Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Tupolev Tu-114 And Large Turboprops In General  
User currently offlinePalmyboy12 From New Zealand, joined Oct 2011, 57 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 13298 times:

I have recently found out about a interesting Soviet aircraft. Called the Tupolev Tu-114, it was a swept-wing turboprop airliner that could reportedly hold up to 224 passengers and had a top speed of 880 km/h, as fast as a modern jetliner. It also was (apparently) very safe and reliable, and soldiered on from it's first flight in 1957 until 1991. (If there were any mistakes, please point them out as I sourced this from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-114)

Firstly, if it was such a remarkable aircraft, why didn't Tupolev pursue this (large turboprops) any further, instead letting it be replaced by the Ilyushin Il-62 after (only) 14 years of civilian service? Secondly, in this era of rising fuel prices, would a large turboprop aircraft (if not the size of the Tu-114, at least maybe 90-100 seats) be economically viable and have enough advantages (i.e. fuel economy?) over a jet to persuade airlines? Certainly the speed differences aren't a problem, as with the Tu-114 there was the technology to let turboprops go up to similar speeds to jet airliners, even in 50s Soviet Russia. And thirdly, are any aircraft companies actively working on and developing a large turboprop commercial aircraft (as far as I know ATR's 90 seater is just a sketch and not confirmed for production in the near future)

Finally, I'd just like to say that I am no aviation expert, so if these questions or if my viewpoint seems to be too simplistic (because I don't know any better), I apologise in advance and that if posters explain for me the reasons of your viewpoint, that would be very much appreciated.


"You can't be a real country unless you have a beer and an airline." Frank Zappa
41 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29813 posts, RR: 58
Reply 1, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 13224 times:

I didn't think they had been service that long. I was under the impression that those that wheren't converted to TU-126 Moss AWACS aircraft.

The best Tu-144 story I have heard is about the one that premier Nikita Krutzchev (i know if butchered the spelling) flew to the US on when he made his trip the states.

They landed at Andrews AFB but then found out that they didn't have a stair truck that would reach the door of the aircraft. So they had to park one as close to the airplane and then put a ladder up at the landing so Nikita could get out of the aircraft (albeit backwards).

Word was he enjoyed it because it confirmed Soviet superiority over the Americans in his hind...I guess size mattered to him.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineBobloblaw From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1725 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 13210 times:

Fuel consumption of the TU114 was about the same as the 707

User currently offlineYVRLTN From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 2529 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 13149 times:

I dont know much about the Tu-114 but Im willing to bet those engines were not very efficient when doing that speed. Of course in the USSR they didnt care, nor in the rest of the world either during that time for that matter as long haul switched to turbojets then turbofans anyway as fuel was cheap and the props died as they were old hat, plus of course the Proteus engine for example had a lot of teathing problems which pretty much killed any little momentum the Britannia had.

Quoting Palmyboy12 (Thread starter):
why didn't Tupolev pursue this (large turboprops) any further, instead letting it be replaced by the Ilyushin Il-62 after (only) 14 years of civilian service?

I guess they didnt have the choice, they had to do what the government told them - they wanted a cutting edge technology jet to keep up with the Americans (& Brits at that time, hence the IL-62 bears more than a striking resemblance to the Vickers VC10) and of course the Tu-144 "Concordski" too for the same reason, not to mention Tu-134 (BAC 1-11 / Caravelle / DC9) & Tu-154 (727 / Trident).

Fast forward 50 years, yes I think ATR will be the first with a 90 seat turboprop, who are seeing a remarkable resurgence in sales in the past few years and I think we will see it within the next 5 years or so. BBD have also been rumored to stretch the Dash 8 yet again to a 90 seater, but their hands are too full with the C Series at the moment and getting the CRJ-1000 in to service before that, to be thinking about it.

Im wondering if there could be an A320 size aircraft with a pair of engines from the A400M. My thought process is the Q400 has a pair of the same engines as the C130J. It would have to be high wing of course, or possibly with engines tail mounted either Piaggio Avanti style or as UDF's. Of course, such designs have been floated around fairly regularly. I think Embraer would be a good candidate to try something like this, maybe using their military 390 as a platform.

One thing is though that for longer flights, there are still going to have to be improvements in noise and vibrations even compared to the current Q400 for it to be acceptale for particularly biz pax, particularly if there is a choice with a jet. I just flew a Flybe Q400 and while a vast improvement on earlier props, I wouldnt want to be on there for much more than an hour.



