The original design that won the contract for what became the B52 had six turbo-props. But that never flew. Perhaps was alluding to that. It went through various changes, different numbers of engines and types, as the government’s requirements changed. Eventually becoming the eight jet we now know.
@@sparky4878 its too much of a stretch to call the 462 the original design of the b52. In all reality the original design could only be the prototype version. The 462 was straight wing turbo prop not even close to what we have as the b52.
You're going to have to redo the research on this one. Seems like chat GPT messed up writing this one for you. B52 is obviously not turboprop powered, the top speed of the tu95 is not 650km/h it's in excess of 925... Which is impressive in its own right. Service ceiling is also above 12000m...
As a 10 year old in 1971, my Dad and one of his fellow Korean War Ranger buddies took us deep sea fishing out of the Keys. After being out all day, at about 4pm I heard a very distinct " Thrummmm"... it was a Bear Bomber at barely 2000 feet.... just off the left wingtip were two Navy F-4 Phantoms in hi-vis paint and markings off the USS America gently edging the Bear away from US airspace...the 4 J-79 engines belching black smoke flying at slow/inefficient airspeed.... I started yelling and waving so proud to be an American! I saved up the rest of the summer, and birthday money, I built all three models exactly as I saw them tha day and proudly hung them with fishing line from my bedroom ceiling.
I have only seen one, at about 30 feet above the wavetops and 15 feet off the port bridge wing of the Gearing Class destroyer I was on. He had caught us with our pants down around our ankles with our air search radar off. This was in February 1973. The after lookout had warned us of his approach by saying, "There is a big assed airplane back here!" by the time the JA talker his gotten halfway through that sentence we were breathing the exhaust fumes as they blew over us.
Tupolev Tu-95 Maximum speed, 925 km/h Cruising speed: 710 km/h Autonomy 15,000 km Boeing B-52 Stratofortress Speed of 1,047 km/h Cruising speed is 844 km/h Range 14,162 km
This series continues to make factual errors that a lot of viewers pick up - problem is how many things that are wrong do ‘we’ not pick up? The entirety of these videos is consequently factually questionable.
That (alegedly) part says volumes about your knowledge. How does submarine determin altitude and direction of aircraft and its sound that passed water/air boundary... And all that with equipement not designed for that at all.
I was in Russia a few years ago and a TU95 flew overhead it was incredibly loud all the car alarms in the area started going off. Not surprising since the prop tips are supersonic in flight
I always understood that the Tu95 is one of the loudest turboprop ever produced possibly because of the propeller tips reaching supersonic or around it
Oh yeah, they’re loud as hell. Saw one take off at an air show in Ukraine many years ago. It was louder than the jets taking off. Really different and awesome experience! It really was a fantastic experience, that I’ll never forget! It isn’t supposed to be a stealth bomber.
I believe the Tu-95 is still the fastest propeller driven aircraft to have flown as some have reach 600 mph. The aircraft is very debilitating on its crew to operate, as on take-off and climb the propeller tips go supersonic, and without good sound insulation the constant sonic boom or howl often affects the crews efficient operation.
@idiot-cd6pl Tu-95 and Tu-142 crews arent often influenced by prop noise. They are influenced by it EVERY flight. Their crews are deaf as 90 year old greatgrandfathers in their early 30s. Goddammit thing needs double ear protection for every crew member, but cant be done as someone might ask something on intercom. And at some level nothing can save your hearing as noise goes through bones in ear, not through ear canal itself. Norwegian F16 pilots could hear the noise what Bear makes inside their cockpits while intercepting them above Barents sea.😮
The Tu-95 is noted as one of the LOUDEST MACHINES of ANY Type ever made. The propellers break the speed of sound at cruise speed, and leave MASSIVE sonic waves.... making it EASILY trackable by SOSUS (Sonar under the ocean designed to track submarines, but easily hears the Bear from several HUNDRED miles away!). It would make a totally USELESS anti-submarine aircraft, since the Sub could HEAR IT from hundreds of miles away - giving it LOTS of time to descend or hide before the Bear could get close enough to have a CHANCE at finding the sub. I personally know several RCAF CF-18 pilots who complained about intercept missions against them because they can't hear their own jets (that they are SITTING IN!) over the the noise the Tu-95 makes! They don't need Radar to find them - they just follow the NOISE!
What’s interesting is the propulsion system, in cruise, the props go into fairly coarse pitch, with rpm in the region of 850 rpm, so the tips are mostly subsonic, lessening drag. Think the NK-12 is still the most powerful turboprop ever built.
