Quote:
Originally Posted by Bella
Hey!.........I'm just saying, prop planes for bombers seem old and too slow.
I know the B-52 is a very old bomber, but the amount of bombs and cruise missiles it can carry is unbelievable, plus it is propelled by jet engines.
I don't mean to offend anyone, but it looks like something I would see in a WWII air show that's all! I also know the U.S. uses prop planes for its military, but they are usually the C-130 cargo, or gunship.
|
Propeller aeroplane cheaper and economic in operation, than jet. For airplanes, which speed to not be the main characteristic (for example transport, marine scouts or strategic bombers) - the propeller engine is quite comprehensible.
The comparative characteristic:
The maximal takeoff weight, т
Тu-95 - 187,7
B-52 - 220
The maximal speed, km/h
Тu-95 - 925
B-52 - 1000
Fighting radius, km
Тu-95 - 6500
B-52 - 7210
The maximal range, km
Тu-95 - 15 000
B-52 - 15 000
Operational ceiling, m
Тu-95 - 12 000
B-52 - 17 000
Cumulative thrust of engines, kg\sec
Тu-95 - 40 000
B-52 - 61 600
Arms, kg
Тu-95 - 11 340
B-52 - 20 650
There is such concept, as economic efficiency. Cost of one Tu-95MS in tens times is less than B-52. Thus, for the same sum, that you spent for one B-52, we could construct ten Tu-95MS.
And now compare one B-52 bears 20650 kg of bombs, and ten Tu-95MS bear 113400 kg. Economically Tu-95MS is more effective.
PS: It reminds me dispute about modern diesel submarines.
