|
Somehow I have managed to never see a picture of a Tu-160 with the wings swept back before
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2024 14:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 03:44 |
|
|
meltie posted:Is there a picture of these flippy uppy wing bits? Briefly at 1:35 and more at 2:12 here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR6uIWk8yLI&t=90s
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2024 14:04
|
|
|
Is the Tu-160 actually all that good of a plane? There’s probably a massive difference between the original model and the upgraded Ms but I wonder if those things are another white elephant project sucking up money for prestige reasons disproportionate to their military value.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2024 14:57
|
|
|
As I was walking into the YVR terminal several years ago, there was an old man causing a bit of an commotion out on the sidewalk with some either Air Canada or Westjet employees and security. His bag was open and they were just dumping out bugs. You could see them crawling all around the inside of his case. I don't remember if they were roaches or what but fuuuuck.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2024 15:05
|
|
|
meltie posted:Is there a picture of these flippy uppy wing bits? Here's another shot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvvYOdATPrw&t=913s
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2024 16:22
|
|
|
david_a posted:Is the Tu-160 actually all that good of a plane? There’s probably a massive difference between the original model and the upgraded Ms but I wonder if those things are another white elephant project sucking up money for prestige reasons disproportionate to their military value. if they're graft, whoever's doing the grafting is real good at it, cause iirc they're gonna be building new ones in addition to the modernization project my guess would be their niche is doing long-range cruise missile strikes on short notice, since they're the fastest strategic bomber currently flying
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2024 16:46
|
|
|
Lake of Methane posted:Briefly at 1:35 and more at 2:12 here. joat mon posted:Here's another shot: well crikey.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2024 18:27
|
|
|
david_a posted:Is the Tu-160 actually all that good of a plane? There’s probably a massive difference between the original model and the upgraded Ms but I wonder if those things are another white elephant project sucking up money for prestige reasons disproportionate to their military value. I've been wondering this, too. Going way, way back to this excellent Mr. Chips post, it seems like it was originally conceived as an intercontinental bomber that could break mach 2. The thing is, though, I don't think it can supercruise, which is the thing that would really distinguish itself as a big honkin' standoff attacker. Also, it seems to lack the B-1b's infiltration ability. I guess part of this depends on how much the Tu-160 costs compared to more conventional designs, but I'm thinking it costs a LOT, what with the giant swing wings and all. This isn't nothing if can only be used in a standoff role, what with Tu-142s being so much cheaper. I suspect the Tu-160 makes more sense if you accept Russia has lost the ability to design new aircraft; then I'd think it'd be their most survivable heavy bomber. Of course that depends on their ECM abilities--- Fun hypothetical: Ukraine of course had some Blackjacks when the USSR collapsed. Assuming for the moment they could be kept flying and usable, what could Ukraine use them for in the current war?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2024 22:01
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Assuming for the moment they could be kept flying and usable, what could Ukraine use them for in the current war? Targets.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2024 22:45
|
|
|
Cruise missile launches from way the hell behind the front, same as Russia.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2024 23:25
|
|
|
The new-build TU-160Ms are openly billed as missile bombers. Their point is to be able to carry cruise missiles very far, and then launch the cruise missiles, which themselves travel rather far. The idea is modernized avionics and weapon interfaces plus a new model engine, so they can carry a mix of cruise missiles as well as newer hypersonic weapons.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2024 23:34
|
|
|
i imagine part of their role is just existing and being nuclear-capable for MAD reasons, something the b1 wasn't as useful for given the existence of the b2
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 03:28
|
|
|
Cactus Ghost posted:i imagine part of their role is just existing and being nuclear-capable for MAD reasons, something the b1 wasn't as useful for given the existence of the b2 The B-1B was meant to be an FB-111 on steroids, packing a shitton of SRAMs (the FB-111 could carry 4-8 while the B-1B could carry 24 internally) to blast deeper and much larger corridors through the Soviet AD network. The Tu-160 could probably be called Soviet Aviation's last "prestige" project, designed to correct the shortcomings of the Tu-22M and the outright embarrassment of the Tu-22.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 03:47
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:packing a shitton of SRAMs i know it means some kind of missile, but i giggled at the idea of some very serious airforce pilot delivering a bunch of expensive bicycle components to the soviet union
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 05:41
|
|
|
FuturePastNow posted:Somehow I have managed to never see a picture of a Tu-160 with the wings swept back before 
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 11:36
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOkg5qNLyao Canadian flies DC-8 NFB Canada's short on an Trans-Canada Airways DC-8 flight from Montreal to Nassau. I'm guessing the ring around the exhaust is some kinda noise blocker? Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 02:17 on Feb 19, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2024 02:14
|
|
|
Think the ring is part of the thrust reverser, the collection of pipes ahead of it is the hush kit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2024 02:54
|
|
|
Both, according to some rando on the internet. Makes stuff quieter, more efficient, and has thrust reversing capabilities. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2024 07:26
|
|
|
Elviscat posted:Both, according to some rando on the internet. Makes stuff quieter, more efficient, and has thrust reversing capabilities. That just raises further questions! (Why is the exhaust nozzle corrugated?)