Not really a fan, and I haven’t even watched the entire video yet. There are certainly aircraft more destructive than the Tupolev 95. I hate it when this channel uses clickbait titles on their videos, which is always.
This channel is falling apart. Just uploading a mass amount of content that is full of errors and sounds like it was written by ChatGPT. Anytime channels go to quantity vs quality they suffer.
I believe the early B-52's were powered by 8x rocket engines that were stolen from the Nigerian Airforce during the Second World War by a crack Eskimo commando unit. But seriously, the Tu-95 is a pretty awesome aircraft, even if all it does is troll around getting intercepted by various countries fighter jets.
I father told me a story of the 90 mil. cannon he was on in Maryland shooting a wall of flack with their battery to stop a Bear from crossing too far into our airspace. He served in the 1950's.
@@proteusnz99True, though for its early (pre-747) operation the Tu-114 was the largest passemger aircraft flying, quite a lot larger than the 707/DC-8/Comet 4/VC-10/Il-62.
Ah, excuse me. The Boeing B-52 WAS NOT turboprop powered. It was 100% turbojet powered. Neither was the Bristol Brabazon which was powered by Bristol Centaurus radial engines. Sloppy scholarship, people. Very sloppy!
Ummm the B52 is certainly NOT powered by turbo props? What the heck? Do you not preview your videos and fact check them before you post? Extremely disappointing....😮🤦
😂😅😂 Buthurt American by any chance? Ya know what, sometimes you have to realise you're not as fantastic as you believe you are. Sometimes it's OK if your military hardware isn't the best in every single area. Sometimes it's best to be humble as arrogance comes before a fall. I bet you're not impressed with a single piece of Russian hardware & believe just because something costs so much money. It doesn't mean it's the best. I'm from a NATO country, but I have the sense to research many different opinions from many different points of view. I know the worst thing any military can do is underestimate it's enemy. My country has got a list as long as your arm, in the militaries it's defeated by itself. You can't name 1 single military you've defeated by yourself. Your arrogance is misplaced & comes from Hollywood & propaganda & not reality.
@@DavyRo We've actually fought in wars the last 20 years we ARE the best FACT win or lose the death ratio is unheard of russias the ultimate paper tiger I'm delighted a tiny country like Ukraine pulled your pants down!!!
There are so many mistakes in this episode that you need to go back and start over. Plus get rid of the bad loud music. Goodness what is the world coming to.
The Tsar Bomba was actually de-rated to it’s 57Mt yield, the basic design was good for 100Mt, but that was felt to be non-survivable for the delivery aircraft. The rest of the world didn’t hold its breath, no one outside those involved in the operation until the bang. Then everyone knew, the shockwave when round the world twice, and products were air-sampled over the next few months. A Singularly useless weapon, as even the Tu-95 has a very limited range/performance carrying the thing, as someone termed it “good for bombing the boundaries of its own airfield.”, but then the “Biggest” of anything seems to fascinate Russians (and Texans?)
Basically they replaced the third fission stage with a lead dummy. As designed it was a fission -> fusion -> fission device, the neutrons from the second hydrogen stage were used to create fast fission in a third uranium stage. This was of plain uranium metal, it didn't need to be enriched uranium because the massive amount of neutrons from the second stage would almost completely fission it and generate as much energy as the first and second stages combined.
I just watched this video... In the 1980's we use to laugh at this thing when it flew over the flight deck of the USS Nimitz with it's bombay doors open and twp F-14's "escorting" it away from the ship... Not sure I would laugh at it anymore, would hate to be on the recieving end on any of it's ordinance.
Good lord, they were able to drop the Tsar Bomba from an aircraft....! Yeah, the US was phwcked. It's lucky for all of humanity the neocon Republican warhawks were not successful for cranking up the war with the Soviets they were irrationally jonesing for.
2:32 the commentator said the B-52 was using turboprops. Yet you can plainly see in the picture that it was equipped with pure jet engines. The B52 was never operated with turboprop engines. Jet only
@@georgebarnes8163 My understanding is that those were concepts that were obsoleted before they flew. The final prototype was pure jet. This was not made clear in the video. The way it is worded in the video implies the B-52 in service was a turboprop. Then while saying that the jet version that went into production is what is shown. Some early prototypes may have been made with turboprops and may even have flown but they are not what entered production. It was common then when aircraft tech was moving so fast for prototypes get scrapped and totally worked over before they could even fly.
