If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
The Tu-160 is perfectly capable of taking off with one engine, it has
much more excess thrust than the B-1. In fact, there's a true story of a U.S. official (can't remember who, but some big-whig) coming to watch a Tu-160 take off (shortly after Iron Curtain fell). The crew couldn't start one of their engines, so they just took off without it on and still gave an impressive performance. So it must have been something more than just a simple engine failure (e.g., control failure, catastrophic engine failure, etc.). Tony "Thomas Schoene" wrote in message ink.net... "Christians for Cheeseburgers." wrote in message . net "Michael Petukhov" wrote in message m... A Russian Tupolev-160 strategic bomber crashed in the Saratov Region on Thursday, the press service of the Russian Air Force has reported. "The fate of the four crewmembers is unknown. A search and rescue operation is underway at the scene. Information about casualties and damage at the crash site needs to be clarified," an Air Force spokesman said. The aircarft was conducting a test flight after one of its engines was replaced. According to preliminary reports it was carrying no weapons. The Tu-160 bomber (Blackjack, according to NATO classifications) is capable of carrying nuclear bombs and missiles. Its maximum flight weight amounts to 275 tons. //Interfax foor polites died. they reported fire in the replaced engine. Michael In the US we ground test engines after they are replaced. We find it's much easier to shut down than from 30,000 feet. A remarkably tasteless comment. And that assumes the crash was even related to the engine change. No guarantee that it was. And even if it was, there's no reason to believe that they didn't ground test it first. Even in the US, we'd do a maintenance check flight after major maintenance. Ground test first, but flying the plane will find things that no ground test ever will. -- Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail "If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Tony Volk" wrote in message ... The Tu-160 is perfectly capable of taking off with one engine, it has much more excess thrust than the B-1. In fact, there's a true story of a U.S. official (can't remember who, but some big-whig) coming to watch a Tu-160 take off (shortly after Iron Curtain fell). The crew couldn't start one of their engines, so they just took off without it on and still gave an impressive performance. So it must have been something more than just a simple engine failure (e.g., control failure, catastrophic engine failure, etc.). So you really think that a plane that weighs 275000kg at full load can take off perfectly well with one engine that produces 25000kg of thrust? So why build it with four engines? You might want to re-think your position, since its obviously flawed. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Ragnar wrote:
"Tony Volk" wrote in message ... The Tu-160 is perfectly capable of taking off with one engine, it has much more excess thrust than the B-1. In fact, there's a true story of a U.S. official (can't remember who, but some big-whig) coming to watch a Tu-160 take off (shortly after Iron Curtain fell). The crew couldn't start one of their engines, so they just took off without it on and still gave an impressive performance. So it must have been something more than just a simple engine failure (e.g., control failure, catastrophic engine failure, etc.). So you really think that a plane that weighs 275000kg at full load can take off perfectly well with one engine that produces 25000kg of thrust? So why build it with four engines? You might want to re-think your position, since its obviously flawed. Condensed from 'Tupolev Tu-160 Blackjack - Russia's Answer to the B-1' by Yefim Gordon. Volume 9 in the 'Red Star' series........................... On 12 August 1988 Frank C. Carlucci, then US Secretary of State, visited Kubinka, near Moscow. A flying display was staged - including 2 Tu-160's. When it came for takeoff, a single engine on each of the bombers would not start. To save embarassment, the VVS top command authorised a go-ahead for the flights - so the two bombers took off on THREE engines. The flights went well - thanks to some excellent airmanship - the fact that only 3 of the four engines were emitting smoke did not escape the US delegation - so they asked why. The Russian Long-Range Aviation Commander, Col. Gen. Pyotr S Deynekin answered - with a straight face - that the Tu-160's engines had several operating modes, not all of which were characterised by a smoke trail. Later, when being shown around the flight deck, Carlucci banged his head on a circuit-breaker panel. That panel is still know to Long-Range Aviation crews as 'Carluccis' Panel'. So, while not normal, a Tu-160 certainly can takeoff on only 3 engines - although obviously, not at max weight. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++ Ken Duffey - Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast Flankers Website - http://www.flankers.co.uk/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++ |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
LOL, it was a typo- I blame it on not posting here for years! The
first sentence should have read "with(out) one engine". The flight was for Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci, although not at full take-off weight (rarely fully loaded any how). On a related note, the Tu-160 has taken off with its wing spoilers accidentally open, so it has excellent climbing characteristics. My point was that the simple failure (i.e., failure to deliver power vs. an engine fire or other catastrophic failure) of one of the four engines would not be likely to seriously impact the take-off performance of the plane, especially at anything less than maximum take-off weight. And to make the post complete, my source is "Tupelov Bombers", by AIRtime publishing, the Tu-160 section written by Piotr Butowski. Tony "Ragnar" wrote in message ink.net... "Tony Volk" wrote in message ... The Tu-160 is perfectly capable of taking off with one engine, it has much more excess thrust than the B-1. In fact, there's a true story of a U.S. official (can't remember who, but some big-whig) coming to watch a Tu-160 take off (shortly after Iron Curtain fell). The crew couldn't start one of their engines, so they just took off without it on and still gave an impressive performance. So it must have been something more than just a simple engine failure (e.g., control failure, catastrophic engine failure, etc.). So you really think that a plane that weighs 275000kg at full load can take off perfectly well with one engine that produces 25000kg of thrust? So why build it with four engines? You might want to re-think your position, since its obviously flawed. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Tony Volk" wrote in message ...