Follow me on twitter for YVR movements @vernonYVR
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 4, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 13107 times:

The Tu-114 is derived from the strategic bomber Tu-95 which was developed in the early 1950ies when it was clear that the turbojet bombers one projected or developed (M4 etc) did not have the range to reach the US. The Tu95 did the job by using huhge turboprops with counterrotating propellers. While aerodynamically efficient to get 14.000 shp to get into the air those propellers/engines are (Tu95 still in active service like the B52) incredibly noisy. So if a modern turboprop is noisy the Tu-114 was worse, much worse. Me thinks they served much Vodka for to people to sleep on those ULHs.


Non French in France
User currently offlinedlednicer From United States of America, joined May 2005, 548 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 13022 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

Quoting ferpe (Reply 4):
While aerodynamically efficient to get 14.000 shp to get into the air those propellers/engines are (Tu95 still in active service like the B52) incredibly noisy.

F-15 pilots who have intercepted Tu-95s report that they can hear the prop beat from their cockpits. The props turn at low RPM (750), but between the large radius and high forward speeds, the tips are supersonic (M=1.15 in high speed cruise by my calculation).

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mark Kwiatkowski



User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 5132 posts, RR: 43
Reply 6, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 12989 times:

Many many years ago I flew on a TU-114 from SVO to YUL. I joined my father on a trip when he was a DC-8 Captain. (He flew for AC as well) As AC only flew to SVO once a week, we were to position back to YUL on an SU IL-62, which would fly SVO-SNN-YUL.

Imagine my joy when we showed up at the airport to return to YUL, and the IL-62 had been substituted with a TU-114! It could fly non-stop to YUL, and without the stop in SNN, we arrived in YUL only about half an hour later than the IL-62 would have arrived.

We walked through two Y cabins, arranged 3x3 and a large galley area in the middle, to the F cabin in the rear, arranged 2X2. If I recall, the aircraft held about 160 passengers in that configuration. I remember that in the rear F cabin, it was noisier than a jet, but quieter than the Vanguard.

During the flight, I did some exploring and two things stood out: At the front of the aircraft the noise was almost unbearable! And ... in the middle of the aircraft in the galley area, there was a lower area reached by stairs. I was not allowed down there, and have no idea what was there .... crew rest maybe?

SU's cabin service was excellent!

[Edited 2012-09-29 22:20:27]

[Edited 2012-09-29 22:21:21]


Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 7, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 12931 times:

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 3):
My thought process is the Q400 has a pair of the same engines as the C130J.

The Q400 has a pair of PW150s. The C130J features Rolls Royce AE2100s.

They're very different.

edit: You're thinking of the Saab 2000... an amazing airplane, dead before its time.

NS

[Edited 2012-09-29 22:55:37]

[Edited 2012-09-29 22:57:22]

User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1367 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 12919 times:

I've always wondered if something like a Tu-114 brought way up to date would make a good dedicated civilian cargo hauler, were there ever a rational economic market for such a thing. You don't have to worry about passenger gripes if you don't have any passengers, it's still decently fast, and you might be burning less fuel. Maybe throw in some cargo-specific features like a 747-style nose door or something. I don't know, I've been a bit fascinated by the Tu-114 as it seems like either a "might-have-been" or at least a really interesting technological dead end.

User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6844 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 12880 times:

If flying at that speed with props was so efficient, I'm sure we would have a jumbo sized prop by now, with a little bit less noisy computer designed props, and a good chunk of soundproofing around the tube.

In practice turbofans are really efficient in cruise at speed and the real advantage of props is in climb and flying slower using less power. So, for long haul it wouldn't work that well.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12804 posts, RR: 46
Reply 10, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 12768 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The Tu-114 was a BEAST of a plane. You have to see it in the flesh to fully appreciate the sheer size of it. It's actually bigger than a 757. The main reason it was so high off the ground was for clearance of those honking great props.

Sadly, I've never seen one flying, but I have been next to an An-22 when it lands and that has the same engines. The noise (even at landing speeds) is amazing.

A picture is worth a thousand words.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Steve Brimley
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Steve Brimley


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Steve Brimley
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Steve Brimley




Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana! #44cHAMpion
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13241 posts, RR: 77
Reply 11, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 12685 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 1):
They landed at Andrews AFB but then found out that they didn't have a stair truck that would reach the door of the aircraft. So they had to park one as close to the airplane and then put a ladder up at the landing so Nikita could get out of the aircraft (albeit backwards).