Not the case at all, they were produced and did enter service with a total of three A models being produced, fifty B models and thirty five C models@@dmfraser1444
@@georgebarnes8163 Wikipedia says, "The first two prototypes, XB-52 and YB-52, were both powered by experimental Pratt & Whitney YJ57-P-3 turbojet engines with 8,700 pounds-force (39 kN) of static thrust each." and "The B-52A models were equipped with Pratt & Whitney J57-P-1W turbojets," and "B-52B, C, D and E models were equipped with Pratt & Whitney J57-P-29W, J57-P-29WA, or J57-P-19W series engines" Maybe you are thinking of the B-36, with six piston engines in pusher configuration and four jet engines. The most enduring legacy of the B-36 was that one accidentally dropped a hydrogen bomb near Kirtland AFB in Albuquerque, in 1957 when the bomb mount broke. The bomb was not live, but it was still mighty heavy.
When Nikita Khrushcev was in power in the Soviet Union he used a Bear for his transport to the UN in New York. But it took a long time for him to get out the aircraft. The TU=95's landing gear was so long no bording stairs were tall enough to reach the door. The fuselage even with the inboard engine propeller blades is armor plate. Otherwise ice that froms on the propeller blades would be thrown through the sides of the plane.
@@leonidshapiro3066Actually, no, that was later. The initial Tu-95 variant providing somewhat rudimentary VIP transport was the Tu-116(sic) and shared the same fuselage as the Tu-95, just with internal modifications. Entry and exit was through a rear-facing door, of which Kruschev is said to have disapproved as it looked like he was exiting the plane's ass. The Tu-114 was used when completed. One of the Tu-116 conversions is on display at Ulyanov Central Airport, though some guidebooks incorrectly say Monino, which does display other variants.
The tu 116 at that time was so unreliable that the Russian navy strategically placed ships across the Atlantic for Kruschev's US visit,in case the aircraft was forced to ditch.Part of it's structural unreliability stemmed from Kruschev insisting that they pressurise the upper fuselage rather than just the former bomb bay area as he told the engineers that when he went to meet the US president he was damned if he was going to set foot on US soil if he had to crawl Out the arse of the aeroplane.
Maybe this has been covered but how does he crank out these videos so quickly? Quality beats quantity and it feels like these are being cranked out by chat gpt
You will find many are literally a narration of wikipedia articles and random video clips that aren’t even showing the aircraft described. I’m unsubscribing after this one.
My grandfather was an officer in USSR strategic rocket forces. My mom grew up near Engels airbase. We’re Ukrainian. Now these same bases are used to bomb my mom and her relatives. Including with the very Kh-missiles and Tu95s that Ukraine transferred to Russia under the US-brokered disarmament treaties of the 90’s.
During the Cold War, there were so many "Bears" flying around the area north of Midway Island in the Pacific that the US Navy called it "Yellowstone Park".
I just watched this video... In the 1980's we use to laugh at this thing when it flew over the flight deck of the USS Nimitz with it's bombay doors open and twp F-14's "escorting" it away from the ship... Not sure I would laugh at it anymore, would hate to be on the recieving end on any of it's ordinance.
I just watched this video... In the 1980's we use to laugh at this thing when it flew over the flight deck of the USS Nimitz with it's bombay doors open and twp F-14's "escorting" it away from the ship... Not sure I would laugh at it anymore, would hate to be on the recieving end on any of it's ordinance.
Marking the turn in the tides, wtf. 😂😂 This channel is becoming more and more, as time progresses, a NATO propaganda outlet. It's a shame, it used to be without propaganda.🤑
This video must be intended for the European markets. It's, in metric, and the United States does not use the metric system! Other than that, the TU95 is more Obsolete than the equally obsolete Boeing B-52 ! The day of a manned bomer is ridiculous!
Sorry me friend. I have been subscribed to your channels for a few years hoping the accuracy of both the narration and video relevance would improve. After this video I have to unsubscribe from all the "Dark" channels.
Heard the prop noise on sonar back in the day but I haven't seen a B-52 of any model with props. Your research needs re-worked on this episode otherwise appreciate what you do.
I’ve lost my patience on these ridiculous thumbnails… there’s only one subject in the photo, why ruin it with a red circle and arrow? Quality has been consistently going downhill, sad to say you lost a subscriber
it would be nice if you did a conversion to non metric, i don't remember the numbers enough to do it myself. i hear spead bla bla bla, altitude bla bla bla, range bla bla bla, payload bla bla bla
@@Black_0pCar0lina At first people from the really poor areas jumped at the chance to enlist as they were being offered what to them was a years salary for a few months on the front, but that obviously never happened and they weren't allowed to go home. It's pretty tragic really, they only took a small percentage of conscripts from places like Moscow, St Petersburg etc, they were mostly all from the slums and prisons.
