Tu-160 "White Swan" #2

Normal flight range is about 12K km and flight range with a full weapon load is about 10K km without refuelling.

The figures I have seen suggest a 4-5K km flight range at subsonic speed with a supersonic 2,000km round trip to the launch position and back, and the 4-5K km back to base at subsonic speeds... so takeoff and fly for 4-5 thousand kms at subsonic speeds then accelerate to supersonic speed to 1,000km and launch your missiles and turn back and fly at supersonic speed 1,000km away from your launch area and then fly the remaining 4-5 thousand kms back to base.

In actual fact it could probably take off and fly 3-4 thousand kms and then inflight refuel and then complete the mission with a fuel reserve.

Why didn't the Russians optimize this bomber for long-duration cruising supersonic speeds? Like the Tu-144, which can fly 2M for almost the entire flight

Because the thrust needed for sustained supersonic flight requires two or three times more fuel to be carried and the benefit of flying mach 2 all the way simply isn't there.

The American Hustler bomber was a failure and the American equivalent of the Tu-160 failed and was rejected as an aircraft idea simply because they didn't have an engine like the NK-32 engines... which is also why there was no US equivalent to the Concord or Tu-144 that made it into use.

The Valkyrie was a dead end too... because the faster you go the more any decent payload counts against you and as the payload gets smaller it becomes less and less worth while going strategic distances.

About now I would say the next gen cruise missiles for Russia will be hypersonic scramjet powered missiles that will have strategic range on their own, and would cover that distance much faster than any current aircraft type could manage.

In the case of a strategic bomber, are there any significant technical limitations to maintain such a speed for a significant part of the flight? Is it just not worth it? Most Tu-160 flights remain in safe Russian airspace anyway. However, the long supersonic cruising speed allows for faster missile strikes on targets, etc.

Faster isn't important... they can't fly fast enough to beat ICBMs and SLBMs, so it is not like they are going to be some fantastic new first strike capacity.

The cost of mach 2 all the way to the target would be reducing the flight range to something like the flight range of the Tu-22M except with a smaller payload to carry all that extra fuel... and for what... so your missiles can arrive a few hours earlier?

Big deal.

The targets they will be hitting wont care about an hour or three.

Save the high speed flight to the bit where you are closest to enemy forces and it makes sense but burn a little extra fuel.

But really the Bear is probably ideal.... cheap, very long range.

The PAK DA should be very low drag with very efficient flight characteristics with very long flight range and difficult to spot visually and with radar so it can stay high where it can fly faster with a lower engine power setting and get a bit more warning regarding any missiles coming up to take it on.

Engines couldn't be more in tune and dialed in. Love the forward chin light illuminating quite a bit with the glare of the afterburners.

It is interesting that the Tu-160s engines are a similar size and weight and generation and power to the engines in the Tu-22M3 and are made by the same engine company and the aircraft are made by the same aircraft company but the engines are different enough to not be compatible and the Tu-22M3 engine burns blue while the engines of the Blackjack burn white.

GarryB wrote:It is interesting that the Tu-160s engines are a similar size and weight and generation and power to the engines in the Tu-22M3 and are made by the same engine company and the aircraft are made by the same aircraft company but the engines are different enough to not be compatible and the Tu-22M3 engine burns blue while the engines of the Blackjack burn white.

Interesting. Well, jet fuel is basically glorified kerosene, and if you ever notice how kerosene burns, it's fully blue because of its vapors which have a high flashpoint of 100F degrees and essentially burns very rich. In the case of the Tu-22M3, the engines most likely have a high fuel-to-air mixture content which allows it to fully burn off most, if not all the injected fuel giving it that blue color.

Also when they mix jet fuel, they clear out a lot of the impurities making it a richer, more purified form of that same kerosene-based fuel.

My understanding is that the colour difference is based on temperature... assuming there are no additives to change the flame colour on purpose... the temperatures are red then orange and then white and then blue... the difference being the temperature that the fuel is burning at.

This would suggest that the Tu-22M3s engines burn hotter than the Blackjacks engines, despite using the same type of fuel with the same level of thrust.

Arrow wrote:

In any fighter, regardless of whether it's Russian or American or Chinese, whenever I see tandem seating side-by-side like this, or like in the Su-34, the F-111, the A-6 Intruder and so on where it's somewhat tight (unlike in cargo or passenger AC), I can't help but think what if the two fellas just don't get along for whatever reason. Conducting a mission that has both their lives at stake (and they despise each other) must be a bear under those circumstances.

Arrow wrote:

Nice lines & curves and so hot & sexy in that white.......the aircraft, that is!

@Mir, these are the pics of the B1B I was telling you about at the local airshow that was leaking fuel from the two engine nacelles, and they had the areas directly under the two engines quartered off with caution tape because the two things were leaking like a sieve.





One of the pilots was out & about talking to spectators so I asked him what's up with all the leaking. He said the aircraft endures extreme stress from the severe changes in temperatures and from when it's in idle on the tarmac to going subsonic and then supersonic and then back & forth and those drastic changes greatly affects the seams & joints & even some of the connections in the nacelles and around them so when the aircraft lands and the fuselage cools, it takes a little while for all the expanded joints to close up again and in the interim, some of the moving & settling fuel leaks periodically. Plus they also fuel the aircraft right at the engine nacelles so that adds to the problem.

I thought that was really interesting and am guessing the same issues would probably plague similar aircraft like the Tu-160 beastmode.

