Anyone know what that strip is running from mid-cabin to the fairing of the vertical stab?
Also, a side question, looking at pics of Tu-134's and -154's, the sweep-back of the wings appear to be great, and hang low. Could this be as both aircraft were based off of bomber designs? What advantages or disadvantages did this cause?
LZ-TLT From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 431 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1867 times:
The "strip" on the IL-62 cabin's back is the fairing for some special kind of antenna(possible sat or other communication equipment). You will find the same "strip" on the russian president's Il-62 and also on some Il-86 re-equipped as flying command stands(somehow similar to the RC-135 "Speckled Trout"). Don't let the "regular" Aeroflot livery fool you - even Russia's current flying command stands and AWACS machines are painted in these colors.
As for the Tu-134 in the background, given the prominent negative dihedral of the wings, this might be a Tu-124 as well. It gives the aircraft a bit more roll agility, however, the aircraft doesn't level off by itself from a slight roll. This truly has to do with the origin of the Tu-104/124/134 series being a military aircraft(a frontline and midrange bomber).
The sweep angle of the wing has not a bloody thing to do with it, In fact, the sweep angle is not much greater than on a regular western jet.
Also, the Tu-154 was a separate design, started from scratch. While experience from the Tu-134 was utilized, the 154 has no military background at all.
KFRG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1850 times:
Thanks alot LZ-TLT,
You're right, I remember now hearing that most if not all military recon and transport aircraft wear the standard SU livery.
That's interesting, I always thought the Tu-154 was based off a bomber design. I guess, like most soviet era transports, they chose the "rugged" approach, over a more positive, aerodynamic efficient wing.
Delta-flyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2676 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1834 times:
most if not all military recon and transport aircraft wear the standard SU livery.
That was a bone of contention for the US back in the 60's. CSA had an IL-62 Prague - Montreal - Havana flight that was allowed to overfly US territory - but they were sure watched closely for possible deviations! Not all spy planes wore the SU livery!
Prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6646 posts, RR: 54
Reply 4, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1746 times:
Especially when looking at the Tu-134:
The Tu-134 has no leading edge high lift devices, which makes production and maintenance much simpler and cheaper. When you compare to for instance a DC-9-30, then you will see that the wing airfoil is very different. On the Tu-134 the airfoil leading edge upper surface is almost as half extended slats on the DC-9.
It improves runway performance, but it increases drag at high Mach numbers dramatically. The high sweep-back angle partially counters the high Mach number drag buildup.
You see the same on the Caravelle and the DH Comet (except Comet 1). But instead of high sweep-back angle they were designed with a somewhat lower cruise speed in mind. In fact you also see it to some extent on the 707 wing root. And when the lighter and faster cousin, the 720 was made, then one important change was in fact "leading edge gloves" which modified the airfoil to accept higher cruise Mach numbers without transsonic drag buildup.
The "low hanging" wings" - negative dihedral: No doubt the Tu-134 has its roots from the Tu-16 Badger bomber plane. The Tu-16 was a very hastily designed plane based on German World War II studies. The Germans had early realized that high sweep-back angled planes were prone to dutch roll. The negative dihedral counters dutch roll tendency, but makes it less stable in flight - and of course more prone to tip strike in sidewind landings.
Modern planes use yaw dampers to artificially counter dutch roll tendency. I don't know, but I would gladly bet that the Tu-16 had no yaw damper. Does anybody know if the Tu-134 has a yaw damper?
If my theories are correct, the Tu-134 is a comparatively simple and cheap compromise, while for instance its cousin, the DC-9, is a much more advanced plane with superior runway performance, cruise speed, payload and economy performance.
The Tu-134 runway performance is in fact quite impressive, but that is due to a very low payload performance compared to wing size and installed engine power. Which are some of the reasons for the world record low fuel efficiency.
If we compare the Tu-134 to modern and equally capable regional airliners from Canada or Brazil, then they carry the same pax load over the same distance at half the take-off weight using one third the installed power and burning one fourth the fuel. We have come a long way since Herr Heinkel studied jet bombers in Leipzig 60 years ago.
Regards, Preben Norholm
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
Indian_flyboy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1693 times:
I am not too sure about the pod but the bird in question RA-86572 belongs to the 223 flight unit of the Russian Airforce and was used as VIP transport . Such pods are normally comms pods and used on command posts . You will find such pods on a lot of recon aircrafts as well. The aircraft is/was participating in the Eurocontrol Navigation program as well.