Military Review

"Passengers will be able to fly in" supersonic "only if the flight hour is cheaper"

108
"Passengers will be able to fly in" supersonic "only if the flight hour is cheaper"



Vladimir Putin visited the Gorbunov Kazan aircraft factory, he was shown the seven-minute flight of a new supersonic strategic bomber - the Tu-160M Pyotr Deinikin missile carrier. The Tu-160, a supersonic strategic bomber-bomber with a variable sweep wing, developed at the Tupolev Design Bureau in 1970 – 1980-s, has been in service since 1987.

It is rightly considered that the Tu-160 is the largest supersonic aircraft. Its mass production was discontinued in the 1992 year. But in the 2014 year after a major overhaul and modernization, the strategic bomber made the first flight, and then Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu announced the resumption of the production of the missile carrier.



Test flights continued crews of the Kazan Aviation Plant. Gorbunova. Not without incidents, while our "white swans" flew over the neutral waters of the Barents and Norwegian seas - they were flown to accompany the British fighters, and then the French Air Force was accompanied by Russian Tu-160 over the English Channel. The serial production of the strategic Tu-160М2 bomber will start from the 2023 year. According to experts, this is an aircraft with a completely new "filling", but with the old appearance of the airframe, its efficiency has increased in 2,5 times in comparison with its predecessor.



The president was impressed and expressed confidence that such a passenger plane would be in great demand in our country, given its size and flight range. The desire to have a passenger liner on the basis of the military was expressed from the middle of 2000's by foreign customers. When information appeared about the revival of the Tu-160, a number of official letters from potential buyers were received by the KLA and Rosoboronexport.

As reported earlier On the eve of .RU, among the potential customers are called: Arab sheikh and millionaire from Australia and "far from poor resident of Greece." Thus, the idea of ​​a mass passenger supersonic aircraft can be realized only as a “toy for the rich” and translate into a supersonic business jet?

Former Deputy Minister of Civil aviation The USSR Alexei Goryashko in an interview with Nakanune.RU said that the idea of ​​a supersonic passenger aircraft "for everyone" is quite feasible, you just need to apply some modifications:

- There are prospects for the idea of ​​creating a passenger version of the Tu-160, as suggested by President Putin, this is quite feasible. The aircraft’s fuselage itself and its engine are fully consistent with the purpose of carrying passengers. AT stories there was a similar attempt to create a passenger aircraft based on the military - it was a Tu-95 bomber, its counterpart - the Tu-114 aircraft carried passenger transportation, but due to the fact that the aircraft was very expensive in relation to the flight hour, it was not exploited in civil aviation in droves.



The same fate can comprehend the passenger version of the Tu-160. What can be done? If in this situation the engines will be with less fuel consumption, that is, the flight hour will be cheaper, naturally, it is quite possible in the future - to fly passengers at supersonic speeds. If this is not done, then the plane will be very expensive and really available only in a piece order for billionaires. To avoid this, you need to replace the engines with others - with less hourly fuel consumption.

The Tu-160 is a good aircraft, it has been operated for a very long time in the Air Force. This machine currently retains all aerodynamic qualities and all design advantages, but, naturally, it has undergone significant changes with respect to the onboard equipment and control systems, so it is quite possible and necessary to assume that it has undergone its renovation and got a second life. Now, under the conditions specified above, the aircraft can go into mass production and be used in civil aviation. It is necessary to solve the problem of fuel consumption, so that it becomes purchased and paid for, it can bring profit for airlines, in which case it will be ordered. But if he is unprofitable, he will not receive any orders, except for individual ones.

As for the passengers - the cost of tickets is also significant for them. But the very idea of ​​a supersonic aircraft is beautiful, it's a decrease in time spent on the road. Supersound is about 2 thousand km per hour, and now we fly at speed 800-900 km per hour. That is, we can fly on passenger flights more than doubled faster.
Author:
Originator:
https://www.nakanune.ru/articles/113653/
108 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Same lech
    Same lech 30 January 2018 05: 32
    10
    But the very idea of ​​a supersonic aircraft is beautiful, it is the same reduction in time spent on the journey. Supersound is about 2 thousand km per hour, and now we are flying at a speed of 800-900 km per hour.


