Interesting that the TU-95 and its counterpart,the B-52 will both have serice lives for from 80 to 90 plus years.That shows how good the original basic designs were,and still are...
I call it "the Rolling Stones Syndrome". Who's gonna replace them? Nobody. Just like Mick and Keef and Charlie, when the BUFF and the Bear are gone, that's it. No mas.
+Leon Davis but the stones suck, at leat these and the buff were great planes. I take your point though. someone else will have to get up on stage and be a complete embarrassment, sting or mcartney l suppose. unless bieber makes it to old age. dunno. not much out there these days for aviation nuts , 'cept for museum pieces.
Noel Mintern what that underscores is the fact that intercontinental range nuclear bombers became so prohibitively expensive early on in the cold war that trying to replace them was beyond the means of even the two superpowers. If you recall, the United States Air Force originally planned to replace the B-52 with the B-70 but the Kennedy administration realized that Russian SAM missile technology rendered that aircraft obsolete. Then they tried to replace them with the B-1, then the B-2, in each time the cost was so extravagant that only a limited number of airplanes was produced.
@@kek207 This is just a turboprop without a turbofan or afterburner... it's just a meatchopper. But yes, I'd like to see what happens to a chicken after it gets thrown into an afterburning jet engine... might even be edible afterwards. A dead chicken, not a live one, of course.
assuming the bird didn't enter the core of the engine, the propellers would just karate chop the bird 😂 Turbofan / Turbojet engines? yes it would definitely meatgrinder the bird to a million pieces.
A lot of people saying a lot of stupid things. It's simple as this. This is their strategic bomber like the B-52 is ours. It doesn't need to be upgraded. The B-52 doesn't need to be upgraded. And yes, of course they are upgraded in avionics and engines, I mean upgraded to a new aircraft completely. The reason they aren't is because it's a strategic bomber do you understand? Nuclear war, end of the world. These are not used in tactical or limited scope Wars. It would take five or six of these things reaching mainland United States to functionally destroy this country with the cruise nuclears it carries. Five or six. So it doesn't need to be a couple of hundred miles an hour faster, it doesn't need to be able to maneuver it doesn't need it just needs to be able to take off with a huge load of bombs and move them pretty quick. And they keep upgrading there's like we do ours, and these things have awesome engines that are efficient, good Avionics and pilots who are well-trained. If these are launched at you, do not call them cold war junk. If they launched 100 of these things, we would have to down all 100 otherwise the United States would be torn apart. And we would not get all 100. That piece of Cold War junk could kill 30 to 40 million people with one payload
Only when the' latest and greatest' DIGITAL video is used - the weird effects digital produces such as very slow moving props (at 2,000 or so RPM) are not created using movie or old style video cameras.
Wonderful ! Awesome is a very overused word -but this really is . Love the props , like comparing a steam locomotive to a diesel -it's so animated to watch .WOW !
Darth vader Yep - legend has it that the naval version of the Tu-95 - the Tu-142 - can be heard several miles away and several miles high by submerged submarines - not only of the US Navy and the Royal Navy but by French and a few others too.
B-52s are cool and all, but nothing compares to how cool these Bears look. Especially on video when the capture rate messes with the prop rpm rate. The run-up of each engine just looks so cool with those contra-rotating props.
The optical illusion of the props speeding up then slowing to almost stationary is due to the relationship between the camera's shutter speed and the prop speed. When they are in sync, the props appear to almost stop, similar to looking at an electric fan under a strobe light, or seeing a forward moving car's wheels appear to spin backwards when filmed.
When talking about plane engines, people usually talk about which engine is the most powerful, or which engine is the best sounding... But quite frankly, the Tu-95 has the best LOOKING engines of any plane out there!
Hey NJ Sullyalex, Yeh ,yeh but did you notice those sneaky, underhanded ruskies only painted the front side of the propellers ! It's fake, it's not pretty on both sides.
Oh, now I know how to make the Germans work as efficiently as possible. Put them in a Russian prison - and they will invent an engine, which has never had any analogues either in Germany or in the world. Participation of Russians, except escorts with dogs, will not be required.
