KJ-1 (Chinese B-29)

Ztex · **Posted:** Wed Feb 08, 2012 3:46 pm

What a Beast!

I Can't remember, is this a Soviet built Tu-4 or a Chinese built machine?

A good close up photo of the KJ-1 (over on Fence Check)

http://www.fencecheck.com/forums/index.php/topic,24097.msg287602.html#msg287602

The Inspector · **Posted:** Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:12 pm

Project 926, one only P.O.C. for airborne radar. Modified TU-4. one of 10 TU-4's given to PRC by Russia and modified to use 4 Al-20K turbprop engines, a Chinese version of Kuznetsov NK-4 used on AN-10 C-130-ski, rated @ 4000 EHP. System now used on Modified Il-76.

K5DH · **Posted:** Wed Feb 08, 2012 5:15 pm

That's a perfect example of how to take a really attractive airplane and make it into a really unattractive airplane.

andyman64 · **Posted:** Wed Feb 08, 2012 5:59 pm

ok aeronautical engineering question,why would they need to place the turbo props so far away from the wing is it a centre of gravity thing because they are lighter or is there some other factor that i,m missing?

Tiger Tim · **Posted:** Wed Feb 08, 2012 6:14 pm

Just think, if the world didn't have any B-29s then the museums would be trying to get these to reverse (forward?) engineer them back to their American cousins.

-Tim

The Inspector · **Posted:** Wed Feb 08, 2012 6:23 pm

Weight and balance considerations, you are correct about the turbines being lighter than the Tumanski piston engines but also, I'm sure it also had something to do with all the weight of the avionics stuff inside besides, it is pretty clever engineering to utilize an existing configuration to make it work and not have to modify the firewall/aft nacelles at all or have to redo the thrust angle of the new engine installation.
Look @ photos of a stock PILATUS PC-2 with a piston engine vs. one with an ALLISON turbo prop or a turbo BEAVER or a VOLPAR modified turbine BEECH 18 to see how far forward the engines needed to be placed to counteract a tail heavy situation.
Weight X Arm = Moment, total weight divided into total moment will give you your C.G. and on swept wing aircraft there is another inverse division formula that will give you your MAC or 'Mean Aerodynamic Chord' in inches and a percentage range of the wings average chord, on a 727 that's usually 14 to 21% of MAC to be inside the Fwd/Aft c.g. range.

I just noticed, are those 'Rabbit Ear' antennas along the spine of that IL-14 in the background? If yes. I wonder how fast it sank off on final with the power pulled back to approach speeds.

Cherrybomber13 · **Posted:** Wed Feb 08, 2012 8:38 pm

It looks like someone took the Monogram B-29 kit and Raided their kids Mobile Suite Gundam parts box... Or is this Lady GaGa's new Tour Plane :lol:

On the serious side, how many are still running around in the soviet union? I read that there were 3 left in the world. Is that true? Could something like that be imported?
(without the outlandish top hat)

The Inspector · **Posted:** Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:27 pm

There was/is only one project 926 built. If any TU-4's still exist I'm sure they are in museums like the one on display in Monino. They are also ALL METRIC. Stalin had the B-29 copied but all done to metric specs which caused some very serious issues @ Tupolev trying to make parts work and adapt. Since Stalin ordered EXACT COPIES be made, there were some questions about putting U.S. star and bar markings on the aircraft and it took one pretty brave individual to mention to Stalin that he might want to put Russian markings on them which, in part explains the flanking bars on the red star,and under threat of death to all involved the entire thing was done within the allotted 18 months, and at that most of those working on it were imprisoned by purges and were forced to do the project as a sentence, that included Tupolev.

At least one Tu-4 was built as an airliner the TU-70, scant interior pictures show a cabin that looks like a cross between a British gentlemens club room lounge and an English first class train compartment. The airframe3 can best be described a being a DC-7-ski.

The TU-4 developed and morphed and eventually became the TU-95 BEAR turboprop bomber.

