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

91–100 of 121 posts

Re: TU-95MS – Soviet Bomber

#91

Post by dragonwriter »

fredgrott wrote: post #60
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

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

"Most Russian republics"? So, more than half of the 1?

And "Tu" is just an abbreviation for Tupolev, its not a particular plane of which there are variants. Saying a "TU variant" is like saying a Boeing variant.

And there are two different Tupolev strategic bombers that meet that general description (the Tu-22 and Tu-160), neither of which is a variant of the Bear.

Re: TU-95MS – Soviet Bomber

#93

Post by rplacd »

tormeh wrote: post #68
twoodfin wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The most important thing is that China supports NK for ideological reasons. Sure, China would prefer a communist regime that isn't quite as well suited to parody, but it'll take whatever communist regime it gets for propaganda and ideological reasons.

But I'm convinced if at all, only very reluctantly so - certanly not so over an ideology whose championing stands to benefit not those of Deng Xiaoping's orthodoxy but of Maoist irredentism (Hua Guofeng may only be relevant as a historical footnote dominated by currents with consderably more inertia now, but Bo Xilai certainly seemed to have justified a thorough purging. At the very least I'm confident enough to estabish that faction-on-faction maneuvering in the far past has been justified on ideological differences of a similar magnitude - and that we looked at Bo's dramatics for shades of that precedent.)

Re: TU-95MS – Soviet Bomber

#94

Post by Luc »

maaku wrote: post #78
Luc wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was hoping you'd ask! It was luck. I had noticed signs of a civilian airport in the background of one of the pictures. When I looked at Nikolayev on Google Maps (I was wondering how close to Crimea these ports mentioned in the eBay auction are) I noticed the airport and zoomed in.

In other words you found one TU-95 soviet bomber out of the 500+ built. And you know it is the same plane... why?

The background, the patterns of the tiles on the ground, the buildings all match. The pictures were taken in that location.

Re: TU-95MS – Soviet Bomber

#95

Post by ballard »

TylerE wrote: post #57
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 mec…

I can vouch for this. A friend has a mig that's going to a museum, and they're gonna restore it to museum cond.

FYI never tell or show anyone you own a jet in storage or it will be likely robbed of flight / nav gear. High security storage is a must.

Re: TU-95MS – Soviet Bomber

#96

Post by ballard »

chiph wrote: post #42
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 maintenance service costs at that number of flight hours probably exceeds it's economic value.

Yup. It's purely badass value.

Re: TU-95MS – Soviet Bomber

#97

Post by ballard »

dragonwriter wrote: post #90
sitkack wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US manufactured that image for its own purposes.

The Soviet Union manufactured that image for deterrence/intimidation/diverting-of-US-energy purposes. The US military-industrial complex amplified it for pocket-lining purposes.

Separating movie portrayals and actual mindset...

Wouldn't the MIC over-emphasize Russian reliability whereas the rank-and-file tend to underestimate it?

Further, wouldn't RU do more or less the same, substituting design bureaus?

Re: TU-95MS – Soviet Bomber

#99

Post by vl »

masklinn wrote: post #12

Did people raid the Poltava Museum of Long-Range Aviation? According to wikipedia it has the only Tu-95 in Ukraine (as well as a Tu-160, in case you want a supersonic strategic bomber)

Well, there are 3 Tu-95s on the Google Maps link in the top comment.

Re: TU-95MS – Soviet Bomber

#100

Post by ballard »

Evgeniuz wrote: post #62
arethuza wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What were you expecting, one of these? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba

Ukraine does not have any nuclear weapons now.

Definitely not, Russian moves confirm it.

Any idea if the partial reunification will happen?

Post reply on HN