Posted on 01/21/2016 5:51:18 PM PST by The All Knowing All Seeing Oz
I saw an American two seat jet bomber blow up on the runway on Okinawa in 1968, and I saw a B-52 blow up on takeoff in Thailand 1969.
Can we say something bad about American engineering?
June 8, 2015 when it happened?
I live in the northern Chicago ‘burbs and, during the “winter of ‘79, a Lockheed P3B was turning onto the runway at the old Glenview Naval Air Station. The aircraft apparently turned wide and the #4 prop caught the snowbank alongside the runway. The prop shattered and a piece nailed the power turbine on the #3 engine. There was a parking lot nearby and, over and above the damage to the airplane, there was something like $180,000 worth of damage to the parked cars.
Even “worse,” Tu-95 was/is modernized version of Tu-4, which was nothing more than reverse engineered B-29.
US Air force unveils S-400 KILLER MISSILES to scare Putin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A85Czh9KexI
US Air force STEALTH UAV armed with LASER GUN to kill S-400 defence
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPl_xKPI_5w
Damn.
Ruy,
The Russians have designed some really sorry aircraft. This is NOT one of them. This has been a workhorse with a reasonable accident record. This is not even giving them a break for operating under some horrible conditions.
I think TU-95’s are cool for a number of reasons, not least because of their Flash Gordon looks.
Oldplayer
From a 1926 poster:
“Aviating, like the Sea
is not inherently dangerous
But like that sea, it is ready
to punish the briefest moment’s
laxness or inattention.”
It was printed over a photograph of 100 acres of completely open prairie, with just one single, solitary tree... and an airplane in the tree.
I've seen pictures of B-29s that came back with amazing damage from a prop that came apart for whatever reason. Not buffing that out.
That is what it looked like to me.
OZ,
While Tupolev did make a direct, nearly identical copy of the B-29 in the TU-4, the TU-95 was very different. First, the wings are not mid-fuselage but are rather run through the top of the fuselage and have a lot of negative dihedral. PLUS, they used the knowledge from captured German engineering to make the wings severely swept back.
All in all, an interesting piece of engineering, no doubt accelerated by German and US knowledge, but in the end, it reflected Russia’s own engineering ideas. Like some of the early MIG’s, the compromises were ones they made for practical reasons.
Just my opinion.
Oldplayer
Looks like the #2 engine blows, and that leads to gear collapse, as gear is located in the engine pod.
You can see what appears to be the left flap separating from a/c.
Something like that could ruin your entire evening.
When I first saw it, I thought it was something with the port main mount, like a brake fire or something. The plane appeared to bo slowing to me, so they could have been jacking on the brakes.
Main mount collapses or is sheared off, port propellers hit runway as the nose of the plane careens towards the port side.
I saw a few of these planes from the deck of a carrier.
Eh. I guess it wasn’t brakes unless they cooked something off...big flash...
You’re right, we and our allies would never do that to the Russians, right? Good for you, lot’s of humanity there.
Engine threw a rod. A really big rod. Wet wings full of avgas, not good.
Turboprops have rods?
dang
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.