@@georgebarnes8163 I dunno. Wikipedia says, "The B-52A models were equipped with Pratt & Whitney J57-P-1W turbojets," "B-52B, C, D and E models were equipped with Pratt & Whitney J57-P-29W, J57-P-29WA, or J57-P-19W series engines" and the National Air and Space Museum says "In April 1952, the prototype Boeing B-52 flew for the first time powered by eight J57 turbojet engines."
I never saw a prop on a B-52, and I built the engines for them.
he does that on purpose so people comment on it. he has been doing that for a long time now.
Yeah, that occurred to me too.
Turbojets, then later ‘fans?
Wow, the factual errors just keep getting worse.
The Brabazon wasn't powered by turboprops, it used Bristol Centaurus radials. The unbuilt second prototype would have used Proteus turboprops.
@2:43 The B-52 did NOT use turboprops!! Where the hell did you get this idea?!?
The original design that won the contract for what became the B52 had six turbo-props. But that never flew. Perhaps was alluding to that.
It went through various changes, different numbers of engines and types, as the government’s requirements changed. Eventually becoming the eight jet we now know.
The original design of the B52 was powered by turboprops
@@sparky4878 its too much of a stretch to call the 462 the original design of the b52. In all reality the original design could only be the prototype version. The 462 was straight wing turbo prop not even close to what we have as the b52.
He probably mixed up turbojets and turboprops to be honest
@nesyboi9421 tbh that was my thought too. There's no way I could think of the straight winged 462 as the original design of the b-52
You're going to have to redo the research on this one. Seems like chat GPT messed up writing this one for you. B52 is obviously not turboprop powered, the top speed of the tu95 is not 650km/h it's in excess of 925... Which is impressive in its own right. Service ceiling is also above 12000m...
B52H is turbofan. Previous were turbo jet and the original design that won the contract was actually a turboprop.
The B52 has been powered by turbofans (TF33) since the H model in 1961, earlier models used turbojets.
Regarding the b52, excuse the typo I meant turboprop as stated in the video, not turbofan.
I'm sure they meant B-36
He said it was over 900, 700 cruise.
As a 10 year old in 1971, my Dad and one of his fellow Korean War Ranger buddies took us deep sea fishing out of the Keys. After being out all day, at about 4pm I heard a very distinct " Thrummmm"... it was a Bear Bomber at barely 2000 feet.... just off the left wingtip were two Navy F-4 Phantoms in hi-vis paint and markings off the USS America gently edging the Bear away from US airspace...the 4 J-79 engines belching black smoke flying at slow/inefficient airspeed.... I started yelling and waving so proud to be an American! I saved up the rest of the summer, and birthday money, I built all three models exactly as I saw them tha day and proudly hung them with fishing line from my bedroom ceiling.
I have only seen one, at about 30 feet above the wavetops and 15 feet off the port bridge wing of the Gearing Class destroyer I was on. He had caught us with our pants down around our ankles with our air search radar off. This was in February 1973. The after lookout had warned us of his approach by saying, "There is a big assed airplane back here!" by the time the JA talker his gotten halfway through that sentence we were breathing the exhaust fumes as they blew over us.
Bless your heart
B52 has always been jet powered. Was never a prop plane😂
Ahhh the good ole days of the Cold War ! 🇺🇲
I love it
You forgot to say that it's the only plane in the world that it can be tracked by a submarine beacause of the sound that the engines make
You did not forget to show your parrot skill. 🙄
This is same kind of argument like when your side claimed how T34 was bad because it had ugly welds.
Sure, kiddo. Sure.
Heard them a couple of times during arctic deployments. Very distinctive sound.
This is because the plane is the fastest propeller plane ever, so the noise is inevitable.
Whats the opposite of a stealth bomber?
"Em-kay".... no. Mk is pronounced "mark".
He needs to really redo this video, so many mistakes
You are definitely letting down your series of late with much inaccurate information.
He just cares about that adsense money i guess
Tupolev Tu-95
Maximum speed, 925 km/h
Cruising speed: 710 km/h
Autonomy 15,000 km
Boeing B-52 Stratofortress
Speed of 1,047 km/h
Cruising speed is 844 km/h
Range 14,162 km
This guy just literally babbles nonsense in a conspiracy tone of voice. He does it very often.
One correction on the B-52 with the exception of a very early prototype. No B-52 ever entered service with turboprop engines.
I wonder how many of these bombers are defunct after having been secretly stripped of their parts to make money.
Oh God, another genius.
@@OleDiaBole Just saying, every facet of the Russian military is suspect at this point.
