Tupolev ANT-26/TB-6 super-bomber project: a Russian giant

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

243
59
Dec 10, 2019
20 Years Ago
This year saw the long-anticipated Scaled Composites Stratolaunch satellite launch carrier airplane take to the skies for the first time, knocking the Hughes H-4 Hercules/Spruce Goose off its perch for the biggest plane by wingspan to ever fly. However, long before the H-4 Spruce Goose took to the skies over Long Beach harbor, the design bureau of legendary Soviet aircraft designer Andrei N. Tupolev conceived the biggest-ever Soviet aircraft design of the 1930s, the Tupolev ANT-26 (TB-6). When compared to the ANT-20 Maxim Gorki, Boeing 747, Airbus A380, and ANT-16 (TB-4), the ANT-26 would have been a colossus for its time, with a wingspan of 311 feet (95 meters), a wing area of 8,600 square feet (800 square meters), and a length of 127 feet (39 meters), and power was to be supplied by 12 Mikulin M-34FRN piston engines (8 on wing's leading edge, 4 in two push-pull pairs on wings) delivering a total of 14,400 hp. A transport version of the ANT-26 was planned as the ANT-28, which can be best seen as a scaled-up ANT-20. However, the ANT-26 got no further than the design phase because of VVS concerns about the ANT-26 being too slow to evade interception by advanced fighter planes.

1576451382935.png
1576451474803.png
1576451509468.png
1576451548990.png
 
Cripples the name "Aluminium Overcast" for a B-17 to a frazzle.
I guess pilots could have evaded hostile fire by running around in it. I know, this was said about the P-47, but in this case it sounds just as true.
 
Those big Soviet bombers were truly extraordinary and awe inspiring (and make a terrific model as well - that's some work), but militarily they were quite useless. Far too big and cumbersome to have been of any real practicable use, not to mention too few of them to have run an effective strategic bombing campaign. They were slow, unmanoeuvrable, had a low ceiling and suffered from structural issues, all of which would have made them extremely vulnerable.

The big ANT-26 was actually begun construction, but it was abandoned in the mid 30s after years of work. Tupolev planned airline variants of the ANT-26 as well, which would have suited the design better than as a bomber.
 
Those big Soviet bombers were truly extraordinary and awe inspiring (and make a terrific model as well - that's some work), but militarily they were quite useless. Far too big and cumbersome to have been of any real practicable use, not to mention too few of them to have run an effective strategic bombing campaign. They were slow, unmanoeuvrable, had a low ceiling and suffered from structural issues, all of which would have made them extremely vulnerable.

The big ANT-26 was actually begun construction, but it was abandoned in the mid 30s after years of work. Tupolev planned airline variants of the ANT-26 as well, which would have suited the design better than as a bomber.

Useless in WWII on in the interwar period?
Consider TB-3. 706 in 1934 (if Wiki is right). Let's take a very conservative 50% serviceability. 350 bombers able to deliver 3-4 tons of bombs at a distance of over 1,000 km. I doubt the capability of VVS to plan and manage an effective strategic campaign (they failed miserably in the Winter War). But the numbers are not too few. Actually, the largest strategic bomber force in the world.
 
Finnish pilots generally destroyed all bombers. Only Poland saved the whole world from Hitler. It is talked that Poland was helped by England and USA, a bit.
It is not necessary to invent histories about Russians. Read books, all is written there. Do not tell Americans and englishmen that, Russians had all more strategic bombers.
 
Finnish pilots generally destroyed all bombers. Only Poland saved the whole world from Hitler. It is talked that Poland was helped by England and USA, a bit.
It is not necessary to invent histories about Russians. Read books, all is written there. Do not tell Americans and englishmen that, Russians had all more strategic bombers.
You might want to take this to the "What-if" section. You'll love it up there; nobody is right and everyone is wrong
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back