The work done on the Tu-72, -73, -74, -78 and -79
projects were all stages in the development of Soviet jet
bombers. Next step was the Tu-81, which would later
enter service with the VMS (Voenno Morskie Sili =
Navy) as the Tu-14.
Sergei Yeger was again programme leader, but the
Tu-81 went back to the twin-engined Tu-72 rather
than stay with the three-engined designs of the Tu-73,
-74, -78 and -79. This came about because of Klimov's
improved Nene/RD-45, the VK-1, which offered an
increase in power from the 2,270kg static
thrust of the Rolls-Royce Nene and the RD-45 to
2,740kg, which, combined with a lower empty
weight, allowed the third engine to be omitted.
Work on the design and construction began in July
1944. Tupolev and Yeger aimed to keep the aircraft as
light as possible, so an uncomplicated result was
achieved. Still showing some considerable resemblances
to the Tu-72, the Tu-81 was a mid-winged
twin-jet bomber still without wing sweep. It was
completed in factory N 156 in 1948, and its first flight
was made on 13 October 1949. State tests were
completed by autumn 1950, and the aircraft was
approved for production under the military designation
Tu-14T for a VMS role as a torpedo carrier.
Test results showed the Tu-14T as having a performance
of 860km/h, a range of 3,000km, and a service ceiling of 11,200m.
Some eighty-seven aircraft were built in Irkutsk
between 1950 and 1952, and the first examples entered
service in 1951. They were armed with two fixed-fire
NK-23 cannons and two machine-guns mounted on a
tail turret. It served in a patrol role, with the ability to
bomb naval targets.
| ENGINE||2 x VK-1, 26.5kN|
| Take-off weight||24000 kg||52911 lb|
| Empty weight||10000 kg||22046 lb|
| Wingspan||21.7 m||71 ft 2 in|
| Length||21.9 m||72 ft 10 in|
| Height||6.0 m||20 ft 8 in|
| Wing area||67.4 m2||725.49 sq ft|
| Max. speed||861 km/h||535 mph|
| Cruise speed||800 km/h||497 mph|
| Ceiling||11200 m||36750 ft|
| Range w/max.fuel||4800 km||2983 miles|
| Range w/max.payload||3000 km||1864 miles|
| ARMAMENT||4 x 23mm cannons, 1000kg of bombs or torpedos|
|A three-view drawing (1000 x 621)|
|bombardier, 2888617=gmail.com, 17.09.2011|
The Tu-14 could carry the same load as the beagle but had greater range.
|Fan, xia_xiaofan=yahoo.co.nz, 20.10.2009|
Some to add on by the end of WWII Soviet Naval Aviation also able to recover two of ex-617 Squadron Avro Lancasters.
The following paragraphs is quoted form "List of Avro Lancaster operators" the line is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Avro_Lancaster_operators#.C2.A0Soviet_Union
Soviet Naval Aviation
Soviets were able to repair two of six Avro Lancasters which made forced landings near Yagodnik airfield, near Arkhangelsk during attacks on the German battleship Tirpitz. Both ex-617 Squadron Avro Lancasters were operated briefly as transports and long range reconnaissance aircraft before being retired due to lack of spare parts.
I think there were Handley Page Halifax in Soviets Air Force.
|Fan, xia_xiaofan=yahoo.co.nz, 20.10.2009|
By the end of WWII there are 73 B-17s and about 73 B-24s in Soviets Air Force. "The Fortresses and Liberators that were in the best condition were returned to the USAAF".
The following paragraphs is quoted form "Fortresses Over The Reich: B-17F & B-17G-FORTRESS ODDBALLS" the line is http://www.vectorsite.net/avb17_2.html#m4
* One of the most obscure users of the Fortress was the USSR. Late in the war, RAF and USAAF bombers that had been damaged in raids over the Reich would put down in Soviet-controlled territory rather than try to make it back to Western bases, and in April 1945 the Red Air Force issued a directive to its units in the field to report the location of any aircraft of its Western Allies that were in Soviet hands.
The Soviets found about 162 aircraft, including 73 B-17s and an equal number of B-24 Liberators. The Fortresses and Liberators that were in the best condition were returned to the USAAF, but a number were retained as interim heavy bombers until the USSR completed its reverse-engineering of Boeing B-29 Superfortresses that had fallen into their hands, landing in Siberia after suffering battle damage in raids over Japan. The B-29 was to go into production in Soviet state factories as the "Tupolev Tu-4", which would be given the NATO codename "Bull".
The Red Air Force crews had no training in flying the American bombers, and their maintenance crews had neither training nor proper spares. Many of the aircraft had been damaged, which is why they had ended up in Soviet hands to begin with, and their original crews had often trashed vital items such as bombsights, radar, and radios after they landed. However, the Soviets proved ingenious at keeping them flying, and in fact Red Air Force crews were delighted with the B-17's handling, comparing it to a "swallow" and the nimble PO-2 biplane trainer. In contrast, they called the B-24 "Iron", in reference to its sluggish takeoff characteristics and lumbering handling.
One of the oddities of the matter was that Soviet officials, with the humorlessness and peculiar prudery that often seems to afflict ruthless dictatorships, were indignant at the sometimes-lurid nose art on the bombers, and ordered the "filthy pictures" removed or painted out. The big American bombers were in principle used as part of heavy bomber units, but their main purpose was to give the Red Air Force experience in flying such types of aircraft preparatory to flying the Tu-4. The B-17s remained in service until 1948, when the Tu-4 began to arrive at operational squadrons.
|Fernando, vales1431=yahoo.com, 16.05.2009|
Although a lesser known aircraft in aviation history, I find the Tupolev Tu-14 "Bosun" fascinating. For one thing, it resembles a hybrid miniaturized U.S. Boeing B-17 bomber with twin jet engines, glazed cockpit and tricycle landing gear. I am familiar with the internment in Vladiovostok of three B-29s that had emergency-landed after a bombing mission over Japan in late World War II (thus the reverse-engineering of one of them, to later generate into the Tupolev Tu-4 "Bull"), but I wonder: did the Soviets ever get their hands on a "17"? I would really like to know!
|ismail, perambatje=yahoo.com.my, 22.10.2008|
this aircraft was quite effective in its role,but it was overshadowed by the beagle..
3000 kg of bombs...
|Tony Farrell, tony-farrell=hotmail.co.uk, 09.04.2007|
NATO reporting name 'Bosun'.
Do you have any comments about this aircraft ?