Word was he enjoyed it because it confirmed Soviet superiority over the Americans in his hind...I guess size mattered to him.

I've heard that one too.
Quoted, with extensive sources, in Francis Spufford's fascinating book 'Red Plenty'.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 40033 posts, RR: 74
Reply 12, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 12520 times:

I just picked up a Herpa Wings TU-114 1:500 scale.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 6):
Many many years ago I flew on a TU-114 from SVO to YUL. I joined my father on a trip when he was a DC-8 Captain. (He flew for AC as well) As AC only flew to SVO once a week, we were to position back to YUL on an SU IL-62, which would fly SVO-SNN-YUL.

That is incredible. Do you have any photos from that trip? Would be a great trip report read.

Quoting Palmyboy12 (Thread starter):
in this era of rising fuel prices, would a large turboprop aircraft (if not the size of the Tu-114, at least maybe 90-100 seats) be economically viable and have enough advantages (i.e. fuel economy?) over a jet to persuade airlines?

The Boeing Pelican Ultra concept was to be 3-times the size of a 747.
Would be great if that idea is resurected and put in to production.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 6):
At the front of the aircraft the noise was almost unbearable!

It's a shame that there are no YouTube videos of the TU-114 that has the real sound of the engines at full power on take off or landing. Most have music dubbed over it which I don't understand why people do that with airline videos.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 13, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 12274 times:

Quoting dlednicer (Reply 5):
F-15 pilots who have intercepted Tu-95s report that they can hear the prop beat from their cockpits.

We could track the Tu-95 flights from the US Navy's SOSUS network on their trips up and down the east coast.

Quoting Palmyboy12 (Thread starter):
Firstly, if it was such a remarkable aircraft, why didn't Tupolev pursue this (large turboprops) any further, instead letting it be replaced by the Ilyushin Il-62 after (only) 14 years of civilian service?

Several reasons

Government policy - Tupolev was not free to pursue their own design projects and sales. They were part of the state controlled economy and received only the development funding and materials necessary to support the production goals approved by the top levels of the government. Politics, not economics, decided the aircraft production.

Jet Envy - The Tu-114 came into operational usage with Aeroflot about the time the B707, DC-8, CV-880/990, VC-10, deHavilland Comet were flying for western airlines. The Tu-114 as the 'flagship' of the Aeroflot fleet make that airline, and the Soviet Union, look behind the times and not capable of producing 'current technology' aircraft. It is hard for folks under 60 to understand just how much the competition between the Soviet Bloc and NATO nations extended so deeply into decision making.

The Soviet Union was committed to a full scale program of developing jet aircraft. At the time the Tu-114 should have been refined into a reliable commercial product - Tupelov was required to focus on the Tu-144, and the Tu-154.

Mechanical - The counter rotating props were extremely complex. The aircraft was only designed for a service life of about 14-15,000 hours. While the design had some wonderful advances - it was still not a polished product ready to compete with jetliner service from the aspects of maintenance costs, airframe service, reliability, etc.

Also, Soviet aircraft of that age purposely were built not compatible with systems used in western nations. Retraining mechanics and pilots to service and use the aircraft would have been very expensive.

Reliability of Supply Chain - By the time the Tu-114 became operational - Boeing and Douglas had built a world wide supply chain to support their aircraft. Tupelov did not have such a support network.

The 1960s were a very, very different world than today. What are economic drivers of airline management today were not top priorities of airline leaders in 1960.

Quoting Palmyboy12 (Thread starter):
Secondly, in this era of rising fuel prices, would a large turboprop aircraft (if not the size of the Tu-114, at least maybe 90-100 seats) be economically viable and have enough advantages (i.e. fuel economy?) over a jet to persuade airlines?

The best Soviet turboprop was the IL-18, which at least physically resembled the Lockheed Electra, Bristol Britannia and Vickers Viscount.

Yes, turboprops do have some validity in today's aviation market - and it is a market segment well developed with quality products available.

Bombardier's Dash 8 series and the ATR series have that covered in the 70 seat market. There is not real 100 seat market for turboprops yet, though it might develop in the next ten years.

The An-140 and the Xian MA600 are attempts to break into that market - but it is a tough market to enter.

But despite fuel costs, the airlines have plenty of experience in determining the costs of operation - and turbo-props do not win over jets on many routes. I really don't think turboprops have a chance to compete with the E-Jets and C-Series for the 90-100 seat market.

Bombardier and Embraer are the two companies most capable of producing a 100 seat turboprop - and both are committed to the jet for that market rather than a turboprop.

