FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
It's not a question of performing the low level mission, it's a question of performing it continually and having the aircraft self-destruct over a given time period.
15,000 hours is not high time for a large multi engine aircraft, especially an airliner. Bottom line, the problem was so extensive the TU-114 was withdrawn from service
I don't know where you're coming up with a "2000" hour mod on the B-52. I have seen and worked with people at Tinker AFB who is involved in the PDM life extension program for the B-52. Depending on hours flown and what if any discrepancies are found during routine inspections will determine overhaul times and I can assure you it's not "2,000 hours" "arbitrarily." Center strives to improve B-52 PDM line
Hard to say, you would have to have a fly off between both aircraft.
Because it is not driven by propellers. Air density will have a greater effect on Propeller driven aircraft (even though turbo prop) than it will on jet engine performance.
I can - I can't speak for the Antonov, but I have too worked on Fokkers "Dashes" (I'm assuming DHC-6, 7 or 8 ) P-3s and C-130s and there are provisions within the maintenance programs that will address certain inspections and Standard Repairs for discrepancies found during routine inspections. Some of the items the manufacturer tell you to look for are based on potential structural failures based on viabration and fatigue. On the F-27 these items are listed in Structural Integrity Program Document 27438, on the DHC-6, it's listed in PSM 1-6-7. I don't know how ATR address their inspections but I would guess it could be found within its maintenance program as well.....
I have been involved in managing 3 DHC-6 aircraft for the past 7 years and have been involved in these inspections, as a matter of fact we have one coming up for a new wing installation in the fall. Just for the record, I have been in aircraft maintenance for over 32 years and have worked on dozens of different types of aircraft, so I know a little something about maintenance programs, especially in turbo-prop aircraft and what vibrating engines do to airframes over a given period of time. I'm also a pilot and flight instructor.
Both - the B-52 has set at least one record for flying over 10,000 miles unrefueled, but I do know other aircraft have done it too either during an actual mission or during a diversion.
OK...
It still was an attempt to do what the B-52 could do and it was not successful
OK... Impressive but the B-52's normal bomb load is 31,500 kg
Not when you're looking at carrying that type of weapon, at that point it makes no difference, better in carrying conventional weapons during a sustained operation.
I still don't see how the SU "won that battle." The counter measures against the Soviet Bomber threat not only paid for itself but it provided thousands of jobs and actually opened up territory and resources that would not have been available if the DEW line was never built. Yes, it was initially built on tax payer money but because of local economies that were created after it was built has long paid for itself and probably actually made money
To a point - it was recognized that the Soviet bomber force was inferior when compared to the US but it was never taken for granted as numbers in lieu of technology were perceived as the main threat in dealing with a Soviet bomber attack.
Don't understand your point but ok....
And Russia is not the only country developing large fuel efficent turbines either...
I can agree with that....
Last edited: