Check out the XF-84H Thunderscreech, the props broke the sound barrier at idle, something like 900+ times a minute, made ground crew sick, made another pilot have a seizure, test pilot flew it once and famously told them “they’re aren’t enough of you to get me back in that plane”. Also the plane had afterburners
Bombers tend to be big, the B-52 is another example. The biggest one is the Tu-160 if I remember correctly. Still, something like an A380 is even more massive, which is super impressive considering how agile it flies for its size.
This plane produces some of the loudest engine sound that has ever been heard (its properllers spin so fast that they create multiple sonic booms). One can imagine flying in this plane and hoping you don't suffer from long term hearing loss. Both this and the B-52 are very good examples of old but reliable
I've read somewhere that the crew who fly on these often develop hearing difficulties. Apparently it's so loud that one cannot have a conversation inside the aircraft when the engines are running.
WoW.......If I'm not wrong she has four Kutznezow PTL engines with ( 14000 PS so 10300 KW per engine ) That are the strongest PTL ever..... Cruising speed nearly 850 km/h ..........It is a masterpiece of Russian aerospace industry !!! Thank you for sharing !!
У меня перед парадом на 9 мая они над домом низко пролетают !!! Зрелище !!!А вы представляете как экраноплан в Каспийске взлетал ? Было такое ощущение что он и пирс сдует !!!
That plane like the B52 will be aroind for 100 years because nothing has been found to replace either plane. Sort of like sharks and crocodiles; a great design, no point in changing.
Conventional heavy bombers became mostly obsolete as warfare changed. They won't build any replacement. The Tu-95 is mostly used for firing big cruise missiles. Area bombing is very rare.
Not true. The oldest Tu-95MSs that currently in service are built in the mid 80-s. The last was built in 1992. Also: Tu-95MS is not a bomber. It's not able to carry any bombs, long range cruise missiles only.
John Bruckner I know I would! Seems to use less fuel than the B-52 as well. If you want an aviation job done right, give it to Grumman or to Soviet Russia: one will make things reliable and hardy, the other will find the most stupidly cool way to do it. I mean, come on: Contraprops? On a bomber? In the nineties?!?
Спасибо товарищу Сталину; по его указанию был скопирован Боинг, появилась т.н. ТУ-4, а 95-й далеко не ушёл, как шестёрка от копейки...(в смысле как модель Жигулей)
Never seen an TU - 95 start his engines up before....thanks a lot... maybe some day we could witness also a full cockpit start up with the pilots and the engineer reading checklists and flipping switches...Who knows someday.
They must have a couple of flight engineers just to keep those blades happy. You would think that counterrotating props would cancel some torque, but by the way that rudder was being worked, there must still be a bit of torque there. Beautiful airplane.
Винты вращаются со скоростью 730 +‐ 5об.мин через саттелитный редуктор ...обороты двигателя 8300 об.мин....Мой крайний полёт с такими движками в 1986году...💯💪
Interesting that the Russians steadily moved forward with the improvement of the turbo prop engine and we Americans moved ahead with the pure turbo jet engines we have today. Another Russia exclusive on their monster size aircraft is the use of multiple air dams on the upper surface of the main wing structure. Being an A&E mechanic I understand the theory behind the air dams and it seems to work well enough that many of their aircraft have the dams in place. Very few American aircraft are designed with air dams on the main wing structures. I think the intercontinental Russian nuclear bombers could develop 15,000 shp per engine and at a lesser fuel cost than our pure turbo jet engines as in the B-52. Missiles designed by both countries have made the Russian and American globe trotting airplanes obsolete.
The concept of the long range bomber isn't really obsolete. Missiles are great for two cases: precision strikes or all out nuclear war. However everything in between is not their strong point. Their use becomes even less sensible when air space in uncontested, making it more economical to just drop much cheaper bombs from a reasonable height. Not to mention that for example the Tu-160, Tu-22M and Tu-95 are designed to operate as cruise missile carriers as well, increasing their effective range and reducing time to react. Which is especially effective for the Tu-160 which is not only long range, but also super sonic. Having essentially a super sonic guided missile destroyer flying around has its benefits.
They were aerodynamic improvements just like the upturned wingtips on modern Boeing's and do the same job of preventing the upper wing boundary layer mixing with the underwing layer which negates trailing vortices being formed as these produce noticeable drag.They were used on the MIG 15 and subsequent types.
BTW, for those who don't know? The reason the plane is so noisy is not the engines. But the tips of the propellers as they break the sound barrier as they turn. And, this is not even close to the noisiest plane of all time. That distinction probably belongs to the XF-84H Thunderscreech. A single-engined plane whose engine noise/frequency could cause grown men to vomit/suffer seizures. Thanks for this. ☮
One of the loudest aircraft you will ever hear. Counter rotating turbo props generate a lot of concussion waves at near supersonic speeds but they sound so awsome.
nope the sound comes from the air schearing between the props, not supersonic bangs: the only supersonic prop was on the XF84H thunderscreech who was HORRIBLY noisy...
