Dan Air Comet 4C incident - trying to trace
Originally Posted by BOAC
TG - is that why he was called 'Bryn Wayt'?
.
.
I'm sure he's 'Bryn Wayt'in for someone to crack that one !!
Originally Posted by BOAC
DH106 - I suspect a Bear was slower than a Nimrod by a long way at sea level. I think you'll find the '500mph' is TAS at high level.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Gentleman Aviator
And as another footnote to this amazing Pprune saga - the scanned logbook page (as I'm sure many noticed but none commented) is of course from an RAF Form 414 - Pilot's Flying Log Book. I don't know of Bryn but I assume he was ex-RAF and kept his logbook going (and made sure he had a few spares when he left!) - I know many who did just that.
You used to be able to get special "dirty yellow" Snowpake to match the colour of the pages too ......
You used to be able to get special "dirty yellow" Snowpake to match the colour of the pages too ......
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry all - just couldn't resist it.
My experiences with TU-95s were that even the Frightening was 'sluggish' alongside the beast at altitude due to the relatively low IAS at which it flew (in cruise).
My experiences with TU-95s were that even the Frightening was 'sluggish' alongside the beast at altitude due to the relatively low IAS at which it flew (in cruise).
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He did!
Hi teeteringhead
Ref the log book - he was, he did, and of course!!!! Didn't we all. Ha Ha.
That and a varied selection of lovely maps - part of "resetlement planning" as I saw it.
Cheers
TG
Ref the log book - he was, he did, and of course!!!! Didn't we all. Ha Ha.
That and a varied selection of lovely maps - part of "resetlement planning" as I saw it.
Cheers
TG
Gentleman Aviator
Tartan Giant
But don't you find it a problem when some of the maps have the M25 as a dotted line marked "under construction"!!!
But don't you find it a problem when some of the maps have the M25 as a dotted line marked "under construction"!!!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
M25 - dotted lines? That was to confuse the enemy..... wasn't it? Ha Ha.
What M25?
How did I/we manage.....
Cheers
TG
PS: Image removed
PPS: I'll use the URL bit next time BOAC..... sorry!
What M25?
How did I/we manage.....
Cheers
TG
PS: Image removed
PPS: I'll use the URL bit next time BOAC..... sorry!
Last edited by Tartan Giant; 18th Jul 2006 at 13:04.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Manchester...... in the 70's ...... ACE
Hello Wodrick,
Glad it's getting the memory cells alight. MAN in the 70's was what civilian aviation was about. Happy, good times all round.
Would that be Sid Siddon you are talking about (as per the log-book entry)? He's alive and well as far as I know. PM me and I'll see what I can do about comms.
The MAN people have a DA gathering every year - engineers MORE than welcome.
The DA folks keep in touch via, www.danair.org these days....... many folk on the books. Also the DASA..... Dan Air Staff Association.
Cheers
TG
Glad it's getting the memory cells alight. MAN in the 70's was what civilian aviation was about. Happy, good times all round.
Would that be Sid Siddon you are talking about (as per the log-book entry)? He's alive and well as far as I know. PM me and I'll see what I can do about comms.
The MAN people have a DA gathering every year - engineers MORE than welcome.
The DA folks keep in touch via, www.danair.org these days....... many folk on the books. Also the DASA..... Dan Air Staff Association.
Cheers
TG
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Northwest-Southwest
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just stumbled on this super thread.
In the friendly Seventies I was based at EGKK/LGW with a US charter airline. On occasion, to reach the place of work in Europe, you would check the 'Mayfly' sheet the night before to see if anything was 'going your way'. A call to the relevant airline's Ops would often result in hitching a ride without the trek to Heathrow.
Conversely, after working the station, you could often cadge a ride back to LGW if there was an empty seat and the captain agreed.
Dan-Air was kind enough to take me ZRH-LGW in Comet 4B G-APMC on 2 October 1973 and NCE-LGW in Comet 4 G-AZIY on 18 October 1973. Visits to the flightdeck were made on both occasions, but I don't have a note of the crews involved--but belated thanks!
In the friendly Seventies I was based at EGKK/LGW with a US charter airline. On occasion, to reach the place of work in Europe, you would check the 'Mayfly' sheet the night before to see if anything was 'going your way'. A call to the relevant airline's Ops would often result in hitching a ride without the trek to Heathrow.
Conversely, after working the station, you could often cadge a ride back to LGW if there was an empty seat and the captain agreed.
Dan-Air was kind enough to take me ZRH-LGW in Comet 4B G-APMC on 2 October 1973 and NCE-LGW in Comet 4 G-AZIY on 18 October 1973. Visits to the flightdeck were made on both occasions, but I don't have a note of the crews involved--but belated thanks!