Boeing was ready to submit a design like this to the US Air Force, when they were told about the P&W J57 P-3 turbojet, and sent back to the drawing board. The B52 is what they came back with. The fact that both designs remain relevant to this day is a tribute to The Tupolev Bureau, (or whatever they called that [no disrespect intended]) and The Boeing Corp.
@@no-damn-alias I read it in some book about the b52 development. Wikipedia talks about it as a straight wing turboprop, but as I recall it was a swept wing design in the book
My GOD the level of ignorance is running rampant in these comments. Morons asking when will it ever take off, this isn't a Cessna 152 people, there are a shit ton of procedures that the flight crew have to do. And not to mention this is an airport, perhaps they didn't have permission to take off yet.
The Mighty Kuznestov NK-12. The Dodge Hellcat of turboprop engines. Even without the growl from the CR props, it is one of the meanest sounding engines out there. I would love to hear one in person someday.
@@messerschmittbolkow5606 Quite True. Immediately after WW2 there was a race between the US and the USSR to 'appropriate' German scientists and engineers for their space and aviation programme. When we see American or Russian planes, what we are seeing is actually German technology at its best
No matter how you look at it. What matters is that you don't want to hear it above your building, because when you do, it is already too late to evade the bomb...
Must be an extensive after start checklist. Long time to finally taxi. I sure remember the sound of these bad boy Bears as they passed off shore south Florida when I was a little guy during Cuban Missile Crisis. Couldn’t see them but the sound was very distinctive.
do the propellers actually change their speed with throttle changes or does it work like piston prop-planes where the engine RPM is largely dependent on the angle of attack of the propeller blades? when going full throttle do the propellers just change from feathered to biting more air?
Say what yo want about these old aircraft, I love watching the videos because of PROPELLORS. Been for a ride in a B-17 and B-24. Gotta go for a ride in one of these.
I didn’t think they had access to coke because of the iron curtain? Pepsi got around it pretty late in the Cold War but I didn’t think ever did as it was to much of a symbol of capitalism.
Those engines designed and built in the 50’s and still have never been surpassed in power. Nearly 70 years running in frontline service. That is quality and reliability if there ever was.
What silly comments. This is a normal engine start in peace time, in a civil airport. If you still do not know it, there are different levels of alert. In war time, bombers are already in flight, near their tankers and start points. If you already know it, what are you writing for?? This Tu-95MS 12 red "Moscow" is one of the most advanced bombers in the world, 20 years younger than B-52H.
@@mikhail79279 Build date is of vague relevance when aircraft are being constantly updated, refitted and rebuilt to extend service life. "20 years younger than the B-52H" means this advanced aircraft is 37 years old. Older than the B-1b and the B-2 and the Tu-22M4 and the Tu-160. Obviously, we aren't talking about airframes, both aircraft fall into the if-it-aint-broke-don't-fix-it workhorse category. So, are the features on this late-model Tu-95MS more advanced than those of the current iteration of B-52H?
@@mikhail79279 Example of what? The B-52 can carry cruise missiles, too, but that doesn't say anything about which aircraft is more advanced. One area where the Tu-95 really needs updating, is the propellers. It's the noisiest plane on the planet, which isn't an issue for delivering stand-off weapons, but even if you disregard nuisance value and crew discomfort (as Russians are wont to do), ll that resonant vibration has gotta be hard on the airframe and sophisticated equipment that makes it more advanced. There's gotta be a better, quieter, and more efficient solution that doesn't sacrifice speed. Adding blades could reduce prop diameter and thus tip speed (maybe allow for lighter, less-leggy landing gear), although I doubt they could get the prop blades subsonic and still pull that aircraft at speeds usually reserved for jets. Maybe exotic-shaped blades and/or ducting...
