+53

AMCXXL

Kiko

lancelot

The-thing-next-door

Cyberspec

jaguar_br

Singular_Transform

RTN

marcellogo

owais.usmani

miketheterrible

Isos

Arrow

kvs

archangelski

SeigSoloyvov

ult

dino00

Tsavo Lion

Hole

magnumcromagnon

Stealthflanker

GunshipDemocracy

mnztr

LMFS

hoom

PapaDragon

Svyatoslavich

T-47

ATLASCUB

franco

AlfaT8

Odin of Ossetia

Firebird

JohninMK

Honesroc

ExBeobachter1987

Vann7

nemrod

zepia

flamming_python

collegeboy16

d_taddei2

Viktor

Big_Gazza

TR1

George1

Hoof

Austin

GarryB

USAF

Russian Patriot

Sukhoi37_Terminator

57 posters

Go to page :

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 11, 12, 13

Tu-95MS "Bear"

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 40580
Points : 41082
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°106

Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

GarryB Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:52 am

News just in... officials at Porton Down have confirmed that the substance used was Novachok and that Vladimir Putin administered it personally to each of the brave heroic western pilots before they took to the air to defend NATO airspace (which of course is all airspace).

Correction from previous report... the pilots were not just cute and fuzzy, they were also non gender specific... and not mentioning this fact has hurt their feelings...

GunshipDemocracy

GunshipDemocracy: Posts : 6174
Points : 6194
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

Post n°107

Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

GunshipDemocracy Wed Oct 10, 2018 4:10 am

C'mon this dead can should return in next month. The cat will give BBC ( or big white c) an extensive interview with final proof the it was Putin himself. Red handed as every Russian is red of course.

mnztr

mnztr: Posts : 2910
Points : 2948
Join date : 2018-01-21

Post n°108

Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

mnztr Fri Nov 09, 2018 10:01 pm

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!!!

Big_Gazza

Big_Gazza: Posts : 4915
Points : 4905
Join date : 2014-08-25
Location : Melbourne, Australia

Post n°109

Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

Big_Gazza Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:30 am

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? Suspect

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?....

GarryB likes this post

Hole

Hole: Posts : 11132
Points : 11110
Join date : 2018-03-24
Age : 48
Location : Scholzistan

Post n°110

Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

Hole Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:43 am

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.

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 40580
Points : 41082
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°111

Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

GarryB Sat Nov 10, 2018 2:30 pm

you can really see how the TU-95 evolved from the TU-4 /b-29 though.

Not really, and even then 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 and the gun positions had decent 20mm cannon instead of HMGs.

The Tu-95 was not related to the B-29 or Tu-4... in fact after being made to copy the B-29 (Stalin had decided there was not enough time to develop a new aircraft) Tupolev vowed never to copy another aircraft design...

The soviets certainly copied a few western designs... usually for very good reasons... and they never denied that they copied when they did.

Of course a lot of the time it was not copying but licence production like the Maxim MG, or the C-47/DC-3 (Li-2) transport aircraft.

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.

Well how about this... when the single engined ANT-25 long range Tupolev landed unexpectedly in the US after a 11,500km flight the US decided not to cancel work on what became the B-17... so in actual fact if there was no ANT-25 there would have been no B-17 or B-29.... Razz

Tsavo Lion

Tsavo Lion: Posts : 5958
Points : 5910
Join date : 2016-08-15
Location : AZ, USA

Post n°112

Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

Tsavo Lion Sun Nov 11, 2018 3:33 am

..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:

Big_Gazza

Big_Gazza: Posts : 4915
Points : 4905
Join date : 2014-08-25
Location : Melbourne, Australia

Post n°113

Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

Big_Gazza Sun Nov 11, 2018 7:33 am

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...

GarryB likes this post

mnztr

mnztr: Posts : 2910
Points : 2948
Join date : 2018-01-21

Post n°114

Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

mnztr Sun Nov 11, 2018 10:07 pm

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

Big_Gazza

Big_Gazza: Posts : 4915
Points : 4905
Join date : 2014-08-25
Location : Melbourne, Australia

Post n°115

Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

Big_Gazza Sun Nov 11, 2018 11:06 pm

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...

Tsavo Lion

Tsavo Lion: Posts : 5958
Points : 5910
Join date : 2016-08-15
Location : AZ, USA

Post n°116

Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

Tsavo Lion Sun Nov 11, 2018 11:32 pm

http://www.airwar.ru/enc/bomber/tu85.html
Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 5 11-1

Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 5 Bomber-1945-1954

Have a nice day!

mnztr

mnztr: Posts : 2910
Points : 2948
Join date : 2018-01-21

Post n°117

Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

mnztr Mon Nov 12, 2018 3:24 am

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.

Stealthflanker

Stealthflanker: Posts : 1459
Points : 1535
Join date : 2009-08-04
Age : 36
Location : Indonesia

Post n°118

Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

Stealthflanker Mon Nov 12, 2018 6:57 am

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.

magnumcromagnon

magnumcromagnon: Posts : 8138
Points : 8273
Join date : 2013-12-05
Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

Post n°119

Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

magnumcromagnon Tue Nov 13, 2018 1:07 am

First flight footage of Tu-95 published by MOD:

Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 5 Tu-95_first_fly.t

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 40580
Points : 41082
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°120

Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

GarryB Tue Nov 13, 2018 12:04 pm

Have a nice day!