This series continues to make factual errors that a lot of viewers pick up - problem is how many things that are wrong do ‘we’ not pick up? The entirety of these videos is consequently factually questionable.
Big drawback is it's so loud that British submariners can pick up from miles away (allegedly)
That (alegedly) part says volumes about your knowledge. How does submarine determin altitude and direction of aircraft and its sound that passed water/air boundary... And all that with equipement not designed for that at all.
@@OleDiaBoleit would be passive sonar.
I was in Russia a few years ago and a TU95 flew overhead it was incredibly loud all the car alarms in the area started going off. Not surprising since the prop tips are supersonic in flight
I always understood that the Tu95 is one of the loudest turboprop ever produced possibly because of the propeller tips reaching supersonic or around it
Oh yeah, they’re loud as hell. Saw one take off at an air show in Ukraine many years ago. It was louder than the jets taking off. Really different and awesome experience! It really was a fantastic experience, that I’ll never forget! It isn’t supposed to be a stealth bomber.
I believe the Tu-95 is still the fastest propeller driven aircraft to have flown as some have reach 600 mph. The aircraft is very debilitating on its crew to operate, as on take-off and climb the propeller tips go supersonic, and without good sound insulation the constant sonic boom or howl often affects the crews efficient operation.
@idiot-cd6pl Tu-95 and Tu-142 crews arent often influenced by prop noise. They are influenced by it EVERY flight. Their crews are deaf as 90 year old greatgrandfathers in their early 30s. Goddammit thing needs double ear protection for every crew member, but cant be done as someone might ask something on intercom. And at some level nothing can save your hearing as noise goes through bones in ear, not through ear canal itself. Norwegian F16 pilots could hear the noise what Bear makes inside their cockpits while intercepting them above Barents sea.😮
Xf84 thunderscreech
Hmm turboprop powered B 52 must have missed that one. Probably meant the B 36 although that was piston powered.
Nope, the A.B and C models were all turboprop
@@georgebarnes8163they we're not.
@@paulh4943 you are not what?
@@georgebarnes8163 autocorrect. They were not*. B52's have never been turboprops
Another from the "How to sound convincing but get most of the facts wrong" video series.
The Tu-95 is noted as one of the LOUDEST MACHINES of ANY Type ever made. The propellers break the speed of sound at cruise speed, and leave MASSIVE sonic waves.... making it EASILY trackable by SOSUS (Sonar under the ocean designed to track submarines, but easily hears the Bear from several HUNDRED miles away!). It would make a totally USELESS anti-submarine aircraft, since the Sub could HEAR IT from hundreds of miles away - giving it LOTS of time to descend or hide before the Bear could get close enough to have a CHANCE at finding the sub.
I personally know several RCAF CF-18 pilots who complained about intercept missions against them because they can't hear their own jets (that they are SITTING IN!) over the the noise the Tu-95 makes! They don't need Radar to find them - they just follow the NOISE!
The Republic XF-84H Thunderscreech: Hold my beer.
The Bear has hardly ever been "destructive" at all. It's combat role is almost nil.
What’s interesting is the propulsion system, in cruise, the props go into fairly coarse pitch, with rpm in the region of 850 rpm, so the tips are mostly subsonic, lessening drag. Think the NK-12 is still the most powerful turboprop ever built.
The engines were designed by captured NAZI German scientists I believe.
Nothing ugly about this plane IMO. Pure badassery any pilot would jump at if they had the chance.
Agreed,Tu-114 documentary on the Mustard channel is awesome
And the ear defenders
@@tonydowell9352 thanks
...what a load of bullxxxx...Any western plane would get it out of the sky in no time................................🤣
Not really a fan, and I haven’t even watched the entire video yet. There are certainly aircraft more destructive than the Tupolev 95. I hate it when this channel uses clickbait titles on their videos, which is always.
I believe the intent was to showcase that the Tu-95 has dropped the Tsar bomba - which was the most destructive man-made explosion in history.
Ok. Who made the decision to have background music like this??? It’s so annoying. Click off.
You really gotta stop it with the hard rock background music, so distracting.
This channel is falling apart. Just uploading a mass amount of content that is full of errors and sounds like it was written by ChatGPT.
Anytime channels go to quantity vs quality they suffer.
I believe the early B-52's were powered by 8x rocket engines that were stolen from the Nigerian Airforce during the Second World War by a crack Eskimo commando unit.
But seriously, the Tu-95 is a pretty awesome aircraft, even if all it does is troll around getting intercepted by various countries fighter jets.
Please stop with the tedious heavy metal music on these videos. It's very distracting and unnecessary.
