A Russian Tupolev-160 strategic bomber crashed in the Saratov Region
on Thursday, the press service of the Russian Air Force has reported.
"The fate of the four crewmembers is unknown. A search and rescue
operation is underway at the scene. Information about casualties and
damage at the crash site needs to be clarified," an Air Force
spokesman said.

The aircarft was conducting a test flight after one of its engines was
replaced. According to preliminary reports it was carrying no weapons.

The Tu-160 bomber (Blackjack, according to NATO classifications) is
capable of carrying nuclear bombs and missiles. Its maximum flight
weight amounts to 275 tons. //Interfax

foor polites died. they reported fire in the replaced engine.

Michael

"Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
m...
> A Russian Tupolev-160 strategic bomber crashed in the Saratov Region
> on Thursday, the press service of the Russian Air Force has reported.
> "The fate of the four crewmembers is unknown. A search and rescue
> operation is underway at the scene. Information about casualties and
> damage at the crash site needs to be clarified," an Air Force
> spokesman said.
>
> The aircarft was conducting a test flight after one of its engines was
> replaced. According to preliminary reports it was carrying no weapons.
>
> The Tu-160 bomber (Blackjack, according to NATO classifications) is
> capable of carrying nuclear bombs and missiles. Its maximum flight
> weight amounts to 275 tons. //Interfax
>
> foor polites died. they reported fire in the replaced engine.
>
> Michael

In the US we ground test engines after they are replaced. We find it's much
easier to shut down than from 30,000 feet.

"Christians for Cheeseburgers." > wrote:

>>
>> foor polites died. they reported fire in the replaced engine.
>>
>> Michael
>
>In the US we ground test engines after they are replaced. We find it's much
>easier to shut down than from 30,000 feet.
>

Why would you think that they didn't ground run them before the
flight test?...gee....
--

-Gord.

"Christians for Cheeseburgers." > wrote in
message . net
> "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> m...
> > A Russian Tupolev-160 strategic bomber crashed in the Saratov Region
> > on Thursday, the press service of the Russian Air Force has
> > reported. "The fate of the four crewmembers is unknown. A search
> > and rescue operation is underway at the scene. Information about
> > casualties and damage at the crash site needs to be clarified," an
> > Air Force
> > spokesman said.
> >
> > The aircarft was conducting a test flight after one of its engines
> > was replaced. According to preliminary reports it was carrying no
> > weapons.
> >
> > The Tu-160 bomber (Blackjack, according to NATO classifications) is
> > capable of carrying nuclear bombs and missiles. Its maximum flight
> > weight amounts to 275 tons. //Interfax
> >
> > foor polites died. they reported fire in the replaced engine.
> >
> > Michael
>
> In the US we ground test engines after they are replaced. We find
> it's much easier to shut down than from 30,000 feet.

A remarkably tasteless comment.

And that assumes the crash was even related to the engine change. No
guarantee that it was. And even if it was, there's no reason to believe
that they didn't ground test it first. Even in the US, we'd do a
maintenance check flight after major maintenance. Ground test first, but
flying the plane will find things that no ground test ever will.

--�
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> "Christians for Cheeseburgers." > wrote in
> >
> > In the US we ground test engines after they are replaced. We find
> > it's much easier to shut down than from 30,000 feet.
>
> A remarkably tasteless comment.
>
> And that assumes the crash was even related to the engine change. No
> guarantee that it was. And even if it was, there's no reason to believe
> that they didn't ground test it first. Even in the US, we'd do a
> maintenance check flight after major maintenance. Ground test first, but
> flying the plane will find things that no ground test ever will.
>

Indeed. The RAF lost a Nimrod MR, in what sounds like a very similar
situation some six or seven years ago (engine fire on a test flight).
Thankfully on this occasion there were no lives lost or serious injury.

The Tu-160 is perfectly capable of taking off with one engine, it has
much more excess thrust than the B-1. In fact, there's a true story of a
U.S. official (can't remember who, but some big-whig) coming to watch a
Tu-160 take off (shortly after Iron Curtain fell). The crew couldn't start
one of their engines, so they just took off without it on and still gave an
impressive performance. So it must have been something more than just a
simple engine failure (e.g., control failure, catastrophic engine failure,
etc.).

