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.