TU-95 Bear Explodes on take Off

After doing a little research, it appears that this is not recent video, but that the accident took place in either June or July. Both Ukraine and Khabarovsk (well east of there) are mentioned as possible locations, so there may have been two accidents, since one of them described it happening during landing, and it certainly appears that this video was shot on takeoff.

I agree that it appears that something happened in engine #1 and the resultant shrapnel penetrated the wing and set it on fire, and I think it may also have taken out the left-hand landing gear, which would explain the left side suddenly dropping and causing the aircraft to slew to the left.

 

I agree, Jim.

 

Interesting

Fuel tank locations
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Jim,

You are getting confused here by the name of the Air Base on which the accident happened, which is "Ukraïnka", but that does not mean it is in Ukraine at all...
Very basics notions of Russian explains that the name is an hommage to Ukraine, but there is no doubt on the place being "Ukrainka, near Khabarovsk, in the Russian far East". But there were indeed two different accidents, one in June, and one in July, both in the Khabarovsk region.

Two Pilots Killed In Russian Tu-95 Bomber Crash

The Aviationist » Russia has grounded all its Tu-95 strategic bombers after one Bear skidded off runway and caught fire

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainka_(air_base)

Rgds

 

Bob,

The Kuznetsov turbo-prop came indeed directly from the Junkers Jumo 022 turbo-prop project that the Junkers team was trying to develop at the end of World War two. A team of captured german engineers under the authority of Ferdinand Brandner worked for the soviets from the Jumo 022 projects towards the extraordinary Kuznetsov NK-12/TV12, which, however, only became possible thanks to a breakthrough of the soviet metallurgy in 1950, which was then able to produce the right alloys for the high speed and high temperature of this very powerful turbo-prop.
There are some important differences between the Jumo 022 project, which was hoped to produce 6000 eshp for a weight of 3000 kgs, and the Kuznetsov engine which gives 12000 eshp for 2900 kgs dry weight; it remains the most powerful turbo-prop ever built to this day.

Rgds

For those interested in the story of this extraordinary engine, link added hereunder:
http://www.airpages.ru/eng/ru/troph3.shtml

 

For those with interest in the topic of the influence of german technology on soviet aviation, this book will be interesting:

The German imprint on the history of Russian aviation by D. A. Sobolev | LibraryThing

“The German imprint on the history of Russian aviation”
by D. A. Sobolev, D. B. Khazanov

 

I believe that the engine was originally rated at 15,000 shp but was downrated to 12,000 shp for longevity and reliability. All the U.S. attempts during the same period to develop a high-horsepower turboprop basically ended in failure. I think the reason that the Douglas C-132 was cancelled was because the engine planned for it didn't work properly.

 

When has survivability entered into the design of any Russian military or space hardware?

 

The breakup and slew to the left probably is responsible for getting a couple of the crew out of the conflagration but tough to tell much with the lighting. The aft section may have been dragged out of the fire by starboard engines.

 

Thanks for posting the title of the book re German Eng. I will get it soonest. Speaking of turbo props, , Boeing was saddled with the task of putting turboprops on a B-47, the XB-47D. The pilots were very apprehensive about possible gearbox failures and prop seizures. The blades were short diameter and almost three feet wide and it would have been like having a barn door on one wing if that happened, therefore the retention of the outboard jets. It made a lot of nasty noise when it was in flight. The program, initiated by an Air Force general who insisted that there had to a transition from props to jets, didn't last very long. The performance of the airplane was seriously compromised, too.

 

Here you go, Bob.

http://b-47.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/10.-XB-47D.pdf

Assume the blades could be feathered...

 

Thanks very much for posting that photo. I recall that feathering time wasn't fast enough to prevent a lot of yaw. It would possibly have been a bad time during take off.
Thanks again.

 

The Ty-95 and its brother the Ty-142 are considered fairly reliable and do not make "nasty noises", but they simply make a LOT of noise! It has the reputation of being probably the noisiest military aircraft in existence (as the tips of the props are faster than the speed of sound) and when they first came at meetings in the UK about ten years ago, those who witnessed their arrival said that the noise was "incredible".

Rgds

 

Well, survavibility can be discussed, but longevity of the design is astonishing, and on par with the one of its old rival the B-52.
The Ty-95 flew for the first time in 1952, entered service in 1956, and is now expected to serve until 2045 at least, provided of course that enough will be left. About 550 were build, although those in service today are Ty-95MS which were build during the 1980's; around 70 (?) are supposed to be available, from which "about 60" are supposed to be combat ready.
You would have to add the "about 100" Ty-142 build during the seventies and eighties to the total.

