It is sth like F-15 and F-15E, that are different aircrafts. No matter they have quite similar designation
That is a bad example as the F-15E is directly based on the F-15C design, but is modified for air to ground roles.
The Tu-22 and Tu-22M are not related.
The Tu-22M0, Tu-22M1, Tu-22M2, and Tu-22M3 are all serious upgrades of each other comparable to the F-15C and F-15E changes, though all the Tupolevs are strike aircraft.
Every source says the Tu-22M variants are based on earlier variants of the Tu-22.
The use of the Tu-22 designation for entire the mechanical development is perfectly correct. In this case even is used in an environment where you see the:
The first Tu-22 first flew in 1948 and is based on the Tu-14, but with a swept wing and two wing mounted engines (copies of the Nene engine).
There are no photos of it that I can find but that is of course because it never entered service... much like the Tu-22m0 and Tu-22M1 of which only 9 of each were produced as test sample prototypes.
It was the Tu-22M2 and Tu-22M3 that were mass produced.
The use of the Tu-22 designation for entire the mechanical development is perfectly correct. In this case even is used in an environment where you see the:
MiG-25/31 designation for the entire mechanical development from the early variants of the MiG-25 until the MiG-31.
Su-27/30/33/35 designation for the entire mechanical development from the early variants of the Su-27 until the Su-35.
MiG-29/35 designation for the entire mechanical development from the early variants of the MiG-29 until the MiG-35
Your problems with that are only your problems.
You are contradicting yourself... you say the Tu-22 designation means all Blinders and Backfires, and then you say the MiG-31 which is clearly an evolution of the MiG-25 design uses the same designation but it clearly does not... the earlier aircraft is called MiG-25 and the later model with improved design and engines and sensors and weapons is called MiG-31...
With the next example you even miss the Fullback, Su-34 modification of the Flanker design... the Su-30 is just an Su-27UB two seat Flanker, the Su-33 has folding wings and a tail hook and structural strengthening for carrier operations, while the Su-35 is a complete redesign of the Su-27 to pretty much improve everything... and all these changes from minor to rather significant all warrant designation changes... the Su-34 has a new front fuselage which is a significant change, but nothing like the change between the Tu-22 Blinder and the Tu-22M Backfire in any model.
Equally the MiG-23 and MiG-27 warrant changes because of a different role, the Su-7 and the Su-17 family of variants involve the introduction of a new fuselage and new swing wings and so new designation.
Seriously why are you opening a new thread for his stupid ideas that he keeps telling every two months ?
Now we have a place to move the discussion if it starts up in any other thread... or would you like the same discussion over and over in new threads every two months.
Only to note that like explained many times, I do not use the Tu-22 and Tu-22M designations interchangeably.
Yes, you do.
lol, the shit about all this is outstanding. Here is a picture where we can see how Tu-22 early variants and Tu-22M variants share the exact same pieces in the cover of the tail.
That image actually proves the opposite... the angle of the vertical tails is different from the Tu-22 and the Tu-22Ms shown.
All the sources that that say that the Tu-22M variants were developped from the earlier Tu-22 variants are right. There are differences obviously, but there are also common parts.
No, there are few common parts, those tails are different.
The leading edge angle of the tail is critical, and all three look slightly different to me.
Like you can see in the picture, there are variants of the early Tu-22 that share the same pieces of the fixed part of the tail with Tu-22M variants, and it means that the tail of both have only external changes minor changes.
Actually the vertical tail surfaces of the Tu-22M includes internal fuel capacity, the Tu-22 does not.
From wiki... not the best source, but whatever:
In 1962, with the introduction of the Tu-22, it became increasingly clear that the aircraft was inadequate in its role as a bomber. In addition to widespread unserviceability and maintenance issues, the Tu-22's handling characteristics proved to be dangerous. Its landing speed was some 100 km/h (60 mph) greater than previous bombers and it had a tendency to pitch up and strike its tail upon landing. It was difficult to fly, and had poor all-round visibility.[4] In 1962, Tupolev commenced work on major update of the Tu-22. Initially, the bureau planned to add a variable-sweep wing and uprated engines into the updated design. The design was tested at TsAGI's wind tunnels at Zhukovsky.[4]
During this time, Sukhoi, traditionally a designer of fighter aircraft, developed the T-4, a four-engine titanium aircraft with canards. A response to the XB-70, it was to have a cruise speed of 3,200 km/h (2,000 mph), requiring a massive research effort in order to develop the requisite technologies. Not to be outdone, Tupolev, whose expertise is with bombers, offered the Soviet Air Force (Voyenno-Vozdushnye Sily, VVS) a massively-updated version of the Tu-22.[5]
Compared to the T-4, it was an evolutionary design, and thus its appeal laid in its simplicity and low cost. However, the Soviet government was skeptical about the need to approve the development of a replacement aircraft so soon after the Tu-22 had just entered service.[6] The Air Force and Tupolev, in order to save face with regards to the Tu-22's operational deficiencies and to stave off criticisms from the ICBM lobby, agreed to pass off the design as an update of the Tu-22 in their discussions with the government. The aircraft was designated Tu-22M, given the OKB code "Aircraft 45", and an internal designation of "AM". Their effort was successful as the government approved the design on 28 November 1967, and decreed the development of the aircraft's main weapon, the Kh-22.[7]
Now why would Tupolev agree to use the Tu-22M designation so the new aircraft they designed could be passed off as an upgrade rather than what it was... a complete redesign?
As you have mentioned aircraft like the MiG-25 and MiG-31 and the various model Flankers and Fulcrums receive new designations for much less external upgrade changes... I doubt most people could tell a MiG-35 from a MiG-29 or an Su-27 from and Su-35 for that matter, yet even a layperson can see that the three crew fixed wing Tu-22 with two engines above its fuselage is not the same as the four crew Tu-22M in any model with swing wings and engines moved inside the fuselage that is completely reshaped because of that change...
Can you defend that almost ecqual tails sharing many common pieces have different internal structure?
The Tu-22M aircraft have wet tails, Tu-22s have dry ones.
PS: Flaming Phyton, the helicopter rotors, like the blades, like the engines, like the wheels and other components are not part of the specific design of an aircraft.
If the Mi-24 and Mi-28 were very different weights then they would use very different rotors... they are similar weights and operate at similar speeds so the same five rotor design can be used for both.
The 8 bladed rotor of the Mi-26 would not be suitable for either helo.
Actually the Mi-24s and Mi-8s airframes are more similar than the Tu-22s and Tu-22M3s. Yet you still won't say that the Mi-24 is a modernization of the Mi-8.
Mi-24 is like the Mi-14... both are adapted from the Mi-8, for specific roles that require serious changes in design.
In fact the Mi-24 had more powerful engines than the Mi-8 had for a long time too.
As FP points out everything is design choices from rotor size and design to the number and shape of the blades... you wont get a small light helo with 5 rotor blades... and with Kamov designs helos in that weight class have two sets of three rotor blades meaning 6 in total...