Backfire Crash
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Backfire Crash
CFIT or stall? Fleet grounded, but that’s standard Russian stand down after a crash. Expect them to be back in the air after a couple of days. RIP crew.
I’d be interested to knowing more about which of the 4 got out. Command ejection, crash on runway?
TASS: Emergencies - All Tupolev-22M3 grounded till end of probe into Tuesday?s crash near
All Tupolev-22M3 grounded till end of probe into Tuesday’s crash near
MOSCOW, January 22. /TASS/. All strategic bombers Tupolev-22M3 have been grounded until the end of the probe into the causes of Tuesday’s air crash near Murmansk, a source in the law enforcement has said. “For now all Tupolev-22M3 have been banned from flying until the causes of today’s crash become clear," the source said.
A Tupolev-22M3 bomber crashed on Tuesday afternoon while trying to land at an air base near Olenegorsk, the Murmansk Region. Three crew members died. One survived. A source in the law enforcement said that according to early estimates the pilot’s mistake made in bad weather was to blame.
I’d be interested to knowing more about which of the 4 got out. Command ejection, crash on runway?
TASS: Emergencies - All Tupolev-22M3 grounded till end of probe into Tuesday?s crash near
All Tupolev-22M3 grounded till end of probe into Tuesday’s crash near
MOSCOW, January 22. /TASS/. All strategic bombers Tupolev-22M3 have been grounded until the end of the probe into the causes of Tuesday’s air crash near Murmansk, a source in the law enforcement has said. “For now all Tupolev-22M3 have been banned from flying until the causes of today’s crash become clear," the source said.
A Tupolev-22M3 bomber crashed on Tuesday afternoon while trying to land at an air base near Olenegorsk, the Murmansk Region. Three crew members died. One survived. A source in the law enforcement said that according to early estimates the pilot’s mistake made in bad weather was to blame.
Seems like a very high sink rate and the aircraft lost its right wing after the initial touchdown.
Of course, these may be normal speeds for this design, but the structure clearly did not hold.
Of course, these may be normal speeds for this design, but the structure clearly did not hold.
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
The video looks like less than a mile visibility, indistinct cloud base merging into fog/snow, and although it's hard to tell until the camera pans in the runway direction, snow covered runway merging into the background whiteout and less than stellar runway lighting. It looks like a high ROD when they came out of the bottom, with very little time to put a site picture together, just broke the back when it hit, cockpit tucks under and breaks off, the now very tail heavy bomber climbs for a short period before impacting. Almost certainly CFIT by definition, but the type of approach and aids they were using in those weather minima will definitely be a factor.
RIP Ivans.
RIP Ivans.
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Russia
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
this is a standart procedure at military airdromes.everytime a member of airdrome staff makes video all takeoffs and landings to discussing after work/sombody dealed a good work or somebody did not
Last edited by ViktorKilmy; 27th Jan 2019 at 07:48. Reason: improving writting
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Slow motion and ROD would be interesting. In other similar crashes it us the undercarriage that collapses before structural failure, tank rupture and fire.
That looked much more like structural failure of the fuselage. I didn't see the right wing departing.
That looked much more like structural failure of the fuselage. I didn't see the right wing departing.
My take is that the RoD and approach speed is soo high that the aircraft half flies and half bounces back in to the air, and the forward fuselage breaks off as a result of reacting the impact loading. Yes, normally you would expect the undercarriage to seperate (either by a built in structural fuse or static strength failure due to overload), but I guess this aircraft could have been over engineered in that area
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Dundee
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NATO to update reporting name to "slammer"
Tu-22M3The later Tu-22M3 (NATO: Backfire-C), which first flew in 1977, introduced into operation in 1983[64] and officially entered service in 1989,[65] had new NK-25 engines with substantially more power, wedge-shaped intake ramps similar to the MiG-25, wings with greater maximum sweep and a recontoured nose housing a new Almaz PNA (Planeta Nositel, izdeliye 030A) navigation/attack radar (NATO ‘Down Beat’)[66] radar and NK-45 nav/attack system, which provides much-improved low-altitude flight. The aerodynamic changes increased its top speed to Mach 2.05 and its range by one third compared to the Tu-22M2.[64] It has a revised tail turret with a single cannon, and provision for an internal rotary launcher for the Raduga Kh-15 missile, similar to the American AGM-69 SRAM. It was nicknamed Troika ('Trio' or third) in Russian service. 268 were built until 1993.[67]
[68]
[64]As built, the Tu-22M included the provision for a retractable probe in the upper part of the nose for aerial refueling. The probe was reportedly removed as a result of the SALTnegotiations, because with refueling it was considered an intercontinental range strategic bomber.[69] The probe can be reinstated if needed.[2]
[70]Tu-22M3s used to attack targets in Syria underwent modernization, during which the SVP-24-22 specialized computing subsystems were installed on them, significantly increased the accuracy of the bombing.[71]
Looks like the fuselage broke clean off at a marry up point.
(For the spams that is where two separate fuselage "barrels" are joined in production and nothing to do with marijuana ..)
And yes I am tarring them all with the same brush!
[68]
[64]As built, the Tu-22M included the provision for a retractable probe in the upper part of the nose for aerial refueling. The probe was reportedly removed as a result of the SALTnegotiations, because with refueling it was considered an intercontinental range strategic bomber.[69] The probe can be reinstated if needed.[2]
[70]Tu-22M3s used to attack targets in Syria underwent modernization, during which the SVP-24-22 specialized computing subsystems were installed on them, significantly increased the accuracy of the bombing.[71]
Looks like the fuselage broke clean off at a marry up point.
(For the spams that is where two separate fuselage "barrels" are joined in production and nothing to do with marijuana ..)
And yes I am tarring them all with the same brush!
Last edited by weemonkey; 27th Jan 2019 at 09:14.
Stop action review shows you are correct. I mistook the folded under forward fuselage for the right wing.
The post by Two's in sums it up very well: "Snow covered runway merging into the background whiteout". Even when well lit from the first fireball, no concrete to be seen clearly (from the sideline, at least)
Lateral instability of the camera precludes any conclusions on AoA & approach attitude. I doubt if ROD was really all that high before the flare (which was too little, too late, if any!)
Lateral instability of the camera precludes any conclusions on AoA & approach attitude. I doubt if ROD was really all that high before the flare (which was too little, too late, if any!)
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,812
Received 137 Likes
on
64 Posts
Having reviewed with ‘Pause’ I get the feeling that the nose gear never made contact, and that the fuselage break may thus have been caused by heavy impact by the main gear. The subsequent moment caused the fuslage to ‘snap’.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,812
Received 137 Likes
on
64 Posts
JTO ... that’s my thinking, but as an ex-ATCO I defer, as always, to Eng and Aircrew. 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Texas, like a whole other country
Posts: 444
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
That was my take on it, too. Nasty touchdown. RIP to the fallen crew member and best hopes for the survivor.
Agreed. While it hit the ground hard (and admittedly it's difficult reliably estimate the actual descent rate with the lack of external ques), I wouldn't expect a complete failure of the fuselage. Damage, yes, but compete failure, no...
Questions-
What type of approach was being flown and descent angle?
What avioinics are fitted? Radar Altimeter? HUD?
What would be a typical approach speed?
What G is the aircraft stressed to?
Why can we not see any of the airfield lighting?
What type of approach was being flown and descent angle?
What avioinics are fitted? Radar Altimeter? HUD?
What would be a typical approach speed?
What G is the aircraft stressed to?
Why can we not see any of the airfield lighting?