Jump to content

Russian bear v pc-9

Rate this topic


heirflick
 Share

Recommended Posts

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..

Link to comment
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....

Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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

Link to comment
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
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.

Link to comment
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.
Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use