The public perception of props as 'old and slow' is not something that will change for a long time. Routes where turboprops are operated by all airlines do well, but if one airline adds jet service, the turboprop service usually suffers.

The public sees jets as 'safer' as 'quieter' as 'better'. They see jet crews as more experienced / better pilots.

Public perception is extremely difficult to change, and the facts don't matter.

For example - the Comair CRJ failed takeoff crash at Frankfort Ky and the Colgan Dash 8 crash at Buffalo have many similar elements concerning how the crews of US regionals are hired, trained and have to operate.

Yet the Comair crash is just an unfortunate incident to much of the public. But the Colgan crash is 'proof' that those 'old prop planes' are unsafe.


User currently offlineScipio From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 905 posts, RR: 10
Reply 14, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 12209 times:

I read sometime that many or most Tu-95 crew members suffered hearing damage and developed serious hearing problems.

Not an interesting feature for a commercial airliner...


User currently offlineImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2630 posts, RR: 23
Reply 15, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 12111 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 12):
It's a shame that there are no YouTube videos of the TU-114 that has the real sound of the engines

Ah, but there are videos, with sound, of the AN-22 doing touch and goes------awesome!

Yes, the height of the aircraft was pretty impressive with the sill of the forward door almost 19 ft. above the ramp! I hear it gave JL fits on their interchange beginning April of 1967.

The speeds attainable on a regular basis with this aircraft have not been duplicated since (on a regular basis).
Whereas Saab used to bill the 2000 as the "world fastest turboprop" with a max. cruise of 421mph and normal cruise of 345mph, the -114 normally cruised at 478-493mph, and for 10 or more hours!

A record was set on April 9, 1960 covering a 3,107 mile circuit at an average speed of 545.07mph!



"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 40033 posts, RR: 74
Reply 16, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 12023 times:

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 15):
Ah, but there are videos, with sound, of the AN-22 doing touch and goes------awesome!



I just listened to a few. My goodness, those sound crude - but I love it!  
Not sure if I'd want to hear that for 10 hours from Moscow to Montreal.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2630 posts, RR: 23
Reply 17, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 11795 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 16):
My goodness, those sound crude - but I love it!  
Not sure if I'd want to hear that for 10 hours from Moscow to Montreal.

Oh yeah, very kool!
That propulsion package has one of the most distinctive sounds ever! Once you hear it you would recognize it again in an instant.
Kind of like a C-5 or a C-46!



"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
User currently offlinesovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2643 posts, RR: 17
Reply 18, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 11577 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Scipio (Reply 14):
I read sometime that many or most Tu-95 crew members suffered hearing damage and developed serious hearing problems.

This isn't true.

Don't forget, an "up to date " counter rotating" design for an engine does exist in the An-70.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Igor Bubin

Quoting Bobloblaw (Reply 2):
Fuel consumption of the TU114 was about the same as the 707

Not true at all. In fact the NK-12 is extremely efficient due to its low RPM at cruise.

According to this website:

http://www.jet-engine.net

The NK-12 engine of the Tu-114 has an SFC of: 0.360 lb/shp-hr
Allison T56 engine of C-130H has SFC of: 0.540 lb/shp-hr
Allison AE2100 engine of new C-130J has SFC: 0.410 lb/shp-hr
PW121 engine on ATR-42 has SFC: 0.476 lb/shp-hr


User currently offlineDrColenzo From UK - Scotland, joined Jan 2012, 144 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 11267 times:

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 18):
This isn't true.

Don't forget, an "up to date " counter rotating" design for an engine does exist in the An-70.

True and remember, the concept behind a turbofan is roughly the same as a turboprop, indeed thinking of it as a ducted turboprop and you cannot far wrong.

Also, many of the conceptual designs for fuel efficient aircraft of the future has counter rotating propfans and I wouldn't be surprised if something similar in concept to the engines on the TU-114 or AN-22 will turn up on a large civilian airliner once fuel prices go sky high.

I am in Russia at the moment on work, but will head to the museums after I finish; hopefully I will make it to Monino and will post some nice pictures of TU-95/114 derivatives for you all..


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 40033 posts, RR: 74
Reply 20, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 10823 times:

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 18):
Not true at all. In fact the NK-12 is extremely efficient due to its low RPM at cruise.


That is what I was thinking. It's low RPM of only 750 is about the same as a car engine at idle.

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 17):
That propulsion package has one of the most distinctive sounds ever! Once you hear it you would recognize it again in an instant.