+John Lindsey well, the were in the USA several times before, as b52 visited russian air bases. Guess it's not very likely to see such visits now, given the political situation. i even read an article of a b52 pilot who flew tu95. except for the noise and vibrations he described it as pretty similar, though somewhat spacier it the cabin. I personally enjoy tu 95 somewhat more. with round fuselage instead of oval and those magnificent props it looks a lot more classy and elegant than b52, though being almost just and brutal. And what i like more is fuel efficiency of those turboprops (actually a passenger derivative - tu114 which is a close match to b767 in terms of size, weight, range and speed, has on average the same fuel consupmtion with its late 50s engines as b767 with engines of 1980s which is still in white spread use) - so with the same range and load and only lightly lower speed, tu95 is 20 tonnes lighter in full load and is significantly more economical to operate.
The reason for the Contr-rotating Props is you would need a much larger propeller for the engine's output, and they couldn't clear the ground or they would have to have all 8 blades on each engine. But then the torque would tear the engines from the wings. By using the "counter-rotating props, you nullify the engine torque.
Thanks for posting this. I feel like a spy. Counter-rotating propellers produce a much smoother flow of air over the wings. The first set of propellers moves it one direction then the next the other thus counter acting the first. The result is smooth air flow.
Ровесник Б-52, чинился кувалдой раньше. Сейчас проходит глубокую модернизацию. А вот инджины самые лучшие для турбовинтов, эт точно. Когда летит над тобой в калометре, чувствуешь, что медведь пришел. Кстати летчики этого самолёта говорили, что когда он даёт газ, то он реально приподымается, т.к винты стоят в середине крыла. Очень неплохое решение. В этом клипе 15,10- 15,30 . Смотрим на стойки шасси. b-52 of the same age, used to be fixed with a sledgehammer. Now it is undergoing a deep modernization. But engine best for turbulentos, at exactly. When his fly nearly a kilometer, you feel that the bear came. By the way the pilots of the aircraft said, that when he gives the gas, it really rises, because the engines are in the middle of the wing. Very good solution. This clip has 15,10-15,30 . We look this at the landing gear.
Turboprop with counterrotating props, Range nearly 5000mi. 60 years in service. Strategic bombers don't get changed that often. Compare the B-52 with practically the same age and both of which are expected to be in service until 2040!
I'm guessing there are some quite extensive engine checks going on considering the amount of times the props have been started and then stopped over and over
The advantage of counter-rotating props is the elimination of engine torque which tends to roll the aircraft. Its enormous range makes it ideal for recon work.
I think the TU-95/114 is one of the coolest aircraft.
Lee Zinke not the same but k
Lez still the coolest planes ever.
Only similarities would be the NK-12 engines, LG, and the tail
Edit: tail doesnt include the horizontal stabilizers
Interesting that the TU-95 and its counterpart,the B-52 will both have serice lives for from 80 to 90 plus years.That shows how good the original basic designs were,and still are...
I call it "the Rolling Stones Syndrome". Who's gonna replace them? Nobody. Just like Mick and Keef and Charlie, when the BUFF and the Bear are gone, that's it. No mas.
+Leon Davis but the stones suck, at leat these and the buff were great planes. I take your point though. someone else will have to get up on stage and be a complete embarrassment, sting or mcartney l suppose. unless bieber makes it to old age. dunno. not much out there these days for aviation nuts , 'cept for museum pieces.
+Noel Mintern Yes Sir, I totally agree !!!
Actually I believe it was the SR71
Noel Mintern what that underscores is the fact that intercontinental range nuclear bombers became so prohibitively expensive early on in the cold war that trying to replace them was beyond the means of even the two superpowers. If you recall, the United States Air Force originally planned to replace the B-52 with the B-70 but the Kennedy administration realized that Russian SAM missile technology rendered that aircraft obsolete. Then they tried to replace them with the B-1, then the B-2, in each time the cost was so extravagant that only a limited number of airplanes was produced.
imagine a birdstrike on that plane... worlds largest meatgrinder.
Nah, that's just a meatchopper. Turbofan engines have tons of compressor blades and turbine blades.... THAT's a real meat grinder.
@@anonymousperson2110 if you have an afterburner you have a meat- grindfrier. Bird get sucked in, grinded, fried in fuel and shit out
@@kek207 This is just a turboprop without a turbofan or afterburner... it's just a meatchopper.
