Another Tupelov Incident

[Urban Sports]

This one has caught fire and subsequently exploded, could have been much worse!!

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Russia...

ETA Tupolev

Edited by Urban Sports on Saturday 1st January 19:31

[Streps]

not another one !
Reported engine fire
a criminal probe had begun into a possible violation of air transport security rules.

[Cheburator mk2]

The Tu-154's safety record is no worse than the 737s. The biggest problem with them nowdays is the lack of maintainance by the local airlines.

One of the most beautiful passenger jets ever designed and certainly one of the fastest. All IMHO...

[Eric Mc]

I think we will find that this spate of recent accidents is down to poor maintenance by the operators.

[Streps]

It's such a shame as they are beautiful planes

The sound
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clxQd62e8-s&fea...

Edited by Streps on Saturday 1st January 23:45

[Benni]

In the last video, I watched with interest how the undercarriage wheels "fold back" after takeoff
before the whole assembly is withdrwan into the body,
I never saw anything like that before but am no plane buff, is that unique ?

€dited to note the thread title is slightly wrong ?

Edited by Benni on Sunday 2nd January 01:55

[Eric Mc]

Benni said:

In the last video, I watched with interest how the undercarriage wheels "fold back" after takeoff
before the whole assembly is withdrwan into the body,
I never saw anything like that before but am no plane buff, is that unique ?

€dited to note the thread title is slightly wrong ?

Edited by Benni on Sunday 2nd January 01:55

It is one of the fundamental design flaws with these earlier Tupolev airliner designs. I explained in another thread recently, the Tu-104, 124, 134 and 154 airliners have wings derived from the Tu-16 Badger bomber. Because the Tu-16 was a bomber, its main wheels were placed out on the wing to enable the bomb bay in the fuselage to be uncompromised by having to make space for the undercarriage and all its hydraulics.
It’s not really a good set up for an airliner as it means that the wing fuselage joint takes far too much stress in heavy landings and there have been many occasions now where bad landings or runway overruns have resulted in wing root failure, fuel tank rupture and fire.

More conventional airliners have the main undercarriage under the central fuselage where the legs absorb the impact of heavy landings. Indeed, the whole central under fuselage area is designed as a crumple zone and the undercarriage legs are designed to crush in a controlled manner in a heavy impact.

[thinfourth2]

Eric Mc said:

Benni said:

In the last video, I watched with interest how the undercarriage wheels "fold back" after takeoff
before the whole assembly is withdrwan into the body,
I never saw anything like that before but am no plane buff, is that unique ?

€dited to note the thread title is slightly wrong ?

Edited by Benni on Sunday 2nd January 01:55

It is one of the fundamental design flaws with these earlier Tupolev airliner designs. I explained in another thread recently, the Tu-104, 124, 134 and 154 airliners have wings derived from the Tu-16 Badger bomber. Because the Tu-16 was a bomber, its main wheels were placed out on the wing to enable the bomb bay in the fuselage to be uncompromised by having to make space for the undercarriage and all its hydraulics.
It’s not really a good set up for an airliner as it means that the wing fuselage joint takes far too much stress in heavy landings and there have been many occasions now where bad landings or runway overruns have resulted in wing root failure, fuel tank rupture and fire.

More conventional airliners have the main undercarriage under the central fuselage where the legs absorb the impact of heavy landings. Indeed, the whole central under fuselage area is designed as a crumple zone and the undercarriage legs are designed to crush in a controlled manner in a heavy impact.

Which is very true but i imagine having its design based on a bomber could be very attractive to the likes of Ryan Air

They wouldn't even need to land to deliver their passengers at their destination.

[Urban Sports]

Benni said:

In the last video, I watched with interest how the undercarriage wheels "fold back" after takeoff
before the whole assembly is withdrwan into the body,
I never saw anything like that before but am no plane buff, is that unique ?

€dited to note the thread title is slightly wrong ?

Edited by Benni on Sunday 2nd January 01:55

[Eric Mc]

I think these Ryanair passengers were very grateful that Boeing thoughtfully provided progressive deformation features in their undercarriage design -

[Nickyboy]

Eric Mc said:

I think these Ryanair passengers were very grateful that Boeing thoughtfully provided progressive deformation features in their undercarriage design -

Is that not normal Ryanair parking/disembarkation then?

[Eric Mc]

Nickyboy said:

Eric Mc said:

I think these Ryanair passengers were very grateful that Boeing thoughtfully provided progressive deformation features in their undercarriage design -

Is that not normal Ryanair parking/disembarkation then?

It is for when both engines stop in mid air (having swallowed a flock of birdies). Damn good piloting I say.
I wouldn't like to think what might have happened if it was a Tupolev 134/154.

Edited by Eric Mc on Sunday 2nd January 12:26

[Chuck328]

Eric Mc said:

Benni said:

In the last video, I watched with interest how the undercarriage wheels "fold back" after takeoff
before the whole assembly is withdrwan into the body,
I never saw anything like that before but am no plane buff, is that unique ?