Same for the Soloviev D-30KU on the IL-62 and TU-154 - my favorite sounding jet engines.

Quoting DrColenzo (Reply 19):
I wouldn't be surprised if something similar in concept to the engines on the TU-114 or AN-22 will turn up on a large civilian airliner once fuel prices go sky high.



Perhaps we could see the return of the large seaplanes with use of efficient counter-rotating propellers. Imagine a luxury version of the Boeing Pelican concept (which didn't have counter-rotating blades). Would be neat if Cunard, NCL and Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines could dress up the interiors of that aircraft and fly to tropical island getaways and bypass dealing with airports and instead fly directly to seaside resorts. Fuel cost would be lower for such an aircraft, yet would still allow people to travel for a reasonable price.
Would be neat if Boeing Pelican with counter rotating blades, luxury airship could do Los Angeles (Long Beach Harbor) to Tahiti non-stop cheaper than the current A340-300.
Counter-rotating blades and the use of the ground effect of the Pelican would make the aircraft extremely fuel efficient.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineAcheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1698 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 10690 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 13):
Jet Envy - The Tu-114 came into operational usage with Aeroflot about the time the B707, DC-8, CV-880/990, VC-10, deHavilland Comet were flying for western airlines. The Tu-114 as the 'flagship' of the Aeroflot fleet make that airline, and the Soviet Union, look behind the times and not capable of producing 'current technology' aircraft. It is hard for folks under 60 to understand just how much the competition between the Soviet Bloc and NATO nations extended so deeply into decision making.

Hardly. The soviets were pretty capable of building a jet engined airliner, as shown by the Tu-104 which entered service before the 707 and Caravelle into service.

They also built the first turbofan powered airliner in 1960 with the derivative Tu-124.


User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9533 posts, RR: 42
Reply 22, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 10376 times:

Quoting Acheron (Reply 21):
Hardly. The soviets were pretty capable of building a jet engined airliner, as shown by the Tu-104 which entered service before the 707 and Caravelle into service.

Like everyone else, they wanted to be seen to be using jets, hence the move towards the Il-62. The Tu-104 wouldn't have been much of a replacement for the Tu-114. "Jet envy" doesn't specifically mean envy of Western jets.


User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 5132 posts, RR: 43
Reply 23, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 9437 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 12):
That is incredible. Do you have any photos from that trip? Would be a great trip report read.

As I wasn't even 10 yet, (but a full fledged aviation enthusiast even by then), I only had a Kodak Instamatic 110 camera, pretty crude and basic by today's standards. I took lots of pictures, as well as "stealing" safety cards, menus, etc.

Even at that age, I was aware how rare the TU114 would be, and that I would have plenty of time later to fly on the replaced IL62. (which I did!)

While I think that the evolution of the Aviation Enthusiast has a lot do with how accessible air travel is today, I think it also has a lot to do with how capable cameras are today, and how that image information can be spread very quickly through social media like this website. Think of how quickly after the very first B787 revenue passenger fight flew, that we could share in the enjoyment on YouTube!



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2630 posts, RR: 23
Reply 24, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 9359 times:

Quoting DrColenzo (Reply 19):
will post some nice pictures of TU-95/114 derivatives for you all..

That would be wonderful. Thank you!

Quoting Superfly (Reply 20):
Same for the Soloviev D-30KU

I never was able to get close enough to a -62 to hear it at idle. I was able to hear them on approach and take-off -----from a distance.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 20):
y to tropical island getaways and bypass dealing with airports and instead fly directly to seaside resorts.

That would be fantastic, wouldn't it. Key Biscayne to the Buddy Dive on Bonaire. I'm ready!

Quoting longhauler (Reply 23):
I only had a Kodak Instamatic 110 camera, pretty crude and basic by today's standards. I took lots of pictures, as w

Oh, another one started just like me but I had a "Brownie" before the Instamatic! While I was away at high school, my mother, in all her wisdom decided they could be disposed of! I still haven't gotten over it.
Nonetheless I am always just a step ahead of the next "Hoarders" crew when it comes to commercial aviation!



"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25871 posts, RR: 22
Reply 25, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 9699 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 13):
Jet Envy - The Tu-114 came into operational usage with Aeroflot about the time the B707, DC-8, CV-880/990, VC-10, deHavilland Comet were flying for western airlines. The Tu-114 as the 'flagship' of the Aeroflot fleet make that airline, and the Soviet Union, look behind the times and not capable of producing 'current technology' aircraft. It is hard for folks under 60 to understand just how much the competition between the Soviet Bloc and NATO nations extended so deeply into decision making.

