trails and the monster of Loch Ness would be very real indeed. ;)
We need not care about monsters here in this forum (and I hope, not about chem trails, too ! ::) ), but with regards to
aviation, we should try to separate the wheat from the chaff. And I'll wholehearted second Ucons plea to always mentioning
the source ! Otherwise it's very difficult for other members to search for and assess such claims.
 

Cy-27

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2008
Messages
519
Reaction score
14
When I do dig out Russian Civil & Military Aircraft 1884-1969 (Nowarra & Duval) and look for the M-13 reference it will carry a caveat because, like a lot of books produced in the West during the Cold War, a lot of misinformation and disinformation can occur. I usually like two totally seperate sources before I begin to believe whats written!
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,767
Reaction score
813
You are right my dears Jemiba,Ucon and Cy-27,


I found it here,as M-13: incorrect name of Tu-85;
http://www.webring.org/l/rd?ring=rusar;id=6;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eaviation%2Eru%2F


but look with me to those two drawings,they aren't resemble,now I am asking;
if that drawing is not for M-13 (designation incorrect),what is that Myasishchev
design ?.
 

Attachments

Stargazer2006

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,243
Reaction score
75
The problem with the "M-13" designation is that it is completely non-standard:
  • In the early/OKB-482 system, it would have been "VM-13" (but that was given to the Pe-2M, a 1945 variant of the Petlyakov dive bomber with 2 VK-107A engines).
  • In the OKB-23 system, there was no room for an "M-13" because it continued the old VM- system without the "V" (M-25 being the first such designation).
  • In the official system, there only ever were three designations, the M-2, M-4 (M-25) and M-6 (M-36).
  • In the EMZ system, "M-13" was a projected military transport of 1968 (therefore too late to be that aircraft).
For these reasons, I can't see where this "M-13" would fit in...
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,767
Reaction score
813
I don't ask about M-13,may be it was never existed,but I ask about what was this aircraft ?.
 

redstar72

Soviet Aviation enthusiast
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
510
Reaction score
12
I see two possibilities:
1) This is not very correct (and highly oversized) interpretation of some of DVB-202/302/402 projects;
2) This is pure imagination of Western author who thought that "there must have been something like this"...
 

lark

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
1,783
Reaction score
7
A large part of the so called information about Russian aviation in the 'West' during
the CW period is pure imagination based on hazy photo's and rumors.
Often made up by intelligence groups.

I remember the big scare of the 'Tug' -6 engined bomber...

I have the book mentioned by Cy on my shelves .I keep it only as a relic of a time gone
and no longer as a reliable source of info.
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,767
Reaction score
813
Thank you my dears Lark and Redstar,


but my dear Lark,in Mr. Tony Butler's book; Soviet Secret Projects: Bombers since 1945,
he mention that under Myasishchev part;


Heavy Bomber six-engine designs utilising either piston,turboprop or turbojets, 1946.
 

Stargazer2006

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,243
Reaction score
75
ucon said:
Steph, may be you have meant M-12 from 1968? M-13 never existed in EMZ.
Anyway I would like to see that M-13 military transport)))
Well I had an "M-13" in my list, but I must have copied it from a source that had a typo... Thanks for the info!
 

ucon

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 27, 2008
Messages
538
Reaction score
22
Website
www.avicopress.ru
According to designations VM.
They never existed in official documentation. I put cover page and "VM-13" from the personal album of Mysishchev. As you note we don't see VM. Later, somebody (nobody knows in MDB) made copies and invent "VM". Mysishchev himself was against such designation and even ANT-41 named "project 0", because he considered it was Tupolev
 

Attachments

Cy-27

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2008
Messages
519
Reaction score
14
The text with the photo reads ..."Under the supervision of A.N.Tupolev , M.V. Myasischev designed a progressive development of the Tu-4 (ex-Boeing B-29) during 1948-1949, designated M-13. Originally intended as a heavy bomber, it was soon re-equipped for long-range reconnaissance flights." The text goes on to claim the type went into production.

Details from the books data tables section:

ENGINE
POWERPLANT TYPE: 4 x Kuznetsov NK-4 plus 2 x RD-45 jets
POWERPLANT CAPACITY: 4,000 hp each
DATA
WING SPAN: 56.4 m
LENGTH: 44.28 m
NORMAL TAKE OFF WEIGHT: 94,250 kgs
MAXIMUM SPEED: 665 km/ph
FIRST FLIGHT: 1948
 

redstar72

Soviet Aviation enthusiast
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
510
Reaction score
12
Cy-27 said:
"Under the supervision of A.N.Tupolev , M.V. Myasischev designed a progressive development of the Tu-4 (ex-Boeing B-29) during 1948-1949, designated M-13. Originally intended as a heavy bomber, it was soon re-equipped for long-range reconnaissance flights." The text goes on to claim the type went into production.