    Well then, Europe buried its project with Concord after the famous catastrophe and the USSR after the Tu-144 catastrophe.
    Airplanes of this class are still unprofitable ... there are too many security risks and it is necessary to rebuild the entire civilian airfield infrastructure for these airplanes ... service ... runways, etc.
    So while there is talk of creating new aircraft of this class, while there is talk ... their time has not come yet.
    1. rotmistr60
      rotmistr60 30 January 2018 06: 49
      +8
      Well then, Europe buried its project with Concord after the famous catastrophe and the USSR after the Tu-144 catastrophe.
      I also wanted to write about it. The idea is not new and even came to life. The operation of Concord has shown - pleasure only for the rich. On conventional airplanes, the ticket price is sky-high, especially for the Far East and the North, but how much will “supersonic” tickets cost?
      1. Horse meat
        Horse meat 30 January 2018 10: 17
        +1
        The more passengers, and the shorter the path, the cheaper the ticket.
        An hour to three hours is about a flight.
        Further it will be more expensive, and shorter it will be more expensive.
      2. Nick
        Nick 30 January 2018 14: 14
        +2
        Quote: rotmistr60
        On ordinary airplanes, the ticket price is sky-high, especially for the Far East and the North, but how much will “supersonic” tickets cost?

        The problem can be solved, and it is necessary to solve it from two sides. On the one hand, state subsidies for the operation of this aircraft, or tax preferences from the state. On the other hand, by improving the design and components of the aircraft, in order to minimize operating costs. In any case, the appearance of a significant number of Tu 160 aircraft in the passenger modification will significantly increase the mobility of our aircraft in a special period. There is something to ponder, and figure out a debit with a loan ... wink
        1. On the Armor
          On the Armor 30 January 2018 18: 24
          +6
          Or maybe it’s not nonsense and not squander money?
    2. Horse meat
      Horse meat 30 January 2018 10: 07
      0
      This aircraft is 3 times larger than the concord and 144 in carrying capacity.
      This means choose, or three times as many passengers can be stuck, for example, if you arrange the seats in the subway, people can fly while standing, old people and children are sitting.
      Or pour 3 times more fuel and supersonic fly at least to South Africa.
      But such a flight will be expensive for each passenger, since you will have to pay not only for your weight, but also for the weight of a ton of excess fuel.
      It’s always cheaper to fly in a tessno but short way, since you can not take extra fuel.

      45 tons of cargo is 600 passengers, you can immediately forget about the seats.
      3 hours from Moscow to Vladivostok is it really difficult to stand?

      Engines have nothing to do with it, this is the law of physics, it cannot be changed.
      1. AlexVas44
        AlexVas44 30 January 2018 11: 23
        +1
        Quote: Konin
        ... arrange the seats in the subway, people can fly while standing, old people and children are sitting.

        If as in our subway, then people will be able to fly while sitting. laughing laughing laughing
      2. Nick
        Nick 30 January 2018 14: 22
        +2
        Quote: Konin
        Engines have nothing to do with it, this is the law of physics, it cannot be changed.

        Well, why? I think you can work on increasing engine efficiency. The increase in engine efficiency reduces fuel consumption, and therefore the mass of fuel on board, therefore, the mass of the payload is growing. Again, you can work with materials and reduce the dead weight of the aircraft and, as a result, increase the mass of useful (commercial) cargo
      3. midivan
        midivan 31 January 2018 05: 03
        +5
        Quote: Konin
        This means choose, or three times as many passengers can be stuck, for example, if you arrange the seats in the subway, people can fly while standing, old people and children are sitting.