I father told me a story of the 90 mil. cannon he was on in Maryland shooting a wall of flack with their battery to stop a Bear from crossing too far into our airspace. He served in the 1950's.
The music is very distracting.
The video has many mistakes
how many more times are you going to change the title and thumbnail on this video? This is at least the third revision I saw 🤡
LOL SORRY THE TITLE IS JUST FUNNY ! B-52 came out at the same time and was so so much better !
Was there a civilian version of this aircraft that was also used as presidential transport?
Tu-116
Tu-116 used the basic fuselage of Tu-95, with passenger accommodation (
@@proteusnz99True, though for its early (pre-747) operation the Tu-114 was the largest passemger aircraft flying, quite a lot larger than the 707/DC-8/Comet 4/VC-10/Il-62.
Russia bring pickles to war
And retreats with toilets!!
Dud you are starting to make more and more mistakes. Maybe you have to many channels and can not do enough research and review before posting
Stopped watching after 3 mins. B52 with turboprops??? Im out
In the initial design phase, a six prop was considered.
I read somewhere that it was as noisy that even the sonar of the submarines could detect it XD
Tu95, been doing everything the B-52 can do, longer, at 1/4 the price.
Ah, excuse me. The Boeing B-52 WAS NOT turboprop powered. It was 100% turbojet powered. Neither was the Bristol Brabazon which was powered by Bristol Centaurus radial engines. Sloppy scholarship, people. Very sloppy!
Ummm the B52 is certainly NOT powered by turbo props? What the heck? Do you not preview your videos and fact check them before you post? Extremely disappointing....😮🤦
Get your facts straight. OBVIOUS to anyone is the fact that none of the planes you said used turboprops actually used them. A turboprop B-52? LOL
2 m45secs facts, facts, facts need to be actually accurate.
Seemed like any Engineering aeronautical brilliance was German, lol!
I stopped watching when the B52 was identified as a turboprop. Anything else cannot be trusted.
Thoroughly unimpressed!!
😂😅😂 Buthurt American by any chance? Ya know what, sometimes you have to realise you're not as fantastic as you believe you are. Sometimes it's OK if your military hardware isn't the best in every single area. Sometimes it's best to be humble as arrogance comes before a fall. I bet you're not impressed with a single piece of Russian hardware & believe just because something costs so much money. It doesn't mean it's the best. I'm from a NATO country, but I have the sense to research many different opinions from many different points of view. I know the worst thing any military can do is underestimate it's enemy. My country has got a list as long as your arm, in the militaries it's defeated by itself. You can't name 1 single military you've defeated by yourself. Your arrogance is misplaced & comes from Hollywood & propaganda & not reality.
@@DavyRo We've actually fought in wars the last 20 years we ARE the best FACT win or lose the death ratio is unheard of russias the ultimate paper tiger I'm delighted a tiny country like Ukraine pulled your pants down!!!
@@DavyRo And yes russian hardware is 2nd rate!!
There are so many mistakes in this episode that you need to go back and start over. Plus get rid of the bad loud music. Goodness what is the world coming to.
Hly crap, plz drop the music for your next vids.
With propellers it probably gives a big radar echo, long time before you hear it.
excellent narration, but written by an 8 year old with little regard for facts
The Tsar Bomba was actually de-rated to it’s 57Mt yield, the basic design was good for 100Mt, but that was felt to be non-survivable for the delivery aircraft. The rest of the world didn’t hold its breath, no one outside those involved in the operation until the bang. Then everyone knew, the shockwave when round the world twice, and products were air-sampled over the next few months. A Singularly useless weapon, as even the Tu-95 has a very limited range/performance carrying the thing, as someone termed it “good for bombing the boundaries of its own airfield.”, but then the “Biggest” of anything seems to fascinate Russians (and Texans?)
Basically they replaced the third fission stage with a lead dummy. As designed it was a fission -> fusion -> fission device, the neutrons from the second hydrogen stage were used to create fast fission in a third uranium stage. This was of plain uranium metal, it didn't need to be enriched uranium because the massive amount of neutrons from the second stage would almost completely fission it and generate as much energy as the first and second stages combined.
Waste of time. Dimensions and speeds in a Foreign language.
Mach.80 for a prop a/c is bloody amazing!
I just watched this video... In the 1980's we use to laugh at this thing when it flew over the flight deck of the USS Nimitz with it's bombay doors open and twp F-14's "escorting" it away from the ship... Not sure I would laugh at it anymore, would hate to be on the recieving end on any of it's ordinance.
It's ugly but kinda grows on you
Today Western engine manufacturers are testing unshrouded high bypass turbofans when Russia has been doing it all of this time.
