Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
heirflick

Russian bear v pc-9

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

In the unlikely event of being able to keep up with it, the wake would probably finish you off.....

 

..you won't find many (any?) pictures of a Bear being intercepted by a prop-driven plane..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're a big device, they sit very high on the ground, as a result of the prop-diameter. When Khrushchev flew to the US in the Tu 114 airliner version in 1960, the stairs wouldn't reach the door..

 

2%20air%20stairs%20and%20TU%20114.png

 

..they had to put a ladder up for the last bit..

 

..and the main gear was too wide for their taxiways..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was once told of a pair of Phantoms intercepting a Bear in the North Sea around 1970. It was customary, particularly with two-seat aircraft, to take copious photographs, looking for any new aerials, etc - of course, the Soviets would be doing the same in return.

 

Their are blisters at the rear of the plane...

 

Tu95-Bear-Tail-Gunner.jpg

 

..and a crewman was noticed holding an object up in the 'window' as they photographed him. This was mentioned upon returning to base and the film was hurriedly processed, to see what new device this might have been.

 

It turned out to be a copy (or, at least the front cover ) of the station magazine from the Phantom's base - but, it was the next edition, which wasn't due out for a week....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the unlikely event of being able to keep up with it, the wake would probably finish you off.....

 

..you won't find many (any?) pictures of a Bear being intercepted by a prop-driven plane..

 

Perspective on Toy 'trainer' (for what?) versus resilient military asset

 

Pilatus 320 knots with an operational ceiling of 25,000 ft=))

 

Tu-95 NATO 'Bear'

Cruise about Mach 0.73 but capable of at least 0.82-0.86 or more. Most modern JET airliners cruise in the 0.80-0.84 range. To my knowledge the Bear is the strongest turboprop in the world and the civilian equivalent holds the speed record for prop driven flight! The contra-rotating props will outperform modern airliners with better acceleration due to the time taken to spin up the turbofan after a call for power (kinda like steam engine versus diesels without an electric traction motor)

 

The PC-9M was really packing a punch from that rocket pod in the video so it might just have the edge on the Bear there....:ROFL:

Edited by DiveController

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally found a picture of the 'ladder incident'...

 

c0026408_4fdd2a6581156.jpg

 

..airports around the world made more professional-looking stairway extensions as it moved into service...

 

220px--Reuzevliegtuig_Tupolev_Weeknummer_64-23_-_Open_Beelden_-_52883.ogv.jpg

 

..and the larger 'civil' fuselage became the basis for the Tu 126 'Moss' AEW aircraft.

 

Tu-126.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lads, read the rules; No politics. No exceptions. There's plenty of other places to put the world to rights. Thanks.

Fran, we were not having a political discussion. My post clearly relates to the Tu-95 in the link which is what we were discussing on this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Finally found a picture of the 'ladder incident'...

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]17095[/ATTACH]

 

..airports around the world made more professional-looking stairway extensions as it moved into service...

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]17096[/ATTACH]

 

..and the larger 'civil' fuselage became the basis for the Tu 126 'Moss' AEW aircraft.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]17097[/ATTACH]

 

Looks like the same accommodations being made then, like for the A380 now due to the height

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

During the testing for the enormous 'Kangaroo' missile, seen here..

 

TU+95+en+vol+pour+blog.jpg

 

.. a MiG 19 was carried aloft and successfully launched.

 

Edit - some footage.

 

Edited by Broithe
Additional info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fran' date=' we were not having a political discussion. My post clearly relates to the Tu-95 in the link which is what we were discussing on this thread.[/quote']

 

EDIT: I was referring to the comment you quoted instead of quoting it directly in error. The phone can be a pain to use sometimes! Apologies Kevin.

Edited by Warbonnet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tu-95s were accompanied by Il-78 tankers - refuelled off Norway, apparently.

 

_78945654_78945653.jpg

A picture from a similar event last November.

 

There's also talk that they were accompanied for the early stages by MiG 31s.

 

mig31-1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah they flew outside of irish sovereign aerospace but in the irish controlled aerospace.

 

Yes we could have fired spuds as a deterrent. Or threatened to use 10-10-20, or the chemical weapon 'Nilverm' - known to eradicate liver fluke and eliminate all known germs.

 

Tu-95 is a relic of the cold war, and was already a technical relic by 1960, yet is still operational today - a junk heap. Working in Moscow just after the wall came down, one wondered how anything actually worked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tu-95 is a relic of the cold war, and was already a technical relic by 1960, yet is still operational today

 

The RAF was still flying the lovely Shackleton into the '90s - virtually a modified Lancaster.

 

shack3.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting tail fin identifier

 

It means Военно-воздушные силы - "military air forces" - seen better here, on a MiG 31.

 

day1_029.JPG

 

России is "Russian", of course.

Edited by Broithe
Spelling..!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a video which is believed to have been taken on board one of the Bears during the January incident. It shows Typhoons and Mirage 2000s keeping a watchful eye...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The BBC has produced this 'helpful' guide to spotting Russian bombers - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-31537705 - with this silhouette :-

 

_81125075_plane_spotter_guide_624_v2.gif

 

..but, it shows the old Tu 22..

 

tu-22.gif

 

..not the current user of the designation..

 

tu-22m_profile01.jpg

 

..they do show a three-quarter silhouette of the correct aircraft later in the article.

 

Edit - They've believed me and changed the picture in the article - that was quick, just a few minutes since I emailed them..

Edited by Broithe
Update.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the case as always, Broithe! Looks like they confused the TU-22 with the Backfire's designation, which is TU-22M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the case as always, Broithe! Looks like they confused the TU-22 with the Backfire's designation, which is TU-22M.

 

Indeed, but it's horrifying that a 'journalist' can warn us to look out for something that seems to have last flown in 1992 - they also deleted the correct silhouette, just in case (I suppose), despite me telling them that that was correct for a 22M. It's fairly clear that the Tu 22 (Blinder) isn't swing-wing with those tip-pods, for a start, surely?

 

Let's hope the chaps in the planes have more up-to-date charts...

 

The Daily Mirror did once illustrate a story about a WW2 bomber crew member with a picture claiming to show a "bomber over Berlin" - it was a Handley-Page 0/400.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes we could have fired spuds as a deterrent.

Easy way to make the chips!

 

Tu-95 is a relic of the cold war, and was already a technical relic by 1960, yet is still operational today - a junk heap.

The plane itself would be easily outrun or shot down by any modern fighter aircraft but its payload is the very real and dangerous relic of the Cold War and it's been looking like we're heading down that road again

Edited by DiveController

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It means Военно-воздушные силы - "military air forces" - seen better here, on a MiG 31.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]17635[/ATTACH]

 

России is "Russian", of course.

 

Knew that, but not what BBC stood for. Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The plane itself would be easily outrun or shot down by any modern fighter aircraft

 

That applies to most maritime/patrol/surveillance/AEW aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Terms of Use