        Quote: Konin
        3 hours from Moscow to Vladivostok is it really difficult to stand?

        what Are you serious? In this case, you need to carry it, make shelves with a bookcase and the distance from the tiers is 40 cm (enough, and thick nihai ride the train), then in this case more people will fit in and be denser than them, and the whole world will laugh from our supersonic to hell with him, most importantly we are the first in this matter lol bully
      4. Lozovik
        Lozovik 1 February 2018 20: 13
        +3
        Only here is bad luck, 1,5 tons per minute eats at supersonic request
    3. yehat
      yehat 30 January 2018 12: 37
      +2
      It's not about infrastructure or security.
      The thing is different. civil aviation is an exact adherence to the schedule. This is a multiple safety margin, so as not to get out of schedule.
      And supersonic - by definition, risk, performance at all costs and requires careful preparation, lack of time pressure
      these 2 conditions are contradictory and until the contradiction is resolved, any project is DOOMED.
      Need to radically change the approach to manning a flight
  2. Vladivostok1969
    Vladivostok1969 30 January 2018 06: 24
    +4
    Well, of course you can build these airplanes. Launch them on the line. And then equalize the cost of tickets with turboprop aircraft. It’s only which way you choose to equalize yourself. It’s not difficult to guess that we can fly even less often than now.
  3. Herculesic
    Herculesic 30 January 2018 07: 01
    +3
    Elena! Supersound in numbers is more than 1200km / h! hi And the more, the faster the transportation of passengers will be!
    1. yehat
      yehat 30 January 2018 12: 41
      +1
      these 1200 km are far from being typed right away.
      supersonic will have an effect only on trunk lines with a long range and a large passenger flow. For example, flights from Europe to China.
      1. Vladimir 5
        Vladimir 5 30 January 2018 23: 21
        0
        You are right, the Tu-160 for civilian use, perhaps, but only for VIP passengers and trans-main flights, and they often fly on personal jets. The first to collect a portfolio of orders, and then build a "house". Otherwise, again, as always (failure) ...
  4. Evgeniy667b
    Evgeniy667b 30 January 2018 07: 22
    +9
    Anything can be designed and built, but how much is supersonic needed on civilian lines? In military aviation Yes, this is necessary, no matter how much it costs. Most GVF users are quite satisfied with the characteristics of those aircraft that exist. Supersound is a project of a narrow group of users who do not count money, most likely individual use for the richest. It is not for nothing that Putin is worried, he takes care of his friends!
    1. Horse meat
      Horse meat 30 January 2018 10: 29
      +2
      No, you just need to get used to standing up and everything will be fine.
      The goal will be reached from point A to point B in the fastest and shortest way (and the cheapest).
      Fly standing.
      600 trainees TU-160 will take.
      If you fly with fewer passengers, it’s money down the drain.
      So, if you fly while standing, the ticket will be even cheaper than on a simple airliner.
      Now compare which is better.
      Sit on the liner for 5 hours, or stand on supersonic for 2 hours.
      The price is the same.
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 30 January 2018 11: 26
        +2
        You forgot about loading and unloading activities, hourly hovering over the airport and endless flight delays. And then these couple of saved hours dissolve. Yes, very uncomfortable hours
      2. cast iron
        cast iron 30 January 2018 12: 21
        10
        Dear comrade! You skipped physics at school. Firstly, 600 passengers, even when standing in the Tu-160 I will never fit. Secondly, how do you imagine taking off with standing passengers (let's say there are 70 people) who weigh 5600 kg (each 80 according to international average standards)? Here the plane picks up speed along the runway, acceleration occurs, all 70 standing passengers weighing 5600 kg by inertia fall in the opposite direction, thereby critically shifting the alignment of the aircraft in the tail. The result is a disaster and all the corpses. Suppose a plane lands and lays a turn. In this case, all 70 standing passengers fly with their 5600kg towards the side wall of the fuselage thereby creating torque around the longitudinal axis, which can lead to stalling and a crash.
        Fly by yourself, my dear friend. And we are somehow sitting.
        1. midivan
          midivan 31 January 2018 05: 12
          +3
          Quote: cast iron
          Dear comrade! You skipped physics at school.

