Tu-95MS "Bear"

GarryB wrote:But clearly not enough to warrant a change...

perhaps at the very high speeds TU-95 reaches vs other prop planes the requirements are different

That would be russian aggression on a new level.

*Breaking news, Russian 'Bear' Downs NATO Planes*
dit dit dit da da da dit dit dit
In breaking news this hour several innocent democratic fuzzy & cute fighter jets from multiple NATO countries have disappeared off radar after being sent to intercept an aggressively Russian 'Bear' bomber sent by Putin to aggressively Russianly approach NATO borders & possibly interfere in elections along the West coast from Norway to Spain.

Military sources have been unable to determine exactly what method the Bear used to down the planes but can confirm that the aircraft disappeared from radar screens shortly after the fighters made visual contact with the Putin bomber, some form of hacking is suspected but UK Intelligence sources who cannot be identified for security reasons are unable to rule out the possibility ultra-deadly Novichok chemical warfare agent was smeared on the control sticks of the fighters before they took off 'we have no evidence whatsoever but we're quite sure that Putin ordered the GRU to do it' they advise.

While the evil communist bombers have only just started their return leg the independent definitely not a UK state sponsored info-war campaign researcher Bellingcat has released its 3rd expose on the incident with shocking proof that Putin Done It! in the form of a photo showing Skripal Novichok poisoner Russian Colonel Anatoly Chepiga at the controls of the Russian Aggressor  holding what appears to be a perfume bottle and with a Russian Built BUK missile launcher in the co-pilot seat next to him.

Coming up after the break our panel of independent ex CIA directors will rationally discuss how Putin just started WWIII, is exclusively to blame & definitely nothing to do with the weird spiral patterns on the props in the Bellingcat image which look suspiciously like '60s movie hypnotising machines...
da da da dit dit dit da da da

you can really see how the TU-95 evolved from the TU-4 /b-29 though. The TU-95 is the ultimate Steampunk bomber design, it looks timeless and awesome!!!

mnztr wrote:you can really see how the TU-95 evolved from the TU-4 /b-29 though. The TU-95 is the ultimate Steampunk bomber design, it looks timeless and awesome!!!

wut? Is this a joke?    The Tu-95 is a swept wing aircraft that weighs nearly 3x the B-29 and over 50% faster....  how dafuq could the Tu-95 be an evolutionary development of the B-29 clone?  Maybe because it has two wings, 4 engines and the pilots sit at the front?....

The Tu-4 was developed first into the Tu-80 and than the Tu-85. The Tu-85 comes close to the Tu-95. So he is right that there is a line.

..the Tu-4 was superior to the B-29... it had more powerful engines that were not prone to burst into flames like the US model..

Yes, their engines were also often catching fire.
The Tu-4 is at 13:00 & the Tu-95 is at 35:15- direct descendant of the Tu-4 & is closely related to the B-29:

Hole wrote:The Tu-4 was developed first into the Tu-80 and than the Tu-85. The Tu-85 comes close to the Tu-95. So he is right that there is a line.

Ummm... No. Tu-80/85 were aborted attempts at developing the Tu-4, but the Tu-95 was an all-new deign. It may have (I'm assuming) leveraged some engineering solutions from the B-29 clone, but to all intents and purpose it was a seperate development on a clean sheet. Swept wings, turbo-props, totally different fuselage and tail shaping...

Big_Gazza wrote:

Hole wrote:The Tu-4 was developed first into the Tu-80 and than the Tu-85. The Tu-85 comes close to the Tu-95. So he is right that there is a line.

Ummm...  No.  Tu-80/85 were aborted attempts at developing the Tu-4, but the Tu-95 was an all-new deign.  It may have (I'm assuming) leveraged some engineering solutions from the B-29 clone, but to all intents and purpose it was a seperate development on a clean sheet. Swept wings, turbo-props, totally different fuselage and tail shaping...  

The TU-80 and 85 were developed from the TU-04 and were still piston powered. Only when a suitable engine came along, did TU-95 become possible. The swept wings were driven by aerodynamic requriements of capability provided by the engines. Of course structure, weight and payload all came hand in hand with the massive increase in power (6X) . If you cannot see the linage you are blind. There is zero chance Tupolev (as brilliant as he was) could have designed the TU-95 without having first designed the Tu-04

mnztr wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

Hole wrote:The Tu-4 was developed first into the Tu-80 and than the Tu-85. The Tu-85 comes close to the Tu-95. So he is right that there is a line.

Ummm...  No.  Tu-80/85 were aborted attempts at developing the Tu-4, but the Tu-95 was an all-new deign.  It may have (I'm assuming) leveraged some engineering solutions from the B-29 clone, but to all intents and purpose it was a seperate development on a clean sheet. Swept wings, turbo-props, totally different fuselage and tail shaping...  