Ahh, well that clinches it... all Tupolev aircraft are based on the US B-29... hilarious...

Next we hear that the AK uses M1 Garand parts too and is basically something Colt developed in the 1800s... the amusing thing is that they have the balls to say something when the Soviets make stupid propaganda claims that are simply just as silly...

The sad thing is that the Soviets knew they were being lied to... the Americans still haven't worked that out yet.

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.

the only problem is that is is not refuted that the Tu-80 and Tu-84 are related directly to the B-29... in fact they are all dramatic improvements on the B-29 using new materials and components.

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.

Tsavo Lion

Tsavo Lion: Posts : 5958
Points : 5910
Join date : 2016-08-15
Location : AZ, USA

Post n°121

Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

Tsavo Lion Tue Nov 13, 2018 6:32 pm

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

GarryB: Posts : 40580
Points : 41082
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°122

Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

GarryB Wed Nov 14, 2018 8:54 am

The Pe-8 had longer range than the B-29, but wasn't produced in large # on Stalin's orders:

The only purpose for strategic bombers was for use against the US, the Pe-8 was interesting but not really critical to the war effort.

Not all, pl. don't exaggerate!

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 ANT-25 flew about 11,500km to the US... I don't think the US had anything even close at that time or for a long time since.

Of course it was only a single engined aircraft and it was all fuel, but its potential as a strategic bomber was recognised by those in the US that were otherwise just about to cancel the B-17.

Big_Gazza

Big_Gazza: Posts : 4915
Points : 4905
Join date : 2014-08-25
Location : Melbourne, Australia

Post n°123

Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

Big_Gazza Wed Nov 14, 2018 12:57 pm

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. Very Happy

Hole

Hole: Posts : 11132
Points : 11110
Join date : 2018-03-24
Age : 48
Location : Scholzistan

Post n°124

Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

Hole Wed Nov 14, 2018 4:44 pm

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…

Tsavo Lion

Tsavo Lion: Posts : 5958
Points : 5910
Join date : 2016-08-15
Location : AZ, USA

Post n°125

Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

Tsavo Lion Wed Nov 14, 2018 5:20 pm

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.

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 40580
Points : 41082
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°126

Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

GarryB Thu Nov 15, 2018 5:13 am

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.

Are you kidding... we are America... everything we do and have is the best, yet these dumb half asian Russians flew a plane direct from their country to ours... an actual flight distance of 11,500km and still had 1.5 tons of fuel left on board when it landed.

It was a single engined aircraft and no where near their biggest.

It was slow and an easy target for defences, but it was a distance record aircraft not a prototype strategic bomber.

It scared the shit out of them that the Soviets could have such aircraft technology and potential and they realised they needed to catch up.

It was very much like Sputnik getting an American to the moon...

Also to be fair any Tu-95 flying today has new wings... in the 70s and 80s they further upgraded the wing and fuselage design to improve performance... the first beneficiary was the Tu-142 maritime patrol model but all the in service Tu-95s were pretty much made after the design change and included the improvements.

Western experts consistently underestimated the performance of the Bear throughout its operational life because they assumed a much higher rpm rate for the blades, which would have made them super noisy and rather less efficient.

The blades are actually coarser in terms of pitch angle and run at something like 750rpm which prevents supersonic blade tips, which would dramatically reduce thrust performance...

But western experts have always just seen it as a WWII B-29 rip off that didn't warrant being worried about.

Tsavo Lion

Tsavo Lion: Posts : 5958
Points : 5910
Join date : 2016-08-15
Location : AZ, USA

Post n°127

Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

Tsavo Lion Thu Nov 15, 2018 6:43 am

But western experts have always just seen it as a WWII B-29 rip off that didn't warrant being worried about.

Not all of them. I have an old AF magazine warning against viewing the Tu-95 as antiquated. Many other, if not most, original planes were modernized & redesigned but that doesn't cancel their origins:
An-2, An-24, Il-18, Il-76/-86, Tu-95 itself, Tu-104, DC-3, L-188, C-130,
C-141, B-707/-737, etc.

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 40580
Points : 41082
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°128

Tu-95MS "Bear"

GarryB Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:11 am

Not all of them. I have an old AF magazine warning against viewing the Tu-95 as antiquated. Many other, if not most, original planes were modernized & redesigned but that doesn't cancel their origins:
An-2, An-24, Il-18, Il-76/-86, Tu-95 itself, Tu-104, DC-3, L-188, C-130,
C-141, B-707/-737, etc.

Yeah... in my family we have granddads hammer... the best tool anyone in our family ever owned... it was well used and had a hard life... the head was replaced four times and the handle replaced 6 times but it was the best hammer money could buy in the 19th century.

Thing is that most people don't realise what an advantage it is to have a hammer with WiFi that is fully Bluetooth compatible... amazing what those people could design all those years ago...

Just like the B-29... I am sure they never expected it to fly 16,000km with one inflight refuelling stop, and to carry up to 16 x 5,500km range cruise missiles... hell I expect they never thought they would have to sweep the wings back to reduce the chance of supersonic compression drag for the wings... it is just amazing how far ahead of their time they were... NOT.

AMERICA HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DESIGN OF THE BEAR... Grow up for fucks sake.

You sound worse than Hollywood claiming D Day won WWII, or the US won WWII because they captured an enigma machine... in 1953...