          Yes, you didn’t understand at all! Apparently, too, the ABC book was lit by physics or ingenuity! It is necessary to load passengers so tightly that they could not move! firstly, it will fit more, secondly, since there will be no free space, the “load” will not be shifted, and thirdly, if someone feels bad it will not fall because it will hang on a friend’s shoulder and the birth rate may increase, though there is a risk of a forced change orientation yes laughing
          1. cast iron
            cast iron 31 January 2018 18: 59
            +1
            Yes, I was stupid and did not see an innovative approach to transporting passengers !!! It is necessary to stuff them in bombs into the bomber and, if necessary, drop them on a low razor directly to the runway - so we will reduce the cost of a simple aircraft at the airport as much as possible - it will not land at all !!! He threw passengers in stacks down and flew back.
      3. alex122
        alex122 2 February 2018 16: 00
        0
        Fly standing! Great

        Bor gets into an air hole and all passengers together break their necks)
      4. zhekazs
        zhekazs 4 February 2018 01: 56
        0
        Quote: Konin
        Sit on the liner for 5 hours, or stand on supersonic for 2 hours.

        All right! After all, the reserved seats on the trains were not invented from a good life either. And so - it will be a new word in the GA. The biggest problem in this project may occur for designers with toilets for 600 people, but by the standards ... Although here you can go the same way, reduce the cost - abandon the bathrooms in general and give diapers to passengers for the duration of the flight. laughing
    2. yehat
      yehat 30 January 2018 12: 42
      +1
      there are long-haul flights on which the reduction of a couple of hours is an important physiological factor.
    3. Maks400
      Maks400 30 January 2018 15: 56
      0
      Have you been with a psychiatrist for a long time?
    4. tolyasik0577
      tolyasik0577 31 January 2018 12: 34
      +1
      It is not for nothing that Putin is worried, he takes care of his friends!
      Well, of course, Putin only cares about friends.
      If the Tu-144 was created, then it was needed. It is necessary not only to keep up with the west, but also required for passenger traffic. The plane flies from Moscow to Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk for 9 hours. The president is right - it is necessary to apply the achievements of the military-industrial complex in civilian spheres. I made sure that Putin wouldn’t blurt out anyhow. most likely he has information about capabilities and technologies. And the use of super sound in civil aviation is very promising. Take Russia to this niche in the world market - isn’t it real or profitable? I sincerely hope that this project will receive the right to life.
      1. yehat
        yehat 31 January 2018 14: 18
        0
        military technology is far from fully applicable to civilian life.
        I have fiberglass ski poles made by conversion and they are awesome.
        Military steel canned knives are great. these are good conversion options
        But there are not very good ones. Where do you get the anti-aircraft missile in civilian life?
        what about airplanes? they are often imprisoned for completely different tasks. Why should a civilian aircraft have loud engines or a low-altitude terrain envelope system?
        or where do you pay for manufacturing technologies for titanium submarines with reactors in the cooling circuits of which molten metal?
        The supersonic sound of civil aviation is needed, but they need it at a certain price and within a certain framework, and THIS IS NOT.
  5. HEATHER
    HEATHER 30 January 2018 07: 23
    14
    The aircraft fuselage itself, its engine - are fully consistent with the goals of passenger transportation. Complete idiocy and ignorance of the specifics of the design of this aircraft. The author is so far from Aviation — like Earth from the Orion Loop! It’s impossible to concoct a passenger from it! And the development continues on the basis of another aircraft. I am touched. And not frail. And, with what to write nonsense, check out machine design. It can not be redone.
  6. Victor_B
    Victor_B 30 January 2018 07: 25
    +7
    Only rich Pinocchio flew on Concord.
    For the fuel he ate as if into himself.
