Hi
BOAC
He's probably heard that one before
Ref the Nimrod and the Bear at low-level.
I would not place my money on a Nimrod outperforming a Bear below 10,000 feet!
I'm not the only one who would probably say the Bear was faster.
The BEAR was proven faster than the Nimrod at low level not least because the MOD "reduced the aircraft's dash speed" which was...
..... ahhh secret.
If a BEAR overflew a Nimrod at low-level, whilst the said Mighty Hunter was on two or three or even four, it would not catch it!
http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/n...900613full.pdf
relaxed a number of requirements to facilitate achievement of the key time-on-station performance parameter. Specifically, the Department has reduced the fuel reserve required, limited in-service growth potential to 5,000 pounds rather than at a percentage of the aircraft's final mass, and
reduced the aircraft's dash speed.
BEAR data
http://aeroweb.lucia.it/rap/RAFAQ/Tu-95.html
In 1975 the figure for range changed to 7,800 miles and currently it is believed to be 9,200 miles with 25,000 lb load. Level speed was admitted to be 570 mph (Mach 0.82) at 25,000 ft and 520 mph (Mach 0.785) at 41,000 ft. Cruising speed of Tu-95 is 442 mph (Mach 0.67). Later versions with more powerful engines have higher performance.
Gallery of Russian Aerospace Weapons published in March issue of Air Force Magazine gives following numbers for Tu-95MS:
Performance
Max. speed at 25,000 ft 575 mph, at S/L 404 mph, nominal cruising speed 442mph, ceiling 39,370 ft, combat radius with 25,000 lb payload 3,975 miles, with one in-flight refueling 5,155 miles.
It is rumored that Bear is known to be able to out accelerate contemporary western interceptors. This hard to believe fact can be accounted by use of variable-pitch propellers of NK-12M turboprops. Modern jets need to use afterburners to keep up with accelerating Bear. In fact, one of the photo showing Panavia Toronado using reheat on one of the engines while pursuing this remarkable bomber.
Bear Acceleration - The accounts of Bears out-accelerating western jet fighters are true, but only in the case of Tornado F.3 intercepts. This is more a measure of the Tornado's weaknesses at high altitude than the Bear's exceptional capabilities. The Tornado's high wing-loading and engines optimized for low altitude make it a slug in the high altitude, subsonic regime. This performance failing is well known throughout NATO, but Gulf War experiences and recent accounts of Bear intercepts have brought the deficiency to public light. The Bear is powerful, fast and efficient for a subsonic bomber, but most fighters will leave it in the dust without the mere flicker of an AB plume.
-----------------
That said, the Mighty Hunter Mk1 never went at Mach 0.82 nor 41,000 feet unless by error!
More on the Bear here:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/tu-95.htm
Cheers
TG