But yes, I'd like to see what happens to a chicken after it gets thrown into an afterburning jet engine... might even be edible afterwards. A dead chicken, not a live one, of course.
@@anonymousperson2110 i love how you guys went into a seemingly political-like conversation about it.
assuming the bird didn't enter the core of the engine,
the propellers would just karate chop the bird 😂
Turbofan / Turbojet engines? yes it would definitely meatgrinder the bird to a million pieces.
I marvel at the engineering aspect., especially of the gearboxes of the Contra-Rotating propeller engines. A beautiful piece of craftmanship.
I've always appreciated this magnificent airframe .
That crew certainly took their time raising the gear .
That is because it is raised by hand.
slimchancetoo
That would explain it XD
@@slimchancetoo seriously?
That 2 story gear rigging is raised *by hand....*
A lot of people saying a lot of stupid things. It's simple as this. This is their strategic bomber like the B-52 is ours. It doesn't need to be upgraded. The B-52 doesn't need to be upgraded. And yes, of course they are upgraded in avionics and engines, I mean upgraded to a new aircraft completely. The reason they aren't is because it's a strategic bomber do you understand? Nuclear war, end of the world. These are not used in tactical or limited scope Wars. It would take five or six of these things reaching mainland United States to functionally destroy this country with the cruise nuclears it carries. Five or six. So it doesn't need to be a couple of hundred miles an hour faster, it doesn't need to be able to maneuver it doesn't need it just needs to be able to take off with a huge load of bombs and move them pretty quick. And they keep upgrading there's like we do ours, and these things have awesome engines that are efficient, good Avionics and pilots who are well-trained. If these are launched at you, do not call them cold war junk. If they launched 100 of these things, we would have to down all 100 otherwise the United States would be torn apart. And we would not get all 100. That piece of Cold War junk could kill 30 to 40 million people with one payload
I have always admired this magnificent Cold war veteran. Definitely my favorite bomber.
One of the coolest propeller planes ever made
Accepted into service 1954 and still going strong 62 years later.
1956...
The Tu-95MS is accepted in service in 1983.
@@vburd62 oh no 2 YEARS OFF!!!
WHAT _EVER_ WILL WE DO?!?!?!
fuck off with that condescending "..."
It's so hypnotic how the props spin so fast it looks like they're barely moving.
Like putting a strobe light in front of a cooling fan.
On video, those massive counter-rotating props are the trippiest thing in aviation. Very prone to optical illusions.
Pretty hypnotic in slow motion too.
I pity the fools that dare watch it on drugs...lol.
Only when the' latest and greatest' DIGITAL video is used - the weird effects digital produces such as very slow moving props (at 2,000 or so RPM) are not created using movie or old style video cameras.
pass the acid.
*Contra rotating
They love their counter rotating props. Damn this is a big aircraft!
Contra.. not counter
MAN I love the sound of those engines, most powerful turboprops ever produced.
I just love the trippy effects all those propellers, contra-rotating, has on your eyes. Very very cool!
Monstrously loud beast epic af
Wonderful ! Awesome is a very overused word -but this really is . Love the props , like comparing a steam locomotive to a diesel -it's so animated to watch .WOW !
one've the coolest looking planes ever
They are a Magnificent Beast of an Airplane.
Looks unreal! Those props moving like that is something that seems sureal.
I hear that for a prop plane this animal is very LOUD. Would sure love to see one fly at a show.
Go to any of the top Russian airshows such as MAKS and you probably will. Hang around Engels AFB and you probably will - but not close up.
slimchancetoo n
apparently us and british subs can detect them.
Darth vader
Yep - legend has it that the naval version of the Tu-95 - the Tu-142 - can be heard several miles away and several miles high by submerged submarines - not only of the US Navy and the Royal Navy but by French and a few others too.
Patrick Dunning o
I think this is a beautiful plane, so unique.
A remarkable aircraft!
B-52s are cool and all, but nothing compares to how cool these Bears look. Especially on video when the capture rate messes with the prop rpm rate. The run-up of each engine just looks so cool with those contra-rotating props.