Have only heard of that happening with the SR-71, which gets something like 30-40cm longer flying at speed so because the outer skin of the aircraft is also the outer skin of the fuel tanks... ie it does not use fuel bladders to contain the fuel in each compartment... when it is sitting on the ground and is cold the fuel comes pissing out of the gaps... they top it up just before it takes off and accelerate and climb to altitude and top speed as quick as they can to reduce fuel leakage.

Of course it uses high flashpoint fuel that is not easily ignited... they also do laps around the airfield before landing to cool the airframe down to avoid burning the ground crew.

Not sure the Blackjack expands an enormous amount at speed, but it sounds rather unusual for it to bleed fuel while on the ground... western aircraft often have weight reduction features like no fuel bladders to maximise performance... I suspect the Blackjack probably has internal fuel bladders... which might increase weight a little, but would also make it safer.

If you took off like the White Swan above in full AB with leaky fuel tanks there is a good chance you would set yourself on fire and end up looking like an F-111 doing a fuel dump at an airshow.

kvs wrote:The fuel in jet engines is not supposed to sit in them.  It is supposed to be fed in via fuel lines to sustain combustion.   I suppose that they do
not want air bubbles to form in the fuel lines and it is better to have a slightly positive pressure resulting in seepage through the engine.   But
that begs the question as to how the fuel lines are designed.  Some sort of automatic valve at the engine end would seem like a reasonable
design feature.  Such valves would work regardless of thermal cycling.

Not to mention the entire fuel system is pressurized considerably, any area causing fuel to leak would mean the pressurized system with some form of vacuum and venting to regulate that pressure is compromised.  But the fact that it seems to leak only after engine shutdown and parked on the tarmac, it must be residual fuel in areas that wouldn't affect the pressure balance, maybe an overflow container or pipe leading to it.   

kvs wrote:The other possibility is that after the engines are shut off there is some fuel left in the system that can then leak out.   This issue probably
does not justify any effort to fix it.

This is more likely exactly what is happening.  I could actually smell the JP-8 which smells almost identical to kerosene which made me think holy crap, this is actually pretty dangerous if you think about it, especially when they allow all that humanity to not only park their chairs under the wings & fuselage lol, but you're actually allowed to touch all sorts of things.  I was moving flaps up & down on the F-16 & 18 even stuck my head as far as it would go into the intake of a Super Hornet just to see what it's like.  I was tempted to jump in and really explore, but thought better.  I'm sure there's a limit hahaha.  

You should've seen my son when he got into the F-14, he asked the attendant if he could start it. Dude told him if he was able to start it, he could take have it lol.  So what does my kid do? He starts flicking all sort of switches and yanking the stick back & forth left & right cranks the throttle all the way lmaaaooooo finally dude was like ok, enough.

The pilots tend to be rather approachable, especially the Thunderbirds & Blue Angels pilots.  Here's yours truly fascinated by the Philipps screw that holds the small, 2-inch stainless steel end cap on a legacy F/A-18 Hornet's radome.  The same thing is on the F-15.



Talk about smelling the JP-8/glorified kerosene - stuck my head into this F-18's bunghole and wow, talk about getting a woof of burnt & unburnt fuel.  Wasn't as bad as the F-16's rear end, though. That stunk to high hell.

GarryB wrote:Have only heard of that happening with the SR-71, which gets something like 30-40cm longer flying at speed so because the outer skin of the aircraft is also the outer skin of the fuel tanks... ie it does not use fuel bladders to contain the fuel in each compartment... when it is sitting on the ground and is cold the fuel comes pissing out of the gaps... they top it up just before it takes off and accelerate and climb to altitude and top speed as quick as they can to reduce fuel leakage.

This was back in 2018 IIRC, but I distinctly remember the conversation with this B1B pilot not only because of the fascinating subject matter, but the fact that he was truly a gentleman and quite personable.  I actually found that to be a common, disciplinarian trait among the majority of the soldiers, pilots & sailors I frequently interact with at these shows.

But speaking of bladders, once he explained the leaking, I asked him why that would happen since I assumed that aircraft must have state of the art either fuel cells or sealed tanks, where nothing like this should ever happen even if the skin opens up.  He smiled and basically said he couldn't tell me whether the aircraft had tanks or fuel cells (kinda the same thing, isn't it?) but suffice it to say, this phenomenon was not happening at where the fuel is stored, but rather at some point within the engine nacelle.  I didn't push the goodwill I was getting any further of course lol.

GaryB wrote:Of course it uses high flashpoint fuel that is not easily ignited... they also do laps around the airfield before landing to cool the airframe down to avoid burning the ground crew.

Not sure the Blackjack expands an enormous amount at speed, but it sounds rather unusual for it to bleed fuel while on the ground... western aircraft often have weight reduction features like no fuel bladders to maximise performance... I suspect the Blackjack probably has internal fuel bladders... which might increase weight a little, but would also make it safer.

If you took off like the White Swan above in full AB with leaky fuel tanks there is a good chance you would set yourself on fire and end up looking like an F-111 doing a fuel dump at an airshow.

You know, I've been to tens and tens of these in my lifetime and the one thing that scares the every living love out of me is this kind of thing with all the humanity that's allowed such unprecedented access.  All it would take is one idiot trying to light up a doobie and there goes 300 people.  So I tend to be really cognizant of my surroundings at static displays like this and first thing I look for is the possibility of such a danger and when I first noticed this leaking business and how people were converged all around it, I started looking around to be sure either my group & myself wouldn't be trapped somewhere bad and safety procedures around the aircraft.  First thing that made me somewhat comfortable was seeing the huge, wheeled green fire extinguisher you see in the 3rd picture and having a safety plan in place for everyone to know incase the shit hit the fan.