The Tu-160 is perfectly capable of taking off with one engine, it has much more excess thrust than the B-1. In fact, there's a true story of a U.S. official (can't remember who, but some big-whig) coming to watch a Tu-160 take off (shortly after Iron Curtain fell). The crew couldn't start one of their engines, so they just took off without it on and still gave an impressive performance. So it must have been something more than just a simple engine failure (e.g., control failure, catastrophic engine failure, etc.). Tony Exactly there was right wing fuel tank explosion in two minites after fire started in a right engine #2. Right wing was found in 3 km from the main part of Tu-160 airframe. Michael "Thomas Schoene" wrote in message ink.net... "Christians for Cheeseburgers." wrote in message . net "Michael Petukhov" wrote in message m... A Russian Tupolev-160 strategic bomber crashed in the Saratov Region on Thursday, the press service of the Russian Air Force has reported. "The fate of the four crewmembers is unknown. A search and rescue operation is underway at the scene. Information about casualties and damage at the crash site needs to be clarified," an Air Force spokesman said. The aircarft was conducting a test flight after one of its engines was replaced. According to preliminary reports it was carrying no weapons. The Tu-160 bomber (Blackjack, according to NATO classifications) is capable of carrying nuclear bombs and missiles. Its maximum flight weight amounts to 275 tons. //Interfax foor polites died. they reported fire in the replaced engine. Michael In the US we ground test engines after they are replaced. We find it's much easier to shut down than from 30,000 feet. A remarkably tasteless comment. And that assumes the crash was even related to the engine change. No guarantee that it was. And even if it was, there's no reason to believe that they didn't ground test it first. Even in the US, we'd do a maintenance check flight after major maintenance. Ground test first, but flying the plane will find things that no ground test ever will. -- Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail "If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Tu160 takeoff on one engine? maybe, with a looong runway, cold day,
and minimum fuel. 275000 kg gross, subtract 75000 for payload and extra fuel, leaves 200000 kg to be pushed by 25000 kg. 8 to 1 thrust to weight. I remember making mil power takeoffs in the F86D at 4:1 and about a 5400 foot ground roll. looking at the math we have 200000/9.8 = 20408; 25000/20408 = 1.23 m/sec acceleration on takeoff. The rest is left to the student as a drill. Walt BJ |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Tony Volk" wrote:
The Tu-160 is perfectly capable of taking off with one engine, it has much more excess thrust than the B-1. In fact, there's a true story of a U.S. official (can't remember who, but some big-whig) coming to watch a Tu-160 take off (shortly after Iron Curtain fell). The crew couldn't start one of their engines, so they just took off without it on and still gave an impressive performance. So it must have been something more than just a simple engine failure (e.g., control failure, catastrophic engine failure, etc.). Tony I don't think so Tony...the way you wrote this makes me think that you think the tu-160 has only two engines. It has four son, and I'd not bet the farm that it can get off the ground on one engine. -- -Gord. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
" wrote:
"Tony Volk" wrote: The Tu-160 is perfectly capable of taking off with one engine, it has much more excess thrust than the B-1. In fact, there's a true story of a U.S. official (can't remember who, but some big-whig) coming to watch a Tu-160 take off (shortly after Iron Curtain fell). The crew couldn't start one of their engines, so they just took off without it on and still gave an impressive performance. So it must have been something more than just a simple engine failure (e.g., control failure, catastrophic engine failure, etc.). Tony I don't think so Tony...the way you wrote this makes me think that you think the tu-160 has only two engines. It has four son, and I'd not bet the farm that it can get off the ground on one engine. -- -Gord. I wonder if Tony meant to say 'The Tu-160 is perfectly capable of taking off with one engine INOPERATIVE' ??? That is perfectly possible - as I have posted. Or, as Gord says - maybe he was thinking of a Tu-16 ?? That has TWO engines. But I don't think even a lightly-loaded Tu-16 could take off on just ONE engine ! ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++ Ken Duffey - Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast Flankers Website - http://www.flankers.co.uk/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++ |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Gord
For what it's worth, the TU-160 'Blackjack' is powered by four Samara/Trud NK-321 turbofans, each generating 55,155 pounds of static thrust in afterburner. The aircraft's empty weight is 259,900 pounds. There's no way that a single engine is going to move this aircraft anywhere except at a high speed taxi. Incidentally, the 'big whig' was U.S. Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci. He was invited to inspect the twelfth aircraft built at Kubinka Air Base on the 2nd of August 1988. By the way, how did the CYSU reunion go Gord? Cheers...Chris |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hughes Racer crashed going home from OSH | JB | Home Built | 0 | August 5th 03 11:08 PM |