Details from the books data tables section:

ENGINE
POWERPLANT TYPE: 4 x Kuznetsov NK-4 plus 2 x RD-45 jets
OMG... The Kuznetsov NK-4 turboprop engine was designed in 1956!
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,767
Reaction score
813
My dears Cy-27,Ucon and Redstar,


that means the M-13 was a real aircraft,and was not a Western incorrect designation
given to a Tupolev aircraft.
 

famvburg

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
321
Reaction score
3
I forgot about that pic. Over the years, like many here, I had regarded it as a mis-named Tupolev a/c, especially considering the age of the book (late '60s - early '70s IIRC). Anyway, now seeing this, I'm reminded of yet another design attributed to Myasishchev I saw a concept of somewhere, but it looks similar to this only it has a swept vertical tail.
 

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
7,991
Reaction score
145
hesham said:
that means the M-13 was a real aircraft,and was not a Western incorrect designation
given to a Tupolev aircraft. ...
That's still not that clear to me ! We now have a source mentioning it, but thanks to Cy-27,
we also have the statement, that "the type went into production", something I think, we
can rule out. And please have a look at redstars objection !
I don't know the book, but perhaps we should keep in mind, too, that at least Joachim Novarra
has lost a good deal of his former reputation with regards to his expertise about the German
airforce, because he was proven to have included quite a number of types in his books, that
actually were either myths, or just misinterpretations.
Again, please no such premature judgements !
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,370
Reaction score
593
This book was written in 1969, it will certainly contain lots of mistakes. Thats all.


Ucon literally wrote the book on Myasishchev. He has direct access to their archives. If he says it didn't exist, it didn't. Some German writer writing during the Cold War can't be considered a reliable source by conparison.
 

Cy-27

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2008
Messages
519
Reaction score
14
This book was written in 1969, it will certainly contain lots of mistakes.

I agree, there are a number of discrepancies and that photograph has always looked more like a Tupolev design to me anyhow.

None of my other Myasishchev books even mention it so I was sceptical about the designation. My files with pages of information relating to other Myasishchev designations have many cross-references, but the M-13? Just the single page (in a very 1960's Courier font) referring back to the Nowarra volume.

To give H.J.Nowarra his due, after reading his book I took a keener interest in all things Soviet/Russian.
 

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
7,991
Reaction score
145
Didn't want to run Nowarra down, his books probably have influenced a lot of people, me too ! They often were just
based on then incomplete or erroneous sources, as many publications are still today !
 

Stargazer2006

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,243
Reaction score
75
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
Ucon literally wrote the book on Myasishchev. He has direct access to their archives. If he says it didn't exist, it didn't. Some German writer writing during the Cold War can't be considered a reliable source by conparison.
I wholeheartedly agree!
 

Cy-27

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2008
Messages
519
Reaction score
14
The Tu-85 is not mentioned ...
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,370
Reaction score
593
Perhaps Nowarra had some inkling of the existence of the Tu-85 and invented this M-13 on the basis of this.
 

lark

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
1,783
Reaction score
7
Correct!

In his 1967 book 'Die Sowjetischen Flugzeuge 1941-1966' H.J.Nowarra gives "M.13"
dimensions and estimated performences and even the Nato code name 'Barge'
which was the code name for the Tu-85.

No mention in this book is made of the Tu-80 nor Tu-85.

Hence the source for his confusion and the later mistakes in other sources.
(my humble opinion)
 

redstar72

Soviet Aviation enthusiast
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
510
Reaction score
12
lark said:
Correct!

In his 1967 book 'Die Sowjetischen Flugzeuge 1941-1966' H.J.Nowarra gives "M.13"
dimensions and estimated performences and even the Nato code name 'Barge'
which was the code name for the Tu-85.

No mention in this book is made of the Tu-80 nor Tu-85.
So I think it's evident that so-called "M-13" in Nowarra's book is misinterpretation of Tupolev Tu-80 and Tu-85 prototype bombers.

And he even described the aircraft as Tu-4 evolution - why would Myasischev develop the Tu-4?

By the way, in the year 1948 Myasischev OKB didn't exist! It was disestablished yet in February 1946 and recreated again only in March 1951. Myasischev himself worked as MAI professor that period.
 

hermankeil

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
even fakes. Otherwise the "Haunebu Flugscheiben", chem trails and the monster of Loch Ness would be very real indeed. ;)
We need not care about monsters here in this forum (and I hope, not about chem trails, too ! ::) ), but with regards to
aviation, we should try to separate the wheat from the chaff. And I'll wholehearted second Ucons plea to always mentioning
the source ! Otherwise it's very difficult for other members to search for and assess such claims.

Chem trails may or may not be real. I still have an open mind until an atmospheric physicist tells me that 30 mile long contrails, which I see all the time here in Denver, are normal phenomona. Then I will accept that they are myth.
 

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
7,991
Reaction score
145
Principally I think, I'm open minded, too, but there's still an agreement, fixed in the forum rules,
( http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,18180.msg173351.html#msg173351 )
that "Posts on ..., conspiracy theories ...and the like are specifically discouraged and would be better posted elsewhere."
and chem trails to my opinion are part of those theories, too.
So, I would highly recommend the advice given in that rule, especially as we don't need another theme, that
with a high probability would lead to quarrels, flaming and in the end, the ban of members.
 
Top