Tony

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> "Christians for Cheeseburgers." > wrote in
> message . net
> > "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > A Russian Tupolev-160 strategic bomber crashed in the Saratov Region
> > > on Thursday, the press service of the Russian Air Force has
> > > reported. "The fate of the four crewmembers is unknown. A search
> > > and rescue operation is underway at the scene. Information about
> > > casualties and damage at the crash site needs to be clarified," an
> > > Air Force
> > > spokesman said.
> > >
> > > The aircarft was conducting a test flight after one of its engines
> > > was replaced. According to preliminary reports it was carrying no
> > > weapons.
> > >
> > > The Tu-160 bomber (Blackjack, according to NATO classifications) is
> > > capable of carrying nuclear bombs and missiles. Its maximum flight
> > > weight amounts to 275 tons. //Interfax
> > >
> > > foor polites died. they reported fire in the replaced engine.
> > >
> > > Michael
> >
> > In the US we ground test engines after they are replaced. We find
> > it's much easier to shut down than from 30,000 feet.
>
> A remarkably tasteless comment.
>
> And that assumes the crash was even related to the engine change. No
> guarantee that it was. And even if it was, there's no reason to believe
> that they didn't ground test it first. Even in the US, we'd do a
> maintenance check flight after major maintenance. Ground test first, but
> flying the plane will find things that no ground test ever will.
>
> --�
> Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
> "If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
> special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)
>
>
>
>

"Tony Volk" > wrote in message
...
> The Tu-160 is perfectly capable of taking off with one engine, it has
> much more excess thrust than the B-1. In fact, there's a true story of a
> U.S. official (can't remember who, but some big-whig) coming to watch a
> Tu-160 take off (shortly after Iron Curtain fell). The crew couldn't
start
> one of their engines, so they just took off without it on and still gave
an
> impressive performance. So it must have been something more than just a
> simple engine failure (e.g., control failure, catastrophic engine failure,
> etc.).

So you really think that a plane that weighs 275000kg at full load can take
off perfectly well with one engine that produces 25000kg of thrust? So why
build it with four engines?

You might want to re-think your position, since its obviously flawed.

You would have to be remarkably unknowledgeable about aviation to
think neither the ground crew nor the flight crew didn't do a thorough
ground runup prior to takeoff. Unfortunately a ground check is no
insurance against problems in the air. I lost two good friends in an
F104B when an eighth stage compressor blade failed at about 20000
during climb out while bringing the aircraft back from major overhaul
at McClellan AFB (MAAMA). They were over Sacramento above an overcast
and decided to try to land rather than eject over the city. The cloud
bottoms were about 8000 AGL. The aircraft, still heavy with fuel,
impacted in the approach end overrun making a hole about three feet
deep. Two posthumous DFCs. There are no guarantees in aviation. Now
four Russian familes have lost their men.
Walt BJ

Ragnar wrote:

> "Tony Volk" > wrote in message
> ...
> > The Tu-160 is perfectly capable of taking off with one engine, it has
> > much more excess thrust than the B-1. In fact, there's a true story of a
> > U.S. official (can't remember who, but some big-whig) coming to watch a
> > Tu-160 take off (shortly after Iron Curtain fell). The crew couldn't
> start
> > one of their engines, so they just took off without it on and still gave
> an
> > impressive performance. So it must have been something more than just a
> > simple engine failure (e.g., control failure, catastrophic engine failure,
> > etc.).
>
> So you really think that a plane that weighs 275000kg at full load can take
> off perfectly well with one engine that produces 25000kg of thrust? So why
> build it with four engines?
>
> You might want to re-think your position, since its obviously flawed.

Condensed from 'Tupolev Tu-160 Blackjack - Russia's Answer to the B-1' by Yefim
Gordon. Volume 9 in the 'Red Star' series...........................

On 12 August 1988 Frank C. Carlucci, then US Secretary of State, visited
Kubinka, near Moscow.

A flying display was staged - including 2 Tu-160's.

When it came for takeoff, a single engine on each of the bombers would not
start.

To save embarassment, the VVS top command authorised a go-ahead for the flights
- so the two bombers took off on THREE engines.

The flights went well - thanks to some excellent airmanship - the fact that only
3 of the four engines were emitting smoke did not escape the US delegation - so
they asked why.

The Russian Long-Range Aviation Commander, Col. Gen. Pyotr S Deynekin answered -
with a straight face - that the Tu-160's engines had several operating modes,
not all of which were characterised by a smoke trail.

Later, when being shown around the flight deck, Carlucci banged his head on a
circuit-breaker panel.

That panel is still know to Long-Range Aviation crews as 'Carluccis' Panel'.