Maybe. But we get it right.
Russia doesn't.
Good lord, they were able to drop the Tsar Bomba from an aircraft....!
Yeah, the US was phwcked. It's lucky for all of humanity the neocon Republican warhawks were not successful for cranking up the war with the Soviets they were irrationally jonesing for.
personally, I thought this vid would focus more on the bomb than the plane
I was thinking that too. But there are some good videos on the bomb. Apparently they scaled it down from the original intended capacity.
My grandpa was working on the NK-12 project. This engine was based on the german Jumo 022 engine. To be exact it's further development
Amazing plane. And it is definitely not ugly. Also, regardless of its age, it appears to be quite capable still
2:32 the commentator said the B-52 was using turboprops. Yet you can plainly see in the picture that it was equipped with pure jet engines. The B52 was never operated with turboprop engines. Jet only
Incorrect, the first 3 variants of the aircraft all used 6 and 4 turboprop engines, the following 3 variants all used jet engines.
@@georgebarnes8163 My understanding is that those were concepts that were obsoleted before they flew. The final prototype was pure jet. This was not made clear in the video. The way it is worded in the video implies the B-52 in service was a turboprop. Then while saying that the jet version that went into production is what is shown.
Some early prototypes may have been made with turboprops and may even have flown but they are not what entered production. It was common then when aircraft tech was moving so fast for prototypes get scrapped and totally worked over before they could even fly.
Not the case at all, they were produced and did enter service with a total of three A models being produced, fifty B models and thirty five C models@@dmfraser1444
@@georgebarnes8163 Wikipedia says, "The first two prototypes, XB-52 and YB-52, were both powered by experimental Pratt & Whitney YJ57-P-3 turbojet engines with 8,700 pounds-force (39 kN) of static thrust each." and "The B-52A models were equipped with Pratt & Whitney J57-P-1W turbojets," and "B-52B, C, D and E models were equipped with Pratt & Whitney J57-P-29W, J57-P-29WA, or J57-P-19W series engines"
Maybe you are thinking of the B-36, with six piston engines in pusher configuration and four jet engines. The most enduring legacy of the B-36 was that one accidentally dropped a hydrogen bomb near Kirtland AFB in Albuquerque, in 1957 when the bomb mount broke. The bomb was not live, but it was still mighty heavy.
What song is playing in the background?
When Nikita Khrushcev was in power in the Soviet Union he used a Bear for his transport to the UN in New York. But it took a long time for him to get out the aircraft. The TU=95's landing gear was so long no bording stairs were tall enough to reach the door.
The fuselage even with the inboard engine propeller blades is armor plate. Otherwise ice that froms on the propeller blades would be thrown through the sides of the plane.
It was Tu 114. Passenger version.
@@leonidshapiro3066Actually, no, that was later. The initial Tu-95 variant providing somewhat rudimentary VIP transport was the Tu-116(sic) and shared the same fuselage as the Tu-95, just with internal modifications. Entry and exit was through a rear-facing door, of which Kruschev is said to have disapproved as it looked like he was exiting the plane's ass. The Tu-114 was used when completed. One of the Tu-116 conversions is on display at Ulyanov Central Airport, though some guidebooks incorrectly say Monino, which does display other variants.
The tu 116 at that time was so unreliable that the Russian navy strategically placed ships across the Atlantic for Kruschev's US visit,in case the aircraft was forced to ditch.Part of it's structural unreliability stemmed from Kruschev insisting that they pressurise the upper fuselage rather than just the former bomb bay area as he told the engineers that when he went to meet the US president he was damned if he was going to set foot on US soil if he had to crawl Out the arse of the aeroplane.
14:10 There is no turn of the tides.
Maybe this has been covered but how does he crank out these videos so quickly? Quality beats quantity and it feels like these are being cranked out by chat gpt
You will find many are literally a narration of wikipedia articles and random video clips that aren’t even showing the aircraft described. I’m unsubscribing after this one.
@@xxmrrickxxyep I’m out
My grandfather was an officer in USSR strategic rocket forces. My mom grew up near Engels airbase. We’re Ukrainian. Now these same bases are used to bomb my mom and her relatives. Including with the very Kh-missiles and Tu95s that Ukraine transferred to Russia under the US-brokered disarmament treaties of the 90’s.
During the Cold War, there were so many "Bears" flying around the area north of Midway Island in the Pacific that the US Navy called it "Yellowstone Park".
I just watched this video... In the 1980's we use to laugh at this thing when it flew over the flight deck of the USS Nimitz with it's bombay doors open and twp F-14's "escorting" it away from the ship... Not sure I would laugh at it anymore, would hate to be on the recieving end on any of it's ordinance.