German construction by prisoners of war (Former Junkers and Heinkel engineers) during the early 50s for the russians ;-)
The optical illusion of the props speeding up then slowing to almost stationary is due to the relationship between the camera's shutter speed and the prop speed. When they are in sync, the props appear to almost stop, similar to looking at an electric fan under a strobe light, or seeing a forward moving car's wheels appear to spin backwards when filmed.
Those counter rotating propellers are crazy...weird optical illusions. Thank you for the video!
Contra rotating propellers. Not counter
No other aircraft like it. Truly an Engineering Marvel.
Impressive machine.
Very cool! Thanks for sharing.
When talking about plane engines, people usually talk about which engine is the most powerful, or which engine is the best sounding...
But quite frankly, the Tu-95 has the best LOOKING engines of any plane out there!
+NJ Sullyalex Form and function; not just form or function.
Hey NJ Sullyalex, Yeh ,yeh but did you notice those sneaky, underhanded ruskies only painted the front side of the propellers ! It's fake, it's not pretty on both sides.
Plane features the most powerful turboprop engines ever! Created and constructed by prisoned german engineers after WW2!
Oh, now I know how to make the Germans work as efficiently as possible. Put them in a Russian prison - and they will invent an engine, which has never had any analogues either in Germany or in the world. Participation of Russians, except escorts with dogs, will not be required.
Looks like a stick tho lol. B-1B still beats it in terms of looks imo.
Boeing was ready to submit a design like this to the US Air Force, when they were told about the P&W J57 P-3 turbojet, and sent back to the drawing board. The B52 is what they came back with. The fact that both designs remain relevant to this day is a tribute to The Tupolev Bureau, (or whatever they called that [no disrespect intended]) and The Boeing Corp.
any proof for that claim?
@@no-damn-alias I read it in some book about the b52 development. Wikipedia talks about it as a straight wing turboprop, but as I recall it was a swept wing design in the book
What a beast! I love it!
My GOD the level of ignorance is running rampant in these comments. Morons asking when will it ever take off, this isn't a Cessna 152 people, there are a shit ton of procedures that the flight crew have to do. And not to mention this is an airport, perhaps they didn't have permission to take off yet.
K.C. LeJeune thanks enstien
@@smoke_eater_ You didn't really spell it like tha-...wait, yes you did
A thing of beauty !
What a BEAUTY!!
Вечная слава Советскому Союзу!!!!
camera sync is BEAUTIFUL
Beautiful aircraft!👍🏿
Jman👀
If you notice on the tail on the starboard side near the root a small door that is the APU exhaust port.
The Mighty Kuznestov NK-12.
The Dodge Hellcat of turboprop engines.
Even without the growl from the CR props, it is one of the meanest sounding engines out there.
I would love to hear one in person someday.
This cold war aircrafts from both world sides still amazing.
real engineering.
Have you noticed that 1950s planes have more charming features than actual planes?.The latters are technologically sophisticated, though.
What a thing of beauty. The TU-95 Bear.
It's hard to believe but the tips of those props are going at just above the speed of sound.
i love watching this bad boy fly
Simply Awesome.
Love it... beautiful plane.
This thing sounds like a huge lumbering bee when in flight. Don't let those props fool you, it's faster than you think.Very cool aircraft indeed.
THOSE MIGHTY KUZNETZOV ENGINES WERE CREATED IMMEDIATELY AFTER WWII! Still in production to this day!
Designed by Junkers.
@@messerschmittbolkow5606
Quite True.
Immediately after WW2 there was a race between the US and the USSR to 'appropriate' German scientists and engineers for their space and aviation programme. When we see American or Russian planes, what we are seeing is actually German technology at its best
@@arbjful Let us not forget Rocket Technology.
Germany was ahead on that too, in the 1940s.
I not lying, I really like this aircraft
hypnotic mystic and intriguing aircraft ... !!!!!!