So, while not normal, a Tu-160 certainly can takeoff on only 3 engines -
although obviously, not at max weight.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++
Ken Duffey - Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast
Flankers Website - http://www.flankers.co.uk/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++

"Tony Volk" > wrote in message >...
> The Tu-160 is perfectly capable of taking off with one engine, it has
> much more excess thrust than the B-1. In fact, there's a true story of a
> U.S. official (can't remember who, but some big-whig) coming to watch a
> Tu-160 take off (shortly after Iron Curtain fell). The crew couldn't start
> one of their engines, so they just took off without it on and still gave an
> impressive performance. So it must have been something more than just a
> simple engine failure (e.g., control failure, catastrophic engine failure,
> etc.).
>
> Tony

Exactly there was right wing fuel tank explosion in two minites
after fire started in a right engine #2. Right wing was found
in 3 km from the main part of Tu-160 airframe.

Michael

>
> "Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > "Christians for Cheeseburgers." > wrote in
> > message . net
> > > "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> > > m...
> > > > A Russian Tupolev-160 strategic bomber crashed in the Saratov Region
> > > > on Thursday, the press service of the Russian Air Force has
> > > > reported. "The fate of the four crewmembers is unknown. A search
> > > > and rescue operation is underway at the scene. Information about
> > > > casualties and damage at the crash site needs to be clarified," an
> > > > Air Force
> > > > spokesman said.
> > > >
> > > > The aircarft was conducting a test flight after one of its engines
> > > > was replaced. According to preliminary reports it was carrying no
> > > > weapons.
> > > >
> > > > The Tu-160 bomber (Blackjack, according to NATO classifications) is
> > > > capable of carrying nuclear bombs and missiles. Its maximum flight
> > > > weight amounts to 275 tons. //Interfax
> > > >
> > > > foor polites died. they reported fire in the replaced engine.
> > > >
> > > > Michael
> > >
> > > In the US we ground test engines after they are replaced. We find
> > > it's much easier to shut down than from 30,000 feet.
> >
> > A remarkably tasteless comment.
> >
> > And that assumes the crash was even related to the engine change. No
> > guarantee that it was. And even if it was, there's no reason to believe
> > that they didn't ground test it first. Even in the US, we'd do a
> > maintenance check flight after major maintenance. Ground test first, but
> > flying the plane will find things that no ground test ever will.
> >
> > --�
> > Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
> > "If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
> > special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)
> >
> >
> >
> >

"Ken Duffey" > wrote in message
...
> Ragnar wrote:
>
> > "Tony Volk" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > The Tu-160 is perfectly capable of taking off with one engine, it
has
> > > much more excess thrust than the B-1. In fact, there's a true story
of a
> > > U.S. official (can't remember who, but some big-whig) coming to watch
a
> > > Tu-160 take off (shortly after Iron Curtain fell). The crew couldn't
> > start
> > > one of their engines, so they just took off without it on and still
gave
> > an
> > > impressive performance. So it must have been something more than just
a
> > > simple engine failure (e.g., control failure, catastrophic engine
failure,
> > > etc.).
> >
> > So you really think that a plane that weighs 275000kg at full load can
take
> > off perfectly well with one engine that produces 25000kg of thrust? So
why
> > build it with four engines?
> >
> > You might want to re-think your position, since its obviously flawed.
>
> Condensed from 'Tupolev Tu-160 Blackjack - Russia's Answer to the B-1' by
Yefim
> Gordon. Volume 9 in the 'Red Star' series...........................
>
> On 12 August 1988 Frank C. Carlucci, then US Secretary of State, visited
> Kubinka, near Moscow.
>
> A flying display was staged - including 2 Tu-160's.
>
> When it came for takeoff, a single engine on each of the bombers would not
> start.
>
> To save embarassment, the VVS top command authorised a go-ahead for the
flights
> - so the two bombers took off on THREE engines.
>
> The flights went well - thanks to some excellent airmanship - the fact
that only
> 3 of the four engines were emitting smoke did not escape the US
delegation - so
> they asked why.
>
> The Russian Long-Range Aviation Commander, Col. Gen. Pyotr S Deynekin
answered -
> with a straight face - that the Tu-160's engines had several operating
modes,
> not all of which were characterised by a smoke trail.
>
> Later, when being shown around the flight deck, Carlucci banged his head
on a
> circuit-breaker panel.
>
> That panel is still know to Long-Range Aviation crews as 'Carluccis'
Panel'.
>
> So, while not normal, a Tu-160 certainly can takeoff on only 3 engines -
> although obviously, not at max weight.