Wow what a beast; apparently the prop-tips go super-sonic and thus the noise - those counter-rotations can't help; imagine the local turbulence ? The front view is mean. Imagine those racks bristling with Kh-55s... twin 23-mm cannon in tail ! nice post thanks !
@@theq4602 agree; technical considerations are obviously neutral with respect to ongoing hostilities. Moreover the crew pool are likely not to be as durable and imposing as the machine. slava ukraine !
Beautiful, unique and original design. The west couldn't build a counter-rotating propeller system that could fly 100 hrs without failure. Tupolov did it 70 years ago and it's still flying.
The was a formindable foe when I served several decades ago. Like the BUFF he's aged with grace. Those eight hard points are menacing. Cool video. I've seen the Bear on the wing once. I can only imagine the sound of those counter rotating monster props.
Дааа,более 60 лет прошло после первого испытательного полета,а он до сих пор считается самым ведущим стратегом наших ВВС-ВКС.,и ресурса у него еще лет на 20,по крайней мере до 2040 года он будет наводить ,,шороху супостату,,.КЛАССНЫЙ И ОТЛИЧНЫЙ САМОЛЕТ,СПАСИБО И СЛАВА ВЕЛИКОМУ АВИАКОНСТРУКТОРУ ТУПОЛЕВУ И ЕГО КБ.Автору ролика огромное спасибо,молодец,подал все на ,,5 с двумя плюсами,лайк и подписуюсь.Удачи
По дальности, скорости, грузоподъёмности..... ему дадут фору, большинство дальнемагистралов ГА , которые при желании можно модернизировать под также цели, что и ТУ 95!!! Так чем же он крут в наше время ??????
@@user-ol8tg2dd6h А разве я сказал,что он супер -крут??????????И вообще,один вопрос тебе,специалист-ты работаешь в каком нибудь НИИ,или авиаконструкторском бюро,или наконец,ведущий летчик из АЭРОФЛОТА,что понтуешся своими ,,дешевыми,,никому НАХУЙ не нужными познаниями,ааааа,парень???
@@user-ri4km3qm6x нууу....и так на всякий случай, в Аэрофлоте нет лётчиков, мы пилоты, если чооо и не понтуемся, как тов. Андрюша Литвинов, а насчёт авиаконструкторов и типа авиа НИИ ерефиии, даже не упоминайте за 30 лет, результат их работы НОЛЬ !!! С огромным уважением и почтением отношусь к тов. А.Н. Туполеву, ко всему и ко всем, кто причастен к СССР !!!!!!
@@velkoto1 I was watching a video about the TU-144 literally when you commented :) Must have been interesting living during those times of accelerated innovation. Thanks for the IDs
Beautiful old girl and the fastest military Prop plane and the only Prop bomber in the world still doing its job with a very good thrust weight ratio up their with top economy commercial air liners of today. Like B-52 old is better but this is one step further a prop and only 74 mph slower than the 8 jet engine B-52, coming in at 574 & 644mph respectively. Go Russia you made it very well.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I have never seen another turboprop with swept wings like that and I know it's high cruise speed has a lot to do with the sweep.
The B-52 still rules and can carry 5x more in total destructive power and delivers a lot more in bomb tonnage than the TU-95 bear and the bear sometime in the future can top 600+ m.p.h. with new upgrades beyond this decade past 2020.
When the crews of this thing get back from a very long flight to the US and back, they need several days down-time to recover from the incredible noise and vibration of this airplane. Russia can keep it ...
Lovely aircraft. Looks very powerful. Interesting to note the ground staff leave the crew access ladder lying on the ground beneath the aircraft while it starts its engines and taxies out. Very dangerous thing to do. The ladder can get blown off by the prop wash or exhaust, and damage something.
I've been in one of them, it is really big, but also narrow. While been below it you'd realize how tall it is. And just remember that those blades are with variable pitch. So are neutral unless all the people is out of reach.
The NATO's hydrophone system on the Northern part of The Atlantic Ocean, meant to pick the sound of nuclear submarines, were able to pick Tu 95's noise.
Cool bird, those ruskies sure love the counter rotating props. It works great for the whole duration of easy flight control, no p-factor. But its more things to fix for the ground crew..whew!
Это как надо любить небо и самолёты,чтобы посвятить всю жизнь авиации,а ведь там нужен ум,умение,ответственность и засебя,и за того парня,это профессия не слишком долгой жизни на земле,всякое случается в полетах ,так что профессия летчика по истине героическая ,не каждому дано называть себя властелином неба,какая железная выдержка должна быть,сам на сам в небе в такой махине
This one has two props on each engine that are counter rotating. I believe these are single shafted engines, similar to the Rolls Royce Darts. The Pratt & Whitney engines of the DeHaviland Dash-8 are double shafted free turbine engines. It's funny how the 60 cycle flicker of the computer or TV screen creates optical illusions of the props going slow or backwards.