No matter how you look at it. What matters is that you don't want to hear it above your building, because when you do, it is already too late to evade the bomb...
galihxtreme nn
This one carries cruise missiles, you'll be dead before you even hear it
Love the Bear. She dropped Tsar Bomba. ✌🏻🇺🇸
I love the TU-95 's profile 🐻 my second favorite is the Tupolev TU-114.
Must be an extensive after start checklist. Long time to finally taxi. I sure remember the sound of these bad boy Bears as they passed off shore south Florida when I was a little guy during Cuban Missile Crisis. Couldn’t see them but the sound was very distinctive.
What a beast 🙏❤️🙌
Great video. Thank you!
It's funny how the 60 cycle flicker produces optical illusions of the props spinning slower or backwards.
beautiful too..
do the propellers actually change their speed with throttle changes or does it work like piston prop-planes where the engine RPM is largely dependent on the angle of attack of the propeller blades? when going full throttle do the propellers just change from feathered to biting more air?
Beautiful monster
that sounds super cool
Instead of stupid comments about how long it's taking, just fast forward the video and shut up. We don't need stupid comments!
What a beast love it
awesome strobscopic effect of the propellers...
The Tu-95 & the B-52 might have to work together one of these days...
Nice aircraft. Are these double propelled engines, the same ones used on the Antonov An-22?.
What a machine!
Say what yo want about these old aircraft, I love watching the videos because of PROPELLORS. Been for a ride in a B-17 and B-24. Gotta go for a ride in one of these.
I remember watching a video of US jets intercepting one of these in the cold war times and the Russians where drinking coke and waving to the jets lol
I didn’t think they had access to coke because of the iron curtain? Pepsi got around it pretty late in the Cold War but I didn’t think ever did as it was to much of a symbol of capitalism.
I love the way the Russians give their aircraft big names on the side.
The B-52 is a mean-looking bomber. But the Bear looks even more badass IMO. It is a seriously mean, sinister-looking plane. And that sound. Just wow.
It’s always very interesting when the frame rate acts like a timing light on the propellers of an aircraft
Those engines designed and built in the 50’s and still have never been surpassed in power. Nearly 70 years running in frontline service. That is quality and reliability if there ever was.
Great video.
Awesome...How does it start like that?
I would not stand so close, a new thing to have nightmares about.
What silly comments. This is a normal engine start in peace time, in a civil airport. If you still do not know it, there are different levels of alert. In war time, bombers are already in flight, near their tankers and start points. If you already know it, what are you writing for?? This Tu-95MS 12 red "Moscow" is one of the most advanced bombers in the world, 20 years younger than B-52H.
Which means Boeing got it right 20 years earlier than Tupelov?
@@dougmillhoff9192it means that exact this plane was built in 20 years after the last B-52
@@mikhail79279 Build date is of vague relevance when aircraft are being constantly updated, refitted and rebuilt to extend service life.
"20 years younger than the B-52H" means this advanced aircraft is 37 years old. Older than the B-1b and the B-2 and the Tu-22M4 and the Tu-160.
Obviously, we aren't talking about airframes, both aircraft fall into the if-it-aint-broke-don't-fix-it workhorse category.
So, are the features on this late-model Tu-95MS more advanced than those of the current iteration of B-52H?
@@dougmillhoff9192 long range cruise missiles for example
@@mikhail79279 Example of what?
The B-52 can carry cruise missiles, too, but that doesn't say anything about which aircraft is more advanced.
One area where the Tu-95 really needs updating, is the propellers. It's the noisiest plane on the planet, which isn't an issue for delivering stand-off weapons, but even if you disregard nuisance value and crew discomfort (as Russians are wont to do), ll that resonant vibration has gotta be hard on the airframe and sophisticated equipment that makes it more advanced. There's gotta be a better, quieter, and more efficient solution that doesn't sacrifice speed.
Adding blades could reduce prop diameter and thus tip speed (maybe allow for lighter, less-leggy landing gear), although I doubt they could get the prop blades subsonic and still pull that aircraft at speeds usually reserved for jets. Maybe exotic-shaped blades and/or ducting...
Till this day the old man still fly
Spasiba!!!