The TU-80 and 85 were developed from the TU-04 and were still piston powered. Only when a suitable engine came along, did TU-95 become possible. The swept wings were driven by aerodynamic requriements of capability provided by the engines. Of course structure, weight and payload all came hand in hand with the massive increase in power (6X) . If you cannot see the linage you are blind. There is zero chance Tupolev (as brilliant as he was) could have designed the TU-95 without having first designed the Tu-04

There is no "lineage".  Tu-80/85 proved to be a dead-end and were abandoned.  Tu-95 was a clean sheet. Just because Tupolev opted to retain some design features of the 80/85 such as the general arrangement of the forward fuselage/cockpit area doesn't mean the Tu-95 is related to the Tu-04.  It just means that the modernisations planned for the 80/85 were modified and rolled into the new aircraft.  Thats not a lineage.

The only way to settle this would be to examine structural drawings of the Tu-04/80/85 and compare them to the Tu-95.  AFAIK no such details are available, so lets agree to disagree.

BTW Tupolev didn't really "design" the Tu-04. It was a direct clone of the B-29, differing only in use of Soviet powerplant and internal equipment. Saying that he couldn't have developed the Tu-95 without first copying the B-29 is nonsense. That would be tantamount to saying that Tupolev learned his craft by copying the US article...

http://www.airwar.ru/enc/bomber/tu85.html


Have a nice day!

Big_Gazza wrote:

BTW Tupolev didn't really "design" the Tu-04. It was a direct clone of the B-29, differing only in use of Soviet powerplant and internal equipment.  Saying that he couldn't have developed the Tu-95 without first copying the B-29 is nonsense. That would be tantamount to saying that Tupolev learned his craft by copying the US article...

I know the TU-4 was a reverse engineered version of the B-29 but that is an incredibly complex undertaking. Tupolev was brilliant, its likely he would have come up with other solutions, maybe even better ones, if not for the TU-4 project. The timeline coincides with major engine developments. It would have been difficult to concieve that engines 5 to 6 x more powerful would be available in just a few years. The NK-12 is to me the greatest breakthough in that program. Even today decades later this is a formidable engine with no equal. The rest of the plane was designed to exploit this magnificent powerplant.

We all can thanks Stalin for that.

Yefim Gordon's book said that copying the American bomber was a wise move as it put Soviet back to state of the art realm.

Tho i got to regret loss of DVB series bombers because of it.

First flight footage of Tu-95 published by MOD:

all Tupolev aircraft are based on the US B-29... hilarious...
Very simply the Russians were at the forefront of four engined bombers, but their efforts stagnated in the 1930s, though as I mentioned without their 11,000km range flights to the US in the 1930s the B-17 would have been cancelled and there never would have been a B-29.

Not all, pl. don't exaggerate!
The Pe-8 had longer range than the B-29, but wasn't produced in large # on Stalin's orders:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petlyakov_Pe-8#Specifications_(Pe-8/AM-35A)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-29_Superfortress#Specifications_(B-29)

A few flying boats & transports with bigger range were developed & used before WWII, so the Americans had not only Soviet land planes for inspiration:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lat%C3%A9co%C3%A8re_521#Specifications_(Lat%C3%A9_521)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blohm_%26_Voss_BV_222#Specifications_(BV_222C-09)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_314_Clipper#Specifications_(314A_Clipper)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_200_Condor#Specifications_(Fw_200_C-3/U4)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-17_Flying_Fortress#Specifications_(B-17G)

GarryB wrote:The problem is that the Tu-85 was described as the final extrapolation of the B-29 design... the Tu-95 was a redesign... required by the new engines and higher speeds.

At last, a bit of frigging sanity.

With the Tu-85 Tupolev learned that they would need a much bigger plane to reach intercontinental range. Which meant they would need a stronger eninge. After that engine was developed they realised that the new plane could be much faster than the old ones and changed the design of the wings.

More than 60 years later…

Exactly!

That chart suggests the origin of all Tupolevs is the B-29... where is the exaggeration?
A few flying boats & transports with bigger range were developed & used before WWII, so the Americans had not only Soviet land planes for inspiration:
With bigger range than what?

The Tupolev bombers shown r descendants of the B-29/Tu-4, but more accurately, each succeeding model was based on the preceding 1.
Those earlier transports had bigger range than B-17/-29s.
The record set by the Soviets was broken by two British Vickers Wellesley bombers which flew from Egypt to Australia in November 1938; a distance of 11,523.9 kilometres (7,160.6 mi). ..
Fuel was 52% of the takeoff weight,.. According to the archives, the idea of a military variant of the RD first came to the engineer Zhemchuzhin of the 7th sector of the Soviet Air Force Scientific Research Institute. Its slow speed, low altitude, poor maneuverability and large wingspan made it a perfect target for fighters and anti-aircraft guns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_ANT-25
The ANT-25 had to land & refuel to fly back, so even as a bomber it would be 1 way mission if there were no airfields nearby for that.
So it wasn't just that flight that inspired to continue with the B-17.