I was a radarman on a US cruiser in the late 60s. We used to track these things in the Mediterranean. A few times they flew over our ship, one of the noisiest aircraft I ever heard.
france jacko they come to cape vincent international airshow evry year and if you want to know what it feels to fly in a tu 95 bear they do flights wi5h one so i know what it feels and sounds like flying in a bear
Wow. Excellent. Thank You P.S. 7/‘2023: SAC would never have worked out with these planes. To start with, by the time the flight crew had made from the ground to the plane, the war would have been over. Then the start up procedure before they could even get off the ground. I wonder how many hours that humans could stand flying in one of those, with the noise and vibrations before they would have Shot Themselves! Truly a beautiful and remarkable aircraft. It’s sad and worrisome that the U.S. doesn’t have SAC today…
From Vikipedia: The design that eventually became the NK-12 turboprop was developed after World War II by a team of Russian scientists and deported German engineers under Ferdinand Brandner, who had worked for Junkers previously; the design bureau was headed by chief engineer Nikolai D. Kuznetsov. Thus, the NK-12 design evolved from late-war German turboprop studies. This started with the postwar development of the wartime Jumo 022 turboprop design that developed 6000 eshp in a 3000 kg (6,600 lb) engine. The effort continued with a 5000 ehp engine that weighed in at 1700 kg (3,740 lb), completed by 1947. The evolution to the TV-12 12000 Ehp engine required extensive use of new Soviet-developed alloys and was completed in 1951.[1] The NK-12M developed 8,948 kW (12,000 ehp), uprated in the NK-12MV to 11,033 kW (14,795 ehp) and reaching 11,185 kW (15,000 ehp) in the NK-12MA. The NK-12 remains the most powerful turboprop engine to enter service although the Progress D-27 and Europrop TP400 have come close to this (in 1982 and 2005 respectively). Another engine of similar size, the Pratt & Whitney T57 with 15,000 shp and 5,000 lb jet thrust, ran 3,100 hours before being cancelled in 1957.[2][3] The NK-12 powered the Tupolev Tu-95 bomber and its derivatives such as the Tu-142 maritime patrol aircraft and the Tupolev Tu-114 airliner (with NK-12MV), which still holds the title of the world's fastest propeller-driven aircraft despite being retired from service in 1991. It also powered the Antonov An-22 Antei (with NK-12MA), the world's largest aircraft at the time, and several types of amphibious assault craft, such as the A-90 Orlyonok "Ekranoplan".
Wer nicht arbeitet, der wird nicht essen, der wird nicht gut essen, er wird sterben wie ein schmutziger Hund, der wird für das Wohl des großen Russland arbeiten, er wird nach Hause zu seiner Mutter zurückkehren ... wahrscheinlich.
This is not a Russian plane, but a Soviet one. It was created long ago in the Soviet Union. Russia is a backward country, it's not like airplanes, they can't really make a nail here
the design from this aircraft and he's engines is realy impressive: like the sound and the efficiency from the contrarotative props...hear one day a Antonov AN22 (same engines) fly over my house, despite it fly at 10 000m, the sound was clearly reconizable!
Very interesting: The two props per engine may run at different rpm; so there is not a fixed gear between the engine and its two prop shafts. Can easily be seen due to the strobe effect of the camera shutter.
I think they have constant-mesh gearing but not in a 1/1 ratio.Possibly to phase out vibrations,or as an answer for difference in windspeed on the two sets of blades-the first creates draft for the second, as at the second prop the wind is also propelled by the primary fan.
I have seen a video taken in flight in which the props appeared well synchronized. The engine drives the pair of props through a differential gearset that splits the torque equally. My educated guess is that they fine tune it the best they can by adjusting the blade pitch.
@@keithbrescia9893, for sure somehow you can synchronize the the props once you are cruising. You do it on aircraft with multiple engines single props.
Each of the 4 turboprop jet engines can operate at whatever throttle setting you wish. Each prop on each engine spins at the same rpm. There is indeed a "fixed gear" that keeps the pairs of contra-rotating props spinning at the same rpm, in opposite directions though.
The speed and direction of the air cut by the two counter-rotating propellers are different. So to offset the reverse torque brought by the rotation of the two propellers, the rotational speeds of the two propellers are different. That's my guess.
@Waxel Punkt. NK-12 - turboprop aircraft engine developed in the SNTK Kuznetsova (OKB-276) in the 1950s. It was installed on the Tu-95 strategic bomber and its various modifications (Tu-142 and passenger Tu-114), as well as on the An-22 and on the a-90 "Eaglet". Each engine drives two four-bladed propellers with a diameter of about 6 meters, rotating in opposite directions. NK-12 is the most powerful serial turboprop engine in the world[3]. Aircraft with engines NK-12 to this day remain one of the fastest screw aircraft, and transport An-22 "Antey" with engines NK-12MA was at the time of creation of the largest aircraft in the world. Serial production - since 1954. The initial capacity was 14800 HP, the capacity of the modernized NK-16 - 16000 HP. P.S. Keep jerking off. You don't need faloimmitator
@Waxel Punkt.Son cul aussi est d'origine Allemande pour réparation de guerre. Les Russes sont des incapables Pauvre con.! The ass of this Russian plane is also of German design for war reparations. Russians are incapable. Poor idiot!
I think the reason this plane and the b52 have had such a long shelf life could be their ability to land with a full load w/o breaking into millions of pieces when it hits the ground.