Rgds

 

Cold War Relics - TU-95 Bear

[…” I've talked to many people who've intercepted these over the years. They tell me that you can feel the vibrations from those monster props and hear the noise even over the sound of your own engines. Sitting through a typical (very long) mission must have been brutal. In SAC we used to say "You've got to be tough to fly the heavies".]

Some good pics of the inside of the beast in the article above, including also a pic alongside the BUFF…

Rgds

 

The Essential Tupolev: Noises, buzzsawing and other ear candy

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-2dfEc70gU[/ame]

 

Wow, thanks for posting.

 

How a "Bear" takeoff is supposed to look:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfI9bNBg5AU[/ame]

 

Were the engines on the Douglas C-133 similar? Less shp, I know.

There were problems with those.. props anyway.

Engines always ran at a constant speed and all the throttles did was change the prop pitch.
If the pitch mechanism failed they sometimes lost the whole plane... inflight breakup.

I think something like 10 of the 50 planes built crashed.

Some pilots and pax refused to fly in them.

 

The C-133 engines were P&W T34s that developed, at most, 7500 shp. Their only other application was on the original Super Guppy and on experimental versions of the Constellation and the C-97.

The C-132 was supposed to use the P&W T57, which was actually a development of the J57 turbojet and was supposed to develop 15,000 shp like the Russian engine. It was apparently tested in the nose of a C-124 but I know nothing more about it.

 

Well, I checked the actual numbers of power given for the russian engine.
According to the russian wikipedia article (for those among you with some very basic notion of Russian, see the table at the bottom of the article for the characteristics of the different versions)

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%9A-12

Actual power of the NK-12 variants is :
15.000 ehp for the NK-12M fitted on the Ty-95 and Ty-142
14.795 ehp for the NK-12MV fitted on the Ty-114 airliner (32 built) and Ty-126 (12 built?)
15.265 ehp for the NK-12MA fitted to the AH-22 cargo (68 built)

A 16.000 ehp variant never went past design preliminaries.

Pictures of the engine:

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:NK-12MV_engine.jpg

http://www.airventure.de/tipps_zentralfinnisches_luftfahrtmuseum/Museum_Finnland_Kuznetsov_Triebwerk.jpg

Rgds

 

I searched the archives and the 'net for the T57, but I have found only a few snippets of information:
The P&W T57 turboprop development was started in January 1953; it first ran on a bench-test in September 1954 and the engine first flew fitted in the nose of a Douglas C-124 in October 1956.
Six engines were built in total, they ran 3100 hours in total during tests. 15.000 shp were expected for a weight of 6,600 lb and a sfc of 0.55.
The engine was cancelled in 1957, and so was the C-132. Some of the experience from the T57 benefitted to the T34, to raise its horsepower from 6,500 shp (T34-P-7WA) to 7,500 (T34-P-9W).

Rgds

 

THAT is a bizarre piece of equipment! I think that it displays the huge amount of torque that a turbine produces. I may have posted it before but Ill comment again if so. When I was working on the Boeing 502 Gas Turbine it weighed 175 pounds and produced 650 pounds feet of torque. When we put it into a Kenworth truck with 34,000 pounds of kirksite dies in it, the engine blew up the trucks transmission when power was applied. We had to replace it with a Pacific Car and Foundry tank transmission (running backwards) but it could take the torque. The real problem was the abrupt closing of the throttle waste gate that applied the gases to the power output section. It had to be gradual because the gas producer was running at full power all the time and could apply 100 per cent of the output all at once. Really an interesting job.

 

You have had so many interesting experiences Bob…

I have tried to read the Russian Wikipedia article about the NK-12 to see if there is any data about torque, but my very sketchy Russian is really not up to the task.

What I have identified however is that, for the NK-12MP:
- The engine is 4,84m in length, 1,62m in diameter, its weight is 3,500 kgs.
- It has a 14 stages axial compressor, with a compression ratio varying between 9:1 and 13:1, depending on altitude; and a 5-stages turbine driving it.
- It revolves usually at 8.300 rpm, with the contra-rotating propellers at 750 rpm.

Rgds

 

I have been around a long time...too long for some people. I tried a little bit of everything. Those days with the 502 Turbine were in 1952-53 when I was an experimental mechanic. I could post my resume' but in the words of a younger associate, " Geeze! Iv'e read novels that were shorter than this." I think that it's 8 or 9 pages long. So we'll leave it at that. I fear sometimes that I over-do my intrusions but I enjoy sharing things and there are many.