    You cannot fool nature. If from point A to point B for transportation of 10-20 tons of passengers you need to work in N joules, then we take the calorific value of the fuel, the efficiency of 40 percent, or how much there, we multiply, divide and other entertainments and TOTAL: there is a theoretical limit.
    You cannot jump higher. But you can approach it endlessly.
    And then just the ticket price.
    And she is very great.
    Well, they are very noisy. In Toronto, planes constantly hang overhead, but there isn’t much noise from them, but in Vladivostok (just over the glide path), when Drying and Mig-31 flights begin, they even land much louder than the B-747 for takeoff.
    1. HEATHER
      HEATHER 30 January 2018 07: 36
      +3
      If, when developing a new supersonic, some technologies from Swan are used, everything will be a bundle. And so it is already being worked out.Well, they are very noisy. And this is a problem. And not solved.
      1. Victor_B
        Victor_B 30 January 2018 07: 57
        +5
        As for unsolvable, hell knows.
        TU-104 also whistled childishly on take-off, and inside it was not quiet.
        TU-114 is generally a coffin with a music box!
        From Khabarovsk to Moscow you will fly a few more hours in the head of Uuu-Uuu-Uuu.
        Four engines and there is a "beating frequency" is added-subtracted ...
        Well, personally, many times near flights TU-16 and TU-142 observed.
        Howling like mad cows!
        I am sure that the inhabitants of Engels are delighted with the flights of TU-160, especially at night.
        1. HEATHER
          HEATHER 30 January 2018 08: 04
          +4
          Well, Engels sleeps nominally. It’s not far from take-off. The strip is parallel to the town. So, only the wives of the pilots who went flying do not sleep. And the Lebed glider is not Tupolev’s development, like he didn’t come up with anything sensible, he just copied the B-24 in Tu-4.With a camera, and Myasishchev.Tupolev, as chief, took the glory of the designer to himself. He brought Myasishchev's car to flight condition, being the head of the design bureau at Tupolev's company. Hence the name.
          1. Victor_B
            Victor_B 30 January 2018 08: 19
            +6
            Tupolev categorically did not want to copy the B-24.
            But he was “affectionately” asked by the ITT, moreover, he categorically forbade changing anything. Hence the camera forgotten by one of the pilots. And the holes are not used. Therefore, the ANT itself avoided this work in every possible way.
            At the same time, it was even forbidden to use the metric system. All sizes were inch.
            About Myasishchev, EMNIP exaggeration. It seems he did not work in the Tupolev Design Bureau. He worked at TsAGI.
            And so - yes, all the materials from his design bureau were transferred, due to the fact that his design bureau was given to Chalomey.
          2. Vovanfalcon
            Vovanfalcon 30 January 2018 08: 40
            +5
            Vladimir Mikhailovich was not the head of design bureaus at the Tupolev company when the Tu-160 was being developed. In 1967, Myasishchev Design Bureau was re-created on the basis of the Experimental Engineering Plant in Zhukovsky. In the 76th year, the enterprise joined the Molniya NPO and was engaged in the development of the life support systems of the Buran ship, and in the 78th, Vladimir Mikhailovich did not. So V.M. Myasishchev has no direct or indirect relation to the Tu-160! And for reference: Tu-4 was copied from the B-29 !!!!! And this was not AN's personal whim. Tupolev, but a direct indication of Stalin. And Vladimir Mikhailovich has nothing to do with this plane, because since 1938 he has his own design bureau. He only offered to copy the B-29, but the work was transferred to Tupolev and Arkhangelsk.
            1. Victor_B
              Victor_B 30 January 2018 08: 53
              +3
              The Tu-4 was copied from the B-29 !!!!!
              I sprinkle ashes on my head ...
              To blame! I will be corrected.
              1. Vovanfalcon
                Vovanfalcon 30 January 2018 11: 10
                +1
                At I answered more for Heather))))))
                1. HEATHER
                  HEATHER 31 January 2018 07: 07
                  0
                  I’m sorry! I’ve beguiled the figure on the clave. And about the development of the -160 glider, there’s a story in Yu-tube. Tupolev had nothing to do with this machine. This is the idea of ​​Butcher.
                  1. Vovanfalcon
                    Vovanfalcon 31 January 2018 20: 00
                    0