The Soviet Union was committed to a full scale program of developing jet aircraft. At the time the Tu-114 should have been refined into a reliable commercial product - Tupelov was required to focus on the Tu-144, and the Tu-154.

The Soviets stalled agreeing to a bilateral with the U.S. until the IL-62 was ready for service. They didn't want to be seen flying a propeller aircraft when Pan Am was using 707s on their JFK-SVO service. Once the IL-62 was ready the bilateral was quickly finalized and both carriers began service in 1967.


User currently offlinefanofjets From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 2002 posts, RR: 3
Reply 26, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 9421 times:

In the West at the time (late 1950s/early 1960s), several turboprop airliners also suffered an early demise. The Vickers Vanguard and Bristol Britannia come to mind. While these were very fine aircraft, the airlines and the public wanted pure jets. The Vickers Viscount, Fokker F-27, and Lockheed L188 Electra were around a little longer because they occupied a special niche in short-range flights of insufficient distance and numbers of people to be handled efficiently by jets. However, some of those routes were taken over by smaller jets, such as the Caravelle, Douglas DC-9, BAC-111, and HS 121 Trident in some cases.


The aeroplane has unveiled for us the true face of the earth. -Antoine de Saint-Exupery
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 27, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 8517 times:

Quoting Acheron (Reply 21):
The soviets were pretty capable of building a jet engined airliner, as shown by the Tu-104 which entered service before the 707 and Caravelle into service.

The Tu-104 was not an intercontinental aircraft capable of crossing oceans, which the B707 and DC8 were.

Again - unless you lived through the 50s and 60s, the level of east/west competition impacting everything is very difficult to comprehend.

The government of the Soviet Union was determined to match the west with intercontinental jet aircraft designed and built in the Soviet Union. They simply saw the Tu-114 as an interim measure - to not be promoted until after they had a long range jet in the air.

When the IL-62 first flew - it was the 'biggest' jetliner in the world. Heck I remember the writeup from Weekly Reader, and how the US had an airliner 'gap' because the IL-62 was the first 200 seat aircraft.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 40033 posts, RR: 74
Reply 28, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8326 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 23):
As I wasn't even 10 yet, (but a full fledged aviation enthusiast even by then), I only had a Kodak Instamatic 110 camera, pretty crude and basic by today's standards. I took lots of pictures, as well as "stealing" safety cards, menus, etc.

Scan in those photos! We want to see them!   
When I was that age, we were using 110 cameras and polaroids. Later on, the Kodak disc. I still managed to get some memorable photos of airlines back then.

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 24):
I never was able to get close enough to a -62 to hear it at idle. I was able to hear them on approach and take-off -----from a distance.

Here is how they sound.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSdciAmQGcI&feature=related

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 24):
That would be fantastic, wouldn't it. Key Biscayne to the Buddy Dive on Bonaire. I'm ready!

That is just my own airplane fantasy but with gas prices possibly going up again, large prop seaplanes should be revisited as a leisure travel mode of transportation.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineDrColenzo From UK - Scotland, joined Jan 2012, 144 posts, RR: 1
Reply 29, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8288 times:

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 24):
I never was able to get close enough to a -62 to hear it at idle. I was able to hear them on approach and take-off -----from a distance.

During the 1980s, I grew up in the part of North London that is just up from centre and right under the flightpath for Heathrow - I remember the noise of the Il-62s and 86s very, very well indeed!


User currently offlineImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2630 posts, RR: 23
Reply 30, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 7891 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 28):
Here is how they sound

Kool! Those engines do have a unique sound to them. Thanks for the link!



"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2742 posts, RR: 1
Reply 31, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 7355 times:

Well, you can't say that the concept of a high-speed prop wouldn't work based on the noise perception of a 1950's Soviet strategic bomber converted to a pax plane.

The A400M does M0.68-0.72 cruise - slower than the Tu-114 but not too bad for a Western aircraft   I haven't had the pleasure of hearing its engines yet but I'm sure it's not NK-12 level! That would be a much more adequate example of what could be possible with today's technology (while keeping in mind that the TP400 was not developed for civilian airline use in terms of noise & fuel consumption, and could surely be further optimized in that sense)

Quoting Palmyboy12 (Thread starter):
And thirdly, are any aircraft companies actively working on and developing a large turboprop commercial aircraft (as far as I know ATR's 90 seater is just a sketch and not confirmed for production in the near future)

I think ATR is further along that we [are made to] believe, but are waiting on PW & GE to define their future TP engine strategy before launching officially. ATR wants to build it, but they are waiting for the right engine. I'm sure we'll hear more in 2013, maybe even a program launch at Le Bourget?

