[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/n/ - Transportation



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: TU-154M.jpg (229 KB, 1024x719)
229 KB
229 KB JPG
So how good is it?
>>
>>1155096
blyat/10
>>
It looks good at least.
>>
>>1155096
for its time? pretty good
now? time to retire
>>
File: macierewicz.jpg (72 KB, 800x499)
72 KB
72 KB JPG
>>1155096
>>
I think I was once on the TU-154 on a flight from Moscow to Astrakhan. It was Aeroflot though, and it didn't exactly fill me with confidence, at least not compared to Airbus or Boeing single aisle aircraft

This was in 2006, and I think most airlines in Russia and the former USSR have dropped the older Tupolev, Yakolev and Ilyushin aircraft. Il-96s are still a thing though, and the likes of the modern Sukhoi S100, modern Antonov and the upcoming MC-21 might make Russian aviation a rather uique affair again.

Interesting to see what the Ilyushin and Comac collaboration on the C929 will come to. C919 looks interesting as a total Airbus A320 copy.
>>
>>1155212
The C919 isn't even a good competitions to the 737NG and A320ceo, let alone the MAX or Neo. And I seriously doubt the C929 will be a legit comptetitor to the A330neo, A350, or 787.
>>
>>1155096
>ywn fly over Siberia at 600 mph in a Russki three-holer

hold me ;_;
>>
>>1155201
I'm mostly studying the Tu-154m to use as a comparison between T-Tail Trijets and the standard fleet of twin engine aircraft in service when it comes to durability/maneuverability.

I'm curious to see what a beefed up version of this plane would function like with all the latest technology (or a millitary version like Air Force one with armor and countermeasures).

The frame had stood the test of time but the equipment from what I hear not so much, the plane like the Il-62 and the Boeing 707 seems rather noisy, and has visible smoke trails from the engines. However I do hear that it can function as a high performance jet in the hands of the right pilots.
>>
>>1155204
>be Tu-204-100 making an emergency landing in forest
>cut through hektares of spruce and pine trees during landing
>no damage

>be a Tu-154m government plane part of the millitary trying to make a landing in fog
>fuck up and start hitting the top of puny birch trees at landing speed
>cuts through the wing all the way causing it to sheer off
>plane instantly stalls and crashes on its back breaking into thousands of pieces on impact

>Tu-204 vs A few hundred trees 1:0
>A320 vs A few dozen trees 1:0
>"""plane""" vs WTC 1:0
>Tu-154M vs Birch tree 0:1

These planes are fucking weird....
>>
slavshit/10
>>
>>1155382
Air France Flight 296 was quite an interesting event, though it seems like the A320 survived a lot of the damage caused, particularly from ingesting trees in the engines and having the fuselage survive (though it was a hull loss, and the airframe failed). But that's what you get for flying at 30 feet, at idle thrust at maximum AoA.
>>
>>1155382
Regardless of any interference from the Russians, who the fuck flies a non-precision approach in IMC with the fucking president on board?
>>
>>1155466
>>1155382
It was a bomb.
>>
>>1155466
My guess was that there were pressures on the crew to land ASAP and not to divert. Why they used non-precision approach was probably because of the airport not having ILS or military equivalents? (I'm not sure on that one).

Probably the main reason behind not diverting was that the crew were being put under pressure and were interrupted during briefings/checklisting.

CFITs are always hard to understand, but they keep happening for these weird reasons.
>>
>>1155466
Europe seems way behind the US in terms of adopting precision IAPs. I've been to plenty of fields across Europe that still rely on VOR/DME and NDB approaches.
>>
>>1155474
How does a bomb make a plane do a non-precision approach with a presidential plane instead of doing the sensible thing and diverting somewhere with an ILS or visual metereological condtions?

>>1155475
Yes, clear case of get-there-itis. But you'd expect better judgement from military pilots. It seems very reckless to me to do a non-precision approach in an airliner with the president, chiefs of staff, and a bunch of other dignitaries on board.

How common is it for commercial airlines to fly non-precision approaches as part of normal operations?
>>
>>1155466
The air traffic controllers were giving misleading information to the pilots, which is why they ended up 1 km shorter than they should have been on a correct trajectory.
>>1155474
This seems like the most likely cause for the aircraft breaking up in the air before it hit anything as it tried to abort the approach.
>>1155475
>>1155482
https://youtu.be/AVOGHa-l5Gs
https://youtu.be/kAMyBI_x2Xs
A lot of substantial evidence and interesting theories is presented in these videos, albeit in Polish. If I'll have the time I will translate them for English viewers. What you can take look at however is the crash animation and all its affected components.
>>
>>1155385
>>1155184
>How do I meme this
>>
>>1155504
>The air traffic controllers were giving misleading information to the pilots, which is why they ended up 1 km shorter than they should have been on a correct trajectory.
Misleading how? Did the controller give them an ILS clearance despite there being no ILS? No excuse, just look at the damn plate, or the fact that your needles aren't even moving. Did the controllers tell them they were supposed to be in VMC? Again, no excuse, just look out the fucking window.

If there was a bomb it should have blown up on the ramp at Warsaw Chopin before even leaving the ground. Because it was clearly not flying weather that day.
>>
>>1155478
I don't think so. Instrument Guidance System (IGS) or LDA (Localizer Type Directional Aids) in the US only allow for non-straight approaches. Kai Tak Airport in Hong Kong used to use IGS due to mountains blocking the way for a standard straight approach. Chep Lap Kok replaced it and it no longer needed IGS.

I have yet to come across an airport which accepts ICAO Category D or above aircraft and doesn't have at least Cat I ILS.

Smaller airports with only VOR/DME would often be only large enough for general aviation, or Category B or C aircraft. Major European airports have adopted ILS and other precision approaches as standard, and part of that is due to how commonplace Autoland is.

>>1155482
Non-precision approaches are very uncommon in commercial aviation. ICAO Category D and E aircraft never use airports which don't have at least Cat I ILS (unless it's an emergency). Category C aircraft (such as the Airbus A320 and Boeing B737) do go to VOR/DME equiped airports from time to time, though this is usually if the airport has its own limitations (being remote, being barely used, or being a former military airbase which doesn't have ILS but had a military equivalent).

Some airports in Asia or Aerodromes in some parts of the word have no approach systems and will require an approach under VFR.
>>
>>1155536
>If there was a bomb it should have blown up on the ramp at Warsaw Chopin before even leaving the ground.
Literally why would anyone conspiring to do a politically motivated assassination do that? That would be handing out the evidence to the Poles on a silver platter.

May I remind you there was no pre flight inspection of the planes condition, nor was any of the standard security compliments present at the time of the president boarding the craft. A few months before that the plane was freely given away to the Russians for renovations/maintenance for a decent amount of time, when it returned to Poland there was no inspection of the aircraft whatsoever to assess if it is infact safe to fly.

It made the most sense to set the plan in motion at Smolensk since all the dots have aligned to pull it off. Given that it was in Russian territory they were free to do whatever they wanted with the plane wreckage. They were already destroying the evidence days after the crash, and before that the possibility of them shooting ground survivors (as seen in that fateful video) is also likely, since under normal circumstances there would have been survivors if the plane has crashed as we were led to believe. It's not like the plane was traveling fast either, people have survived far worse, like United Airlines Flight 232 for instance which had a comparable crash sequence.
>>
>>1155096
>*THUNDERING NOISES*




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.