                    The link to the u-tube led the current to one film about the history of the Tu-160. And there’s nothing there about the ideas of Vladimir Mikhailovich. Yes, in 67, the Politburo received a task from two design bureaus of Myasishchev and Sukhoi to create a supersonic strategist. And that’s it !!! At 75, the development is given to Tupolev, and Valentin Bliznyuk was the chief designer of the Tu-160. But in the comments - yes ... there people got angry, and the Tu-160 is copied from the B-1 Lancer, and from the Myasishchev M-50 (complete nonsense, different concepts), the T-4 "weaving" from Valkyrie. And your comment, it seems there is - it painfully the same spelling of the name of Vladimir Mikhailovich (with an error in the genitive case). But I'm used to believing in official documents, not gossip and speculation in the comments.
            2. yehat
              yehat 30 January 2018 12: 47
              +1
              an exact copy did not work - the Tu-4 metric.
              for part of the parts they created production from scratch and couldn’t exit the same way.
              but the planes are of course very similar.
              1. Vovanfalcon
                Vovanfalcon 30 January 2018 13: 04
                +2
                I agree with this and the work has been tremendous. But our “colleague” Veresk claims that Andrei Nikolaevich Tupolev did not invent anything in his life (I am speechless due to indignation) and the sale of the Tu-160 glider is not its development. However, the most famous fact is that the general view of the Tu-22M formed the basis of the development. So indiscriminately, just passing by, dishonoring the Chief Designer is a "talent" ......
                1. yehat
                  yehat 30 January 2018 13: 09
                  +1
                  I would advise you to listen to the video of Pogosyan - he told how the planes were created and he and Tupolev. Heather obviously did not hear this story.
                  This is technology. Including the search for ideas.
                  1. Kir
                    Kir 30 January 2018 20: 25
                    0
                    Yehat, and where can I watch the video with M. A. Poghosyan?
                    1. yehat
                      yehat 31 January 2018 00: 02
                      0
                      vidos as su-27 created
                      there is a lot of waste from the topic - that’s where it tells.
      2. SpaceCom
        SpaceCom 30 January 2018 12: 28
        +1
        Interestingly, the topic of remaking a combat aircraft into a civilian carrier has been discussed for quite some time. Cons in a similar alteration, crossing out the idea, revealed enough. The idea of ​​developing a civilian airliner using groundwork was also expressed. Although there are many obstacles along the way. But why did everyone come up against exactly this idea ?! Just because the supreme nominated her?
        But there is at least one completely civilian application of the TU-160 Rocket Launcher! Why no one talks about the possibility of using it as a carrier of a space rocket? And the size and combat load are quite suitable! They rested against the reusable first stage of the PH ...
      3. NEXUS
        NEXUS 30 January 2018 14: 20
        +4
        Quote: VERESK
        If, when developing a new supersonic, some technologies from Swan are used, everything will be a bundle. And so it is already being worked out.Well, they are very noisy. And this is a problem. And not solved.

        The article has a very correct remark ..
        you need to replace the engines with others - with less hourly fuel consumption.

        On which passenger version is the maximum speed of 2 mach? Enough and one and a half. At the same time, there is an acute question of the power consumption of such an engine.
        Perhaps there will be an alteration of the NK-32 into something less gluttonous. And most likely the developers will take this path in order not to compose dvigun from scratch. What kind of engine it will be, we’ll see ... one thing is absolutely certain, it’s definitely not cost-effective to install the NK-32 on the passenger version. And therefore, since the conversation went on the production of a civilian version of Cygnus, I can assume that work on this topic has already begun.
        1. HEATHER
          HEATHER 31 January 2018 07: 12
          0
          , I can assume that work on this topic has already begun. No, and they won’t. It’s unrealistic to create a passenger from Swan.
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