Quoting Palmyboy12 (Thread starter):
Secondly, in this era of rising fuel prices, would a large turboprop aircraft (if not the size of the Tu-114, at least maybe 90-100 seats) be economically viable and have enough advantages (i.e. fuel economy?) over a jet to persuade airlines? Certainly the speed differences aren't a problem, as with the Tu-114 there was the technology to let turboprops go up to similar speeds to jet airliners, even in 50s Soviet Russia.

IMO there is certainly a business case; most intra-EU flying could be done very efficiently on a large high-speed prop for instance. But EMB&BBD have gone for jets in that category, A&B are busy with their respective reenginings, and there is no manufacturer available / willing / having the cojones to enter that market with a prop (the Russians and Chinese, the only ones with the capability to do so, are going for me-too products with the SSJ, MS-21 and C919). So the ATR90/100 is the best hope for now.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 13):
Public perception is extremely difficult to change, and the facts don't matter.

No PR campaign will ever change the mindset that props are old and dangerous. But 160$+/barrel oil will. Only a matter of time.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6844 posts, RR: 12
Reply 32, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 7261 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 20):
Perhaps we could see the return of the large seaplanes with use of efficient counter-rotating propellers. Imagine a luxury version of the Boeing Pelican concept (which didn't have counter-rotating blades). Would be neat if Cunard, NCL and Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines could dress up the interiors of that aircraft and fly to tropical island getaways and bypass dealing with airports and instead fly directly to seaside resorts. Fuel cost would be lower for such an aircraft, yet would still allow people to travel for a reasonable price.

Efficiency is a relative thing. Your concept of a luxury seaplane would perhaps be efficient compared to its MTOW, but not per passenger, if you outfit it like a cruise ship !

And the Pelican isn't a seaplane, it lands on runways. A seaplane adds unique inefficiencies like the need for a very resistant hull, in my opinion a gigantic seaplane isn't a good idea at all.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinerampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3152 posts, RR: 6
Reply 33, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 7216 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 16):
Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 15):
Ah, but there are videos, with sound, of the AN-22 doing touch and goes------awesome!



I just listened to a few. My goodness, those sound crude - but I love it!

Goddam, that's impressive! Thanks for the tip. Is it just me, or does anyone else think that George Lucas dubbed some of that NK-12 engine into the sounds of various craft seen in "Attack of the Clones" or "Revenge of the Sith"?

Quoting Superfly (Reply 28):
As I wasn't even 10 yet, (but a full fledged aviation enthusiast even by then), I only had a Kodak Instamatic 110 camera, pretty crude and basic by today's standards. I took lots of pictures, as well as "stealing" safety cards, menus, etc.

Scan in those photos! We want to see them!

I agree, post them!

Quoting Superfly (Reply 28):
That is just my own airplane fantasy but with gas prices possibly going up again, large prop seaplanes should be revisited as a leisure travel mode of transportation.

I would definitely go for that, more so than a usual cruise. I actually think this would be more likely than proposed airship cruiseliners.

Quoting r2rho (Reply 31):

No PR campaign will ever change the mindset that props are old and dangerous. But 160$+/barrel oil will. Only a matter of time.

That's what I think. When that happens, we'll be scrambling and desperate to find something more efficient, and open props will be an answer. But we'll see, it may be awhile, not counting a major geopolitical upheaval.

-Rampart


User currently offlineCoronado990 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1610 posts, RR: 2
Reply 34, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 7100 times:

Pour a glass a vodka and enjoy some video's...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=oZtHfU5Bj5E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=2iTZ33Aw7S0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQhGI...list=PLCC10322CFCD3925C&playnext=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZWxUcLmc_k&feature=relmfu



Uncle SAN at your service!
User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1618 posts, RR: 2
Reply 35, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 7011 times:

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 3):

Your post raises and interesting question: will these notional large props end up being more "ATR-like" (optimized for slower/lower/shorter) or more "Q-like" (optimized for longer/faster/higher)?


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 40033 posts, RR: 74
Reply 36, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 6671 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 32):
Efficiency is a relative thing. Your concept of a luxury seaplane would perhaps be efficient compared to its MTOW, but not per passenger, if you outfit it like a cruise ship !