I just watched this video... In the 1980's we use to laugh at this thing when it flew over the flight deck of the USS Nimitz with it's bombay doors open and twp F-14's "escorting" it away from the ship... Not sure I would laugh at it anymore, would hate to be on the recieving end on any of it's ordinance.
Marking the turn in the tides, wtf. 😂😂 This channel is becoming more and more, as time progresses, a NATO propaganda outlet. It's a shame, it used to be without propaganda.🤑
Why so much power? Avionics? Less-efficient on-board systems? Transporter-room requirements?
This video must be intended for the European markets. It's, in metric, and the United States does not use the metric system! Other than that, the TU95 is more Obsolete than the equally obsolete Boeing B-52 ! The day of a manned bomer is ridiculous!
Screw trying 2 use km. I'm willing to bet it's prodominantly US & UK?!. We both use mph
Great vid otherwise.
Maybe dial back the mixing on the background music. It's hard to pick out the voice at points through the vid.
Sorry me friend. I have been subscribed to your channels for a few years hoping the accuracy of both the narration and video relevance would improve. After this video I have to unsubscribe from all the "Dark" channels.
What's the difference between a piston engine aircraft and turbo-pop aircraft? I've never understood cause aren't they both just propeller drive?
Heard the prop noise on sonar back in the day but I haven't seen a B-52 of any model with props. Your research needs re-worked on this episode otherwise appreciate what you do.
I’ve lost my patience on these ridiculous thumbnails… there’s only one subject in the photo, why ruin it with a red circle and arrow? Quality has been consistently going downhill, sad to say you lost a subscriber
The B-52??? Bristol Brabazon??? Neither of them ran turboprop engines.
Its Russia's B52 Built right the first time, hard to improve on, adapts to future weapons.
it would be nice if you did a conversion to non metric, i don't remember the numbers enough to do it myself. i hear spead bla bla bla, altitude bla bla bla, range bla bla bla, payload bla bla bla
The t95s turbo props sound reminds me of what the old c5 galaxies engines sounded like.
Do they pay taxes in Russia? I know we spend a lot of tax $ here on fuel alone for military drills.
Most Russians live in abject poverty, so I doubt it. Not sure about the larger towns and cities that tend to be where all the money and education is.
@TalkieToaster. probably why they have so many defectors. No benefit to signing up, just forced into it.
@@Black_0pCar0lina At first people from the really poor areas jumped at the chance to enlist as they were being offered what to them was a years salary for a few months on the front, but that obviously never happened and they weren't allowed to go home. It's pretty tragic really, they only took a small percentage of conscripts from places like Moscow, St Petersburg etc, they were mostly all from the slums and prisons.
Extremely radar reflective. Extremely noisy to the point it can be heard from great distances.
Just a slow noisy moving target
It literally is the fastest turboprop aircraft ever built.
God damn, I know this channel messes up on info every now and then but the B-52 was an easy given
The Tu-95 ties with the An-12 as the world's noisiest airplane still flying.
*An-22. The An-12 is much smaller
Several facts wrong, and the ridiculous music did nothing to help.
Bro can you put the units into knots , ft per minute etc. sitting here talking about meters per second wth
Russia needs less ww2 era aircraft in its modern fleet, things have changed.
nothing russian is world class beautiful or most destructive
Not true.
Great video. But there has been no turning of the tides in Ukraine.
Neither the B52, nor any other American strategic bomber used turboprop engines. The Hercules cargo airplane, however, does.
And the Lockheed Electra derived P3 Orion, allthough that one is now being fazed out in favour of the Boeing 737-800 derived P8 Poseidon.
the first 3 variants of the B-52 all used turboprop engines , the following 3 variants all used jet engines,
@@georgebarnes8163 I dunno. Wikipedia says, "The B-52A models were equipped with Pratt & Whitney J57-P-1W turbojets," "B-52B, C, D and E models were equipped with Pratt & Whitney J57-P-29W, J57-P-29WA, or J57-P-19W series engines" and the National Air and Space Museum says "In April 1952, the prototype Boeing B-52 flew for the first time powered by eight J57 turbojet engines."
look further back than the A variants@@flagmichael
The Bristol Brittania was a Vickers Viscount... 😉
The bear is the only swept wing plane built with propeller engines
Awesome lconic gathering of the worlds best !
Well, I think it looks cool!
Since when was a B52 a turboprop and I'd hardly call the SR Princess iconic! Only one ever flew!
4:56... Is that a lightning?