€dited to note the thread title is slightly wrong ?

Edited by Benni on Sunday 2nd January 01:55

It is one of the fundamental design flaws with these earlier Tupolev airliner designs. I explained in another thread recently, the Tu-104, 124, 134 and 154 airliners have wings derived from the Tu-16 Badger bomber. Because the Tu-16 was a bomber, its main wheels were placed out on the wing to enable the bomb bay in the fuselage to be uncompromised by having to make space for the undercarriage and all its hydraulics.It’s not really a good set up for an airliner as it means that the wing fuselage joint takes far too much stress in heavy landings and there have been many occasions now where bad landings or runway overruns have resulted in wing root failure, fuel tank rupture and fire.

More conventional airliners have the main undercarriage under the central fuselage where the legs absorb the impact of heavy landings. Indeed, the whole central under fuselage area is designed as a crumple zone and the undercarriage legs are designed to crush in a controlled manner in a heavy impact.

Are you referring to the larger heavys 747,340/380,MD11? Bar those and a few props ( eg Dornier and ATR) I'm struggling to think of many conventional airliners with under fuselage main gear.

[Eric Mc]

Chuck328 said:

Eric Mc said:

Benni said:

In the last video, I watched with interest how the undercarriage wheels "fold back" after takeoff
before the whole assembly is withdrwan into the body,
I never saw anything like that before but am no plane buff, is that unique ?

€dited to note the thread title is slightly wrong ?

Edited by Benni on Sunday 2nd January 01:55

It is one of the fundamental design flaws with these earlier Tupolev airliner designs. I explained in another thread recently, the Tu-104, 124, 134 and 154 airliners have wings derived from the Tu-16 Badger bomber. Because the Tu-16 was a bomber, its main wheels were placed out on the wing to enable the bomb bay in the fuselage to be uncompromised by having to make space for the undercarriage and all its hydraulics.It’s not really a good set up for an airliner as it means that the wing fuselage joint takes far too much stress in heavy landings and there have been many occasions now where bad landings or runway overruns have resulted in wing root failure, fuel tank rupture and fire.

More conventional airliners have the main undercarriage under the central fuselage where the legs absorb the impact of heavy landings. Indeed, the whole central under fuselage area is designed as a crumple zone and the undercarriage legs are designed to crush in a controlled manner in a heavy impact.

Are you referring to the larger heavys 747,340/380,MD11? Bar those and a few props ( eg Dornier and ATR) I'm struggling to think of many conventional airliners with under fuselage main gear.

I was thinking of mainstream airliners.

I was basing what I said on article written by David Learmont a few years ago when a Tu134 had a heavy landing and broke up in India killing a lot of people.
Learmont was editor of Flight International for a number of years and stil,l writes on airliner safety issues.

Once you get below a certain size then undercarriages start appearing under the wings.

Only Tupolev have used this pod design in an airliner and have the wheels so far out along the wing (excepting the odd protoype in the 1950s).

[The real Apache]

I was intriqued by the deployment of the RT buckets before it landed! that wasn't possible with anything I worked on until the WOG switches had made

[Urban Sports]

The real Apache said:

I was intriqued by the deployment of the RT buckets before it landed! that wasn't possible with anything I worked on until the WOG switches had made

Same here, I was wondering why the centre engine didn't have them, room issue?

[Streps]

center engine does not have reversers of any kind
the other two side, tail mounted ones have clamshell reversers.


Also The IL-62 is a great example of this,the two outer engines reversing on approach
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N29ZFnQfm7I

might be common to the old russian birds.
looks damn cool aswell.

Edited by Streps on Monday 3rd January 03:12

[DBSV8]

Urban Sports said:

This one has caught fire and subsequently exploded, could have been much worse!!

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Russia...

ETA Tupolev

Edited by Urban Sports on Saturday 1st January 19:31

hmm... Surgut in Siberia , flying there tomorrow , currently -35c ........and the company is better known as kolavia , according to the Moscow times it looks likely that the TU 154 will be grounded pending the investigation
,

Edited by DBSV8 on Monday 3rd January 03:38

[Chuck328]

DBSV8 said:

Urban Sports said:

This one has caught fire and subsequently exploded, could have been much worse!!

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Russia...

ETA Tupolev

Edited by Urban Sports on Saturday 1st January 19:31

hmm... Surgut in Siberia , flying there tomorrow , currently -35c ........and the company is better known as kolavia , according to the Moscow times it looks likely that the TU 154 will be grounded pending the investigation
,

Edited by DBSV8 on Monday 3rd January 03:38

I think I'd be quite relieved about that!

[Alfachick]

I quite like the Tupolev 154, flew in one back in October. I have never been pushed back in my seat quite as hard as when we were taking off in her.
Although the interior was straight out of the 70's, the seat backs could be pushed all the way forward and would stay there. Bits of wiring could be seen between the gaps in the plastic shrowding around the windows and stuff. It certainly was in interesting flight!



That was the one that I flew in.