It must be one helluva noise plane,I wish to see though,beautiful bird...including the US B52,awesome machines
The Bear has proven to be one very rugged and reliable aircraft. How about bringing one to Syracuse, New York and giving me a ride?
+John Lindsey
How will you get back to your trolling office in St. Petersburg?
+Ihave Topis
Russia or Florida?
+John Lindsey well, the were in the USA several times before, as b52 visited russian air bases. Guess it's not very likely to see such visits now, given the political situation. i even read an article of a b52 pilot who flew tu95. except for the noise and vibrations he described it as pretty similar, though somewhat spacier it the cabin. I personally enjoy tu 95 somewhat more. with round fuselage instead of oval and those magnificent props it looks a lot more classy and elegant than b52, though being almost just and brutal. And what i like more is fuel efficiency of those turboprops (actually a passenger derivative - tu114 which is a close match to b767 in terms of size, weight, range and speed, has on average the same fuel consupmtion with its late 50s engines as b767 with engines of 1980s which is still in white spread use) - so with the same range and load and only lightly lower speed, tu95 is 20 tonnes lighter in full load and is significantly more economical to operate.
+Сергей Соколов actually more than 35 tonnes lighter
Сергей Соколов
I would opt for the less elegant 42 2000 pound JDAM's that come fully pre-programmed out of just one B-52 when it does one bomb-run.
The reason for the Contr-rotating Props is you would need a much larger propeller for the engine's output, and they couldn't clear the ground or they would have to have all 8 blades on each engine. But then the torque would tear the engines from the wings.
By using the "counter-rotating props, you nullify the engine torque.
Look at the size of those props!
I love the big cannons on the front. This plane even better than Lockheed Costellation and Aichi E13A
+TommyTwobats Not armament........., refueling probe.
Thanks for posting this. I feel like a spy.
Counter-rotating propellers produce a much smoother flow of air over the wings. The first set of propellers moves it one direction then the next the other thus counter acting the first. The result is smooth air flow.
majestic machine
Why? It's full of mistakes. It wouldn't survive in any western air force
Klaus Mühlbach so was kan sagen nur person wer keine ahnung hat.
Why does it keep slowing the props down and swinging them around for a few seconds then starting up again?
Who needs stealth, WHEN YOU'RE THIS LOUD!!!!!!?
The loudest aircraft in the world. Still potent after all these years just like the B-52
Ровесник Б-52, чинился кувалдой раньше. Сейчас проходит глубокую модернизацию. А вот инджины самые лучшие для турбовинтов, эт точно. Когда летит над тобой в калометре, чувствуешь, что медведь пришел. Кстати летчики этого самолёта говорили, что когда он даёт газ, то он реально приподымается, т.к винты стоят в середине крыла. Очень неплохое решение. В этом клипе 15,10- 15,30 . Смотрим на стойки шасси.
b-52 of the same age, used to be fixed with a sledgehammer. Now it is undergoing a deep modernization. But engine best for turbulentos, at exactly. When his fly nearly a kilometer, you feel that the bear came. By the way the pilots of the aircraft said, that when he gives the gas, it really rises, because the engines are in the middle of the wing. Very good solution. This clip has 15,10-15,30 . We look this at the landing gear.
Turboprop with counterrotating props, Range nearly 5000mi. 60 years in service. Strategic bombers don't get changed that often. Compare the B-52 with practically the same age and both of which are expected to be in service until 2040!
John Gabone an early design concept for the B-52 programme had turbo-prop engines.
Contra rotating propellers.. not counter
That Bear fucking impressive
Is anyone familiar with the symbology behind the cockpit window? Is that a name for the aircraft or is there some other meaning?
I'm guessing there are some quite extensive engine checks going on considering the amount of times the props have been started and then stopped over and over
The advantage of counter-rotating props is the elimination of engine torque which tends to roll the aircraft. Its enormous range makes it ideal for recon work.
The counter rotating props in this case are for a better use of enormous engine power.
Yes, that too..☺
great plane.
Pretty cool for an old clapper!
Wonderful aircraft, pity the video is a bit jumpy.
Why double fan each engine ???
Bear wakes up