Throw in a large cargo compartment to ship packages to make up the difference in cost - al-la Pelican Combi.  
Quoting Aesma (Reply 32):
And the Pelican isn't a seaplane, it lands on runways.


Sure about that? I read that it was to be 3 times the size of a 747. No existing runway or airport would be able to handle it. Also it's very low maximum altitude would limit the amount of airports it can access once it flies over land.

Quoting rampart (Reply 33):
Goddam, that's impressive! Thanks for the tip. Is it just me, or does anyone else think that George Lucas dubbed some of that NK-12 engine into the sounds of various craft seen in "Attack of the Clones" or "Revenge of the Sith"?



The hum of those engines has a very sinister sounding grinding sound to it.   

Quoting rampart (Reply 33):
I actually think this would be more likely than proposed airship cruiseliners.


Agreed.
The airships have a very tiny passenger area relative to it's size.

Quoting Coronado990 (Reply 34):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=2iTZ33Aw7S0



фантастический  



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2742 posts, RR: 1
Reply 37, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 6254 times:

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 35):
will these notional large props end up being more "ATR-like" (optimized for slower/lower/shorter) or more "Q-like" (optimized for longer/faster/higher)?

ATR has stated that they wanted their new prop to be faster than the current ATR's, while maintaining the same fuel burn advantage versus jets as current ATRs. In other words, it would require the development of a new TP engine.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6844 posts, RR: 12
Reply 38, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 6233 times:

Better aerodynamics could also play a role.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 39, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 6114 times:

My father was doing the DC-8 mx course at YUL with AC when the first SU Tu-114 came in from not SVO but DDO I believe. Anyway, class was let out so everyone could go see the beast on the apron (this was summer 1966).

Dad said three things stood out for him:

- goddamn the thing's way of the ground !
- main wheel bogies were cast, not forged
- skin was pop rivetted.

But, the Soviets used the technology they could manage to produce a useable product.

Never had a chance to fly on one. Did go to Moscow with AC in 1972 when they flew YUL-CPH-SVO weekly. An adventurous holiday.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25871 posts, RR: 22
Reply 40, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5968 times:

Quoting dlednicer (Reply 5):
Quoting ferpe (Reply 4):
While aerodynamically efficient to get 14.000 shp to get into the air those propellers/engines are (Tu95 still in active service like the B52) incredibly noisy.

F-15 pilots who have intercepted Tu-95s report that they can hear the prop beat from their cockpits. The props turn at low RPM (750), but between the large radius and high forward speeds, the tips are supersonic (M=1.15 in high speed cruise by my calculation).

Good indication of sound in videos of Tu-95 Bear on which the Tu-114 was based.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9S3h37GW2g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfI9bNBg5AU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kQkVbOikzQ


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 41, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5872 times:

Been out of town a few days visiting my father. No internet in the backwoods of Arkansas.

Quoting r2rho (Reply 31):
No PR campaign will ever change the mindset that props are old and dangerous. But 160$+/barrel oil will. Only a matter of time.

High fuel prices might put more people on props, but it won't change the opinion of prop aircraft.

One thing which might change the perception is if the airlines were to price tickets on turbo-props 15-20% cheaper than tickets on jets for the same route.

If people could actually see a cost savings in their purchase - they would more likely choose props.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
SQ233/234 And SYD Ops In General posted Mon Dec 15 2008 17:05:01 by The Coachman
If You Flew Concorde And Fly BA In General: posted Sat Dec 4 2004 20:30:59 by Mirrodie
Tu-114 And Tu-204/214/224/234 posted Thu Aug 21 2003 01:43:08 by L.1011
Long-haul From DUS, LH And In General posted Sun Feb 15 2009 15:40:18 by Thestooges
Tu-204 And 214 Will Be Built In Iran. posted Fri Feb 29 2008 01:59:46 by SIBILLE
Tupolev For Iran. Also Tu-214 And 334. posted Thu Jan 10 2008 08:15:53 by SIBILLE
Tu-334 And An-148. Why Not In Service Yet? posted Mon Nov 5 2007 06:47:42 by SIBILLE
Large Planes In SAN And Profitability posted Thu Oct 11 2007 18:39:41 by DL767captain
Tupolev Tu-204-300 For Rossiya And 204C For ABC. posted Mon Aug 13 2007 17:00:18 by SIBILLE
Thai Economy And J Class And Pitch In General posted Thu Mar 23 2006 21:40:42 by Mirrodie