Tu-95 vs. B-52 - Page 4

GraniteForge · 04-14-2008, 23:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silent Hunter

Which is the better bomber, the Tu-95 "Bear" or the B-52 Stratofortress?

I have taken familiarization flights on both the B-52 and Tu-142. Both are serious, competent aircraft. I personally have an affinity for the turboprop Tu-142 from a passenger/spectator standpoint, but I do not mean to denigrate the B-52. I like the runup and takeoff of the prop a/c, but both airframes "feel like they want to fly," which I think is crucial to longevity of a given design. Both have passed this test of time.

hello · 04-15-2008, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Long before the Concorde SST there was a Mach 3 Bomber known as the Valkyrie an excellent delta dart design that achieved such speed by riding the shockwave its body created and folding wings with no defensive armament just pure speed. A beautiful plane to behold.

Yeah, I know. But I didn't mention it because it never made it to service. The XB-70 Valkyrie beats both the Concorde and the Blackbird for style, tech and looks. But at least the Concorde and SR-71 made it into service and did their tasks. The XB-70 was canned after 2 tech demo aircraft. And the SR-71 was still faster.

Quote:

Originally Posted by glyn

the requirement for a Mach 3 bomber was dropped. They would have been ruinously expensive to bring into service.

And the B-2 is not ruinously expensive? How effective is the XB-70 vs. the B-2 and how do the price tags compare? Maybe this belongs in a different topic.

04-15-2008, 09:46 AM

glyn,

Sukhoy's T-4? I have memoires of its chief constructor, Samoylovich, and there stated its role as a Mach 3 bomber and carrier killer

Dreadnought · 04-15-2008, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glyn

The XB-70 was a gorgeous looking brute, there's no doubt about that. It was also the only design ever to employ compression lift. For some reason no other aircraft design has even attempted this. The 2 Valkyries completed were used as experimental machines only as the requirement for a Mach 3 bomber was dropped. They would have been ruinously expensive to bring into service.

Agreed Sir, Three were completed. One crashed during a media shoot (Not by any fault of her own mind you) One was donated to the Air Force museum (still there today) and One disappeared into the backrooms at NASA never to be seen again. I bet they had some real fun with testing on that particular plane.

omon · 04-15-2008, 10:17 AM

t-4 first soviet fly by wire a\c.

and wasn,t made of aluminium, but titanium and stainless steel

Jimmy · 04-15-2008, 10:43 AM

^^^ Gawd, that thing must be HEAVY.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bowman

Why would speed be a significant determinant as to which aircraft is better? Range, payload, ECM suite, ease of servicing/operation would seem important. Neither one is really "better". Both have been very efficient for decades and both are still relevant.

Speed makes an intercept much more difficult. Aside from giving the enemy less warning, the geometry needs to be much more precise, and being off by just a little (or making even a small maneuver) can make things go bad really fast for the defenders.

glyn · 04-15-2008, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GraniteForge

I have taken familiarization flights on both the B-52 and Tu-142. Both are serious, competent aircraft. I personally have an affinity for the turboprop Tu-142 from a passenger/spectator standpoint, but I do not mean to denigrate the B-52. I like the runup and takeoff of the prop a/c, but both airframes "feel like they want to fly," which I think is crucial to longevity of a given design. Both have passed this test of time.

You have been singularly fortunate to have flown in both types, and there can't be many others who can make that claim.

glyn · 04-15-2008, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hello

And the B-2 is not ruinously expensive?

It most assuredly is, which is why so few were built. Perhaps at the time of the XB-70s life the USAF didn't have quite so many bean counters, or the strategists realised that SAMs were being developed to a point where speed alone was not the answer. I simply don't know the reason why it was dropped.

How effective is the XB-70 vs. the B-2 and how do the price tags compare? Maybe this belongs in a different topic.

I think you are right. Let the game begin!

Gun Grape · 04-15-2008, 17:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glyn

It most assuredly is, which is why so few were built. Perhaps at the time of the XB-70s life the USAF didn't have quite so many bean counters, or the strategists realised that SAMs were being developed to a point where speed alone was not the answer. I simply don't know the reason why it was dropped.

I think a fix for the skin separation problem was not within the limits of the technology of the day.

High speed SAMs and ICBMs signed the death sentence

Indirect Fire · 04-22-2008, 23:57 PM

Once again, why must we compare apples and oranges?

Silent Hunter · 04-23-2008, 13:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indirect Fire

Once again, why must we compare apples and oranges?

Because they're both fruit?

The B-52 and Tu-95 both have a strategic bomber role. It's a valid comparison.

obrescia · 06-24-2008, 02:19 AM

B-52 hands down

View Poll Results: Which is the better bomber?
Tu-95	8	22.22%
B-52	24	66.67%
Neither	4	11.11%
Voters: 36. You may not vote on this poll

04-22-2008, 23:57 PM	#55 (permalink)
Indirect Fire Contributor Join Date: 12-01-06 Location: Colleyville - Grapevine, US Posts: 314 Country:	Once again, why must we compare apples and oranges? __________________ I have no idea what I'm doing. Honestly!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

04-15-2008, 09:46 AM	#48 (permalink)
Andrey Egorov Guest Posts: n/a	glyn, Sukhoy's T-4? I have memoires of its chief constructor, Samoylovich, and there stated its role as a Mach 3 bomber and carrier killer

06-24-2008, 02:19 AM	#57 (permalink)
obrescia Banished Regular Join Date: 07-27-07 Location: Sacramento, CA Posts: 95 Country:	B-52 hands down

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)