Re-read Tony's post. He thinks a Tu-160 operates perfectly well on ONE
engine.

"hlg" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> "Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > "Christians for Cheeseburgers." > wrote in
> > >
> > > In the US we ground test engines after they are replaced. We find
> > > it's much easier to shut down than from 30,000 feet.
> >
> > A remarkably tasteless comment.
> >
> > And that assumes the crash was even related to the engine change. No
> > guarantee that it was. And even if it was, there's no reason to believe
> > that they didn't ground test it first. Even in the US, we'd do a
> > maintenance check flight after major maintenance. Ground test first,
but
> > flying the plane will find things that no ground test ever will.
> >
>
> Indeed. The RAF lost a Nimrod MR, in what sounds like a very similar
> situation some six or seven years ago (engine fire on a test flight).
> Thankfully on this occasion there were no lives lost or serious injury.
>
>

Not an MR, but an R.1. An MR.2 was converted to replace the ditched R.1.

TJ

Tu160 takeoff on one engine? maybe, with a looong runway, cold day,
and minimum fuel. 275000 kg gross, subtract 75000 for payload and
extra fuel, leaves 200000 kg to be pushed by 25000 kg. 8 to 1 thrust
to weight. I remember making mil power takeoffs in the F86D at 4:1 and
about a 5400 foot ground roll. looking at the math we have 200000/9.8
= 20408; 25000/20408 = 1.23 m/sec acceleration on takeoff. The rest is
left to the student as a drill.
Walt BJ

"Tony Volk" > wrote:

> The Tu-160 is perfectly capable of taking off with one engine, it has
>much more excess thrust than the B-1. In fact, there's a true story of a
>U.S. official (can't remember who, but some big-whig) coming to watch a
>Tu-160 take off (shortly after Iron Curtain fell). The crew couldn't start
>one of their engines, so they just took off without it on and still gave an
>impressive performance. So it must have been something more than just a
>simple engine failure (e.g., control failure, catastrophic engine failure,
>etc.).
>
>Tony

I don't think so Tony...the way you wrote this makes me think
that you think the tu-160 has only two engines. It has four son,
and I'd not bet the farm that it can get off the ground on one
engine.
--

-Gord.

" wrote:

> "Tony Volk" > wrote:
>
> > The Tu-160 is perfectly capable of taking off with one engine, it has
> >much more excess thrust than the B-1. In fact, there's a true story of a
> >U.S. official (can't remember who, but some big-whig) coming to watch a
> >Tu-160 take off (shortly after Iron Curtain fell). The crew couldn't start
> >one of their engines, so they just took off without it on and still gave an
> >impressive performance. So it must have been something more than just a
> >simple engine failure (e.g., control failure, catastrophic engine failure,
> >etc.).
> >
> >Tony
>
> I don't think so Tony...the way you wrote this makes me think
> that you think the tu-160 has only two engines. It has four son,
> and I'd not bet the farm that it can get off the ground on one
> engine.
> --
>
> -Gord.

I wonder if Tony meant to say 'The Tu-160 is perfectly capable of taking off
with one engine INOPERATIVE' ???

That is perfectly possible - as I have posted.

Or, as Gord says - maybe he was thinking of a Tu-16 ?? That has TWO engines.

But I don't think even a lightly-loaded Tu-16 could take off on just ONE engine
!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++
Ken Duffey - Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast
Flankers Website - http://www.flankers.co.uk/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++

LOL, it was a typo- I blame it on not posting here for years! The
first sentence should have read "with(out) one engine". The flight was for
Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci, although not at full take-off weight
(rarely fully loaded any how). On a related note, the Tu-160 has taken off
with its wing spoilers accidentally open, so it has excellent climbing
characteristics. My point was that the simple failure (i.e., failure to
deliver power vs. an engine fire or other catastrophic failure) of one of
the four engines would not be likely to seriously impact the take-off
performance of the plane, especially at anything less than maximum take-off
weight. And to make the post complete, my source is "Tupelov Bombers", by
AIRtime publishing, the Tu-160 section written by Piotr Butowski.