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2024 17:53
|
|
|
Also noise suppression. And despite that Conway powered DC-8s and 707s were the loudest commercial aircraft ever besides the Concorde.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2024 18:06
|
|
|
Theris posted:Also noise suppression. And despite that Conway powered DC-8s and 707s were the loudest commercial aircraft ever besides the Concorde. What about the Tu-114, the airliner version of the Tu-95 Bear? Wikipedia claims 108+ dB in some parts of the cabin  Also the Tu-144 (concordski) I guess but that barely qualifies as a commercial airliner.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2024 19:17
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:That just raises further questions! They originally weren’t; that was the first iteration of hush kit. The idea was to increase the area of mixing between the fast exhaust gasses and outside air, as the more area the less noise it will make. Modern high-bypass turbofan engines have the core exhaust entirely enveloped by the bypass air, which helps a lot, but even the bypass air is moving a lot faster than the surrounding air. That’s why the 737 Max, 747-8, and 787 have that chevron pattern around the bypass output - it’s basically a built-in hush kit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2024 21:36
|
|
|
The 747-8i is noticeably quieter than the 747-400 when sitting in the back.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2024 21:41
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Pedjijatar/status/1759660437182783668 It’s like a dog with diarrhœa. https://avherald.com/h?article=5151ede4&opt=0
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 00:04
|
|
|
Theris posted:Also noise suppression. And despite that Conway powered DC-8s and 707s were the loudest commercial aircraft ever besides the Concorde. Depending on how you slice that pie I think there are some rocketry firms that would disagree.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 00:29
|
|
|
Speaking of loudest places on an airplane, where is the loudest point on a 737/320? I'm guessing it's X feet behind the wing root, where X is 7 to 25'? A function of the engine wash or whatever
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 00:34
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:What about the Tu-114, the airliner version of the Tu-95 Bear? Wikipedia claims 108+ dB in some parts of the cabin The Tu-114's epic noise (mostly from the props rather than the engines) was ironically loudest in the 'first class' (or Soviet equivalent of) saloon, which was above/just behind the wing. Until revised reduction gearboxes and engine bearers were fitted the area also suffered terrible vibration at cruise power, sufficient for Aeroflot to have to design rubber place mats to stop plates and glasses shuffling off the dining tables and onto the floor. The 114 had sleeping compartments which must have been a challenge.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 01:18
|
|
|
Hadlock posted:Speaking of loudest places on an airplane, where is the loudest point on a 737/320? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 01:23
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:That just raises further questions! "For strength and extra surface area", he guessed, loudly
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 01:54
|
|
|
BalloonFish posted:The 114 had sleeping compartments which must have been a challenge. Wear both earplugs and muffs, and at that point it’s either hell from the vibrations, or they’re soothing and have you sleeping like a baby.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 01:56
|
|
|
If you were doing instantaneous sampling, at mach 0.8 wouldn't it be further back
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 01:58
|
|
|
I remember sitting at the back of the cabin, next to the starboard engine on an Aeromexico 727 and it wasn't extremely loud, but it made some very disturbing grinding noises throughout the flight from Hermosillos to LA that, were my car's engine making them, would have resulted in an immediate shutdown until WTF it was could be determined. Good thing it was a smoking flight. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 04:16
|
|
|
https://www.sfgate.com/travel/article/santa-barbara-airport-closes-runways-flood-18676166.php This doesn’t look good:  I’m supposed to be flying there on Saturday.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 05:57
|
|
|
Hadlock posted:Speaking of loudest places on an airplane, where is the loudest point on a 737/320? I'm guessing it's X feet behind the wing root, where X is 7 to 25'? A function of the engine wash or whatever Purely regarding engine noise, I'd actually guess it's window seats in the rows starting a few ahead of the inlets until you get far enough back that the wing fully occludes the engine nacelle(s). My semi wild-rear end guess is that the airflow over the wing actually dampens the noise coming out the back as heard inside the passenger cabin, but I'm open to an aerodynamics nerd explaining why I'm wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 06:52
|
|
|
Hadlock posted:Speaking of loudest places on an airplane, where is the loudest point on a 737/320? I'm guessing it's X feet behind the wing root, where X is 7 to 25'? A function of the engine wash or whatever Outside: No idea, but probably somewhere behind either of the engines. Inside at low speed: Directly behind the wing, you get basically all the noise from the gear, the engines, and the flaps in the wind. Inside at high speed: The cockpit. Wind noise comes from air being forced to change direction and/or speed. The majority of the fuselage runs parallel to the free air stream so it doesn't interact much beyond skin friction whereas the cockpit windows are large blunt objects that hit the oncoming air stream more or less straight on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 07:24
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:https://www.sfgate.com/travel/article/santa-barbara-airport-closes-runways-flood-18676166.php Unless the water actually damages something like the asphalt, which isn't super likely, you'll be fine by Saturday.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 14:15
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:What about the Tu-114, the airliner version of the Tu-95 Bear? Wikipedia claims 108+ dB in some parts of the cabin Warbird posted:Depending on how you slice that pie I think there are some rocketry firms that would disagree. Ok, fine. Everyone please pretend I said "jet" instead of "aircraft." Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 19:05
|
|
|
In a similar "technically correct but not exactly what was actually asked", I found this fun little bit of FAQ on the website of one of the "rich person air taxi" companies today.BLADE FAQ posted:Does BLADE arrange flights on both jet-engine and prop powered aircraft? A lot of the "jet turbine powered aircraft" are Cessna Grand Caravans. Which, yes, turboprops are technically jet turbines, buuut I don't think that is exactly what most people have in mind when they picture a jet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 20:02
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Wear both earplugs and muffs, and at that point it’s either hell from the vibrations, or they’re soothing and have you sleeping like a baby. The people most likely to be able to sleep in the thing would be the most unlikely to set foot in one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 20:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 03:44 |
|
|
Neat https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4SPL3XMl_E
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 21:17
|
|
