Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

TU-95MS – Soviet Bomber

cgi.ebay.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 121 posts

Re: TU-95MS – Soviet Bomber

#51

Post by twoodfin »

trhway wrote: post #14
jackhammons wrote: post #11

"Our partner in the Ukraine have acquired an aircraft of type the TU-95" Hopefully the auction ends before it's repossessed by its "original owners" who are closing in fast....

there is a reason why US and the others were rushing for Ukraine to give up its nuclear weapons 20 years ago :) See Lord of War too. Interesting how recent developments continue to show the difference between how countries are treated when they have nuclear weapons vs. when they don't have, like North Korea vs. Iraq. Looking at Ukraine i wonder what Iran think :)

To be fair, there are many reasons why North Korea was left alone while Iraq was considered "safer" to invade. Seoul being with range of massive amounts of North Korean artillery is one. The concern of both China and South Korea about the potential for floods of refugees is another.

Re: TU-95MS – Soviet Bomber

#53

Post by new_test »

aroch wrote: post #44
ljoshua wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That actually used to be the proper way to refer to the country in English, but has since fallen out of common parlance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine#cite_note-merriam-webst...

At some point, it was decided that 'The Ukraine' referred to the Soviet state and 'Ukraine' to the free country.

So, probably switching back to "The Ukraine" soon then ;)

Re: TU-95MS – Soviet Bomber

#54

Post by happyscrappy »

Flammy wrote: post #50
etjossem wrote: post #22

I love the restrictions in Shipping and Handling: "Ships worldwide. Excludes: Africa, Central America and Caribbean, Oceania, Southeast Asia, South America, Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan Republic, Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, Georgia, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Maldives, Mongolia, Nepal, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Oman, Yemen, Ber…

I scanned the list to see if North Korea was on there... its not. Great deal for aspiring dictators and human rights violators!

Like the previous owners.

Re: TU-95MS – Soviet Bomber

#55

Post by coin »

ars wrote: post #45
nickmccann wrote: post #36

"The plane was manufactured in 1987 and has been flown 454 hours and 24 Minutes of the estimated 5000 hours it is capable off." Anyone know why there is a 5000 hour limit?

The aluminum skin and wings fatigue. It's more a certain number of takeoff and landings rather than flight time. After that the metal is too weak and unsafe. Each time the cabin pressure changes the skin moves. Each time it takes off or lands the wings flex. They probably flex during flight as well. First link I found: http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/04/aircraft_fati...

That still doesn't explain the low total time limit. 5000 hours is low compared to the typical 50000+ hours that modern jets are rated for.

Re: TU-95MS – Soviet Bomber

#57

Post by TylerE »

United857 wrote: post #26

"The airplane is not ready to fly. It is necessary to make a technical service and prolongation of the data limit." Guessing something got lost in translation. In any case. as aircraft maintenance isn't my area, any idea how viable/costly it is to get airworthy? Could you even get spare parts anymore?

Spare parts are probably attainable (there's a reason retired aircraft are mothballed rather than scrapped), and the major companies that the built the engines, etc, are still around.

Out of 500 or built ~60 are still in service. Getting parts as a civilian operator might be touchy though. It's probably being sold more as a museum piece.

In terms of doing a restoration Russian stuff is usually pretty viable since mechnically they're fairly straightfoward and rugged, and not much in the way of computers or microelectronics of any kind. Even with all that said, it would probably be a $10M+ (quite possibly +++) to get it airworthy again, and even if you did it would be very expensive. Fuel burn on those things is about 2000 gph, and Jet-A is currently ~$6/gal, so you're looking at $12k/hr just in fuel expenses. Maintenance will probably at least double that hourly figure.

Re: TU-95MS – Soviet Bomber

#60

Post by fredgrott »

sswaner wrote: post #38

454 hours of flight time seems low for a military plane built in the 80's. That is not very many flights from the Soviet Union to off the U.S. coastline.

there is a TU variant with swept wings, var geometry, and jet engines that replaced this plane that most Russian republics use
Post reply on HN