I'd bet my ex wifes IRA contribution that you would never get one of the survivors away from Russia, and what would you do with it? it has zero provenance as a war bird since it never was, it'd be pretty cool but sort of in the 'I've got a V-6 powered YUGO' category.

wingman1 · **Posted:** Wed Feb 08, 2012 10:26 pm

The Inspector wrote:

There was/is only one project 926 built. If any TU-4's still exist I'm sure they are in museums like the one on display in Monino. They are also ALL METRIC. Stalin had the B-29 copied but all done to metric specs which caused some very serious issues @ Tupolev trying to make parts work and adapt. Since Stalin ordered EXACT COPIES be made, there were some questions about putting U.S. star and bar markings on the aircraft and it took one pretty brave individual to mention to Stalin that he might want to put Russian markings on them which, in part explains the flanking bars on the red star,and under threat of death to all involved the entire thing was done within the allotted 18 months, and at that most of those working on it were imprisoned by purges and were forced to do the project as a sentence, that included Tupolev.

At least one Tu-4 was built as an airliner the TU-70, scant interior pictures show a cabin that looks like a cross between a British gentlemens club room lounge and an English first class train compartment. The airframe3 can best be described a being a DC-7-ski.

The TU-4 developed and morphed and eventually became the TU-95 BEAR turboprop bomber.

I'd bet my ex wifes IRA contribution that you would never get one of the survivors away from Russia, and what would you do with it? it has zero provenance as a war bird since it never was, it'd be pretty cool but sort of in the 'I've got a V-6 powered YUGO' category.

i wonder how many Tu-4's Do survive? :axe:

oz rb fan · **Joined:** Fri Dec 17, 2004 8:33 am **Posts:** 474

there are two in china,both turbo prop powered the other one is configured as a drone controller.
http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6990195
according to the ever reliable "wiki" the were converted to turbine power in the late 60's and withdrawn from serve in 1988.........i wonder if there are more hidden in china?,,as for now it seems there are three tu-4 survivor's two in china and the stock one in russia

famvburg · **Joined:** Fri Oct 07, 2005 9:41 am **Posts:** 540

The engines were Shvetsovs, not Tumanskis.

The Inspector wrote:

Weight and balance considerations, you are correct about the turbines being lighter than the Tumanski piston engines but also, I'm sure it also had something to do with all the weight of the avionics stuff inside besides, it is pretty clever engineering to utilize an existing configuration to make it work and not have to modify the firewall/aft nacelles at all or have to redo the thrust angle of the new engine installation.
Look @ photos of a stock PILATUS PC-2 with a piston engine vs. one with an ALLISON turbo prop or a turbo BEAVER or a VOLPAR modified turbine BEECH 18 to see how far forward the engines needed to be placed to counteract a tail heavy situation.
Weight X Arm = Moment, total weight divided into total moment will give you your C.G. and on swept wing aircraft there is another inverse division formula that will give you your MAC or 'Mean Aerodynamic Chord' in inches and a percentage range of the wings average chord, on a 727 that's usually 14 to 21% of MAC to be inside the Fwd/Aft c.g. range.

I just noticed, are those 'Rabbit Ear' antennas along the spine of that IL-14 in the background? If yes. I wonder how fast it sank off on final with the power pulled back to approach speeds.

StangStung · **Posted:** Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:24 am

The Inspector wrote:

...there were some questions about putting U.S. star and bar markings on the aircraft and it took one pretty brave individual to mention to Stalin that he might want to put Russian markings on them which, in part explains the flanking bars on the red star...

I've heard the former part of this before (i.e., that Stalin wanted an exact duplicate, which made people scratch their head about the star and bars), but I don't think that's the reason for the bars on this Chinese aircraft. Keep in mind that the standard PLAAF insignia has these bars:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Roundel_of_the_Peoples_Liberation_Army_Air_Force.svg

So unless Stalin was teling the Chinese how to mark their airplanes (possible, but I doubt it), this part sounds a bit dubious.

But this certainly has the "ain't it cool" factor Kinda like the dog that's so ugly it's cute.

Cherrybomber13 · **Posted:** Thu Feb 09, 2012 7:06 pm

Does anyone make those engines in 48th or 72nd scale?

The Inspector · **Posted:** Thu Feb 09, 2012 8:31 pm

There was a resin conversion for the ACADEMY kit, but that was a few years ago, might want to start prowling the old model sites or become 'creative modelling man' and break out the Evergreen stock and put on your clever hat.

Cubs · **Posted:** Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:52 am

Were they not duplicated right down to the words "Boeing" cast into the rudder pedals? Or am I confused with some other aircraft/instance that Russia reverse engineered.?

Warbird Information Exchange

KJ-1 (Chinese B-29)

Who is online