Tony

"Ragnar" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Tony Volk" > wrote in message
> ...
> > The Tu-160 is perfectly capable of taking off with one engine, it
has
> > much more excess thrust than the B-1. In fact, there's a true story of
a
> > U.S. official (can't remember who, but some big-whig) coming to watch a
> > Tu-160 take off (shortly after Iron Curtain fell). The crew couldn't
> start
> > one of their engines, so they just took off without it on and still gave
> an
> > impressive performance. So it must have been something more than just a
> > simple engine failure (e.g., control failure, catastrophic engine
failure,
> > etc.).
>
> So you really think that a plane that weighs 275000kg at full load can
take
> off perfectly well with one engine that produces 25000kg of thrust? So
why
> build it with four engines?
>
> You might want to re-think your position, since its obviously flawed.
>
>

Hi Gord

For what it's worth, the TU-160 'Blackjack' is powered by four
Samara/Trud NK-321 turbofans, each generating 55,155 pounds of static
thrust in afterburner. The aircraft's empty weight is 259,900 pounds.
There's no way that a single engine is going to move this aircraft
anywhere except at a high speed taxi. Incidentally, the 'big whig' was
U.S. Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci. He was invited to inspect the
twelfth aircraft built at Kubinka Air Base on the 2nd of August 1988.

By the way, how did the CYSU reunion go Gord?

Cheers...Chris

I can attest an F4E can take off on one engine - one of our alert
birds did it at Bitburg around 1974 or so. Scrambled off Zulu alert,
simultaneous cartridge starts, one engine didn't catch, crew didn't
catch that, about 6000 feet down the runway and still on the ground
the nose gunner wised up and punched off the drops and "single-ugly'
left the ground to return to 'double-ugly' after an air start. Crew
got a Delta Sierra award. Fire trucks got to wash the JP4 off the
runway. That incident caused the cessation of simultaneous cartridge
starts - too bad; they were always kind of neat on hot scrambles.
Nothing like 'Instant go' to get the adrenaline pumping.
Walt BJ

In article >,
says...
> A Russian Tupolev-160 strategic bomber crashed in the Saratov Region
> on Thursday, the press service of the Russian Air Force has reported.
> "The fate of the four crewmembers is unknown. A search and rescue
> operation is underway at the scene. Information about casualties and
> damage at the crash site needs to be clarified," an Air Force
> spokesman said.
>
> The aircarft was conducting a test flight after one of its engines was
> replaced. According to preliminary reports it was carrying no weapons.
>
> The Tu-160 bomber (Blackjack, according to NATO classifications) is
> capable of carrying nuclear bombs and missiles. Its maximum flight
> weight amounts to 275 tons. //Interfax
>
> foor polites died. they reported fire in the replaced engine.
>

To absent comrades..



--
0763rd Messkit & Gameboy Repair Company
404th Area Support Group (Lemming)

"hlg" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> "Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > "Christians for Cheeseburgers." > wrote in
> > >
> > > In the US we ground test engines after they are replaced. We find
> > > it's much easier to shut down than from 30,000 feet.
> >
> > A remarkably tasteless comment.
> >
> > And that assumes the crash was even related to the engine change. No
> > guarantee that it was. And even if it was, there's no reason to believe
> > that they didn't ground test it first. Even in the US, we'd do a
> > maintenance check flight after major maintenance. Ground test first,
but
> > flying the plane will find things that no ground test ever will.
> >
>
> Indeed. The RAF lost a Nimrod MR, in what sounds like a very similar
> situation some six or seven years ago (engine fire on a test flight).
> Thankfully on this occasion there were no lives lost or serious injury.
>
>

It's amazing how Russian aircraft always end up looking like previously
designed US aircraft. The 160 bears a striking resemblance to the US B-1
bomber. Like the space shuttle and Buran, there is a long list of Russian
aircraft that look amazingly similar to US aircraft. I guess the Russians
just never come up with any original ideas.

Anyway, the Russians are well known for sloppy engine testing. On the N-1
rocket, they only tested every fourth engine. Incidentally and perhaps
coincidentally, there were never any successful N-1 flights. They did make
outstanding fireworks displays though.

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 13:23:36 GMT, Christians for Cheeseburgers. wrote:

> It's amazing how Russian aircraft always end up looking like previously
> designed US aircraft. The 160 bears a striking resemblance to the US B-1
> bomber. Like the space shuttle and Buran, there is a long list of Russian
> aircraft that look amazingly similar to US aircraft. I guess the Russians
> just never come up with any original ideas.

"Form follows function."

-Jeff B. (and doesn't the F-15 look like a MiG-25?)
yeff at erols dot com

>-Jeff B. (and doesn't the F-15 look like a MiG-25?

