Tu-160 just crashed near Saratov

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.

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

"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

"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

"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.