Which looks like an A-5


Ron
Tucson AZ
C-421 air ambulance

"Christians for Cheeseburgers." > wrote in
. net:

> "hlg" > wrote in message
> s.com...
>>
>> "Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>> > "Christians for Cheeseburgers." > wrote in
>> > >
>> > > In the US we ground test engines after they are replaced. We find
>> > > it's much easier to shut down than from 30,000 feet.
>> >
>> > A remarkably tasteless comment.
>> >
>> > And that assumes the crash was even related to the engine change.
>> > No guarantee that it was. And even if it was, there's no reason to
>> > believe that they didn't ground test it first. Even in the US,
>> > we'd do a maintenance check flight after major maintenance. Ground
>> > test first,
> but
>> > flying the plane will find things that no ground test ever will.
>> >
>>
>> Indeed. The RAF lost a Nimrod MR, in what sounds like a very similar
>> situation some six or seven years ago (engine fire on a test flight).
>> Thankfully on this occasion there were no lives lost or serious
>> injury.
>>
>>
>
> It's amazing how Russian aircraft always end up looking like
> previously designed US aircraft. The 160 bears a striking resemblance
> to the US B-1 bomber. Like the space shuttle and Buran, there is a
> long list of Russian aircraft that look amazingly similar to US
> aircraft. I guess the Russians just never come up with any original
> ideas.
>
> Anyway, the Russians are well known for sloppy engine testing. On the
> N-1 rocket, they only tested every fourth engine. Incidentally and
> perhaps coincidentally, there were never any successful N-1 flights.
> They did make outstanding fireworks displays though.
>
>
>
Hey, what's your nickname slick? 'Marblehead?'
Care to tell me who had the most spectacular fireworks display during
the infancy of the space program? Care to tell me who carried the
'heavy' launch burden of the U.S. after the loss of the Challenger?
Pull your head out of your ass. On second thought, leave it in.

"Chuck Johnson" > wrote in message
. 165.241...
> "Christians for Cheeseburgers." > wrote in
> . net:
>
> > "hlg" > wrote in message
> > s.com...
> >>
> >> "Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
> >> ink.net...
> >> > "Christians for Cheeseburgers." > wrote in
> >> > >
> >> > > In the US we ground test engines after they are replaced. We find
> >> > > it's much easier to shut down than from 30,000 feet.
> >> >
> >> > A remarkably tasteless comment.
> >> >
> >> > And that assumes the crash was even related to the engine change.
> >> > No guarantee that it was. And even if it was, there's no reason to
> >> > believe that they didn't ground test it first. Even in the US,
> >> > we'd do a maintenance check flight after major maintenance. Ground
> >> > test first,
> > but
> >> > flying the plane will find things that no ground test ever will.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Indeed. The RAF lost a Nimrod MR, in what sounds like a very similar
> >> situation some six or seven years ago (engine fire on a test flight).
> >> Thankfully on this occasion there were no lives lost or serious
> >> injury.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > It's amazing how Russian aircraft always end up looking like
> > previously designed US aircraft. The 160 bears a striking resemblance
> > to the US B-1 bomber. Like the space shuttle and Buran, there is a
> > long list of Russian aircraft that look amazingly similar to US
> > aircraft. I guess the Russians just never come up with any original
> > ideas.
> >
> > Anyway, the Russians are well known for sloppy engine testing. On the
> > N-1 rocket, they only tested every fourth engine. Incidentally and
> > perhaps coincidentally, there were never any successful N-1 flights.
> > They did make outstanding fireworks displays though.
> >
> >
> >
> Hey, what's your nickname slick? 'Marblehead?'
> Care to tell me who had the most spectacular fireworks display during
> the infancy of the space program?

That would be the Russian R-4 rocket that blew up on the launch pad and
killed 167 people. It was just like an Arnold Schwarznegger movie...people
running out of blazing infernos with their clothes on fire.

Care to tell me who carried the
> 'heavy' launch burden of the U.S. after the loss of the Challenger?

That would be the Russians cuz NASA cheaped out and hired a second rate
contractor...the same one that failed to deliver modules for the ISS. The US
doesn't want to spend money to build more Saturn V's. NASA has been cutting
corners on the shuttle and has a Soviet style bureaucracy running the place.
Accidents are bound to happen. Congress always expects NASA to do more with
less. What you are also seeing are the results of constant meddling by
outsiders. It is why the F-22 program is in trouble too and why boondoggles
like the Osprey get built.

L-M just had a sat destroyed cuz somebody forgot to put screws in and it
simply fell over and was ruined. Those are the same kind of idiots that are
running NASA.

> Pull your head out of your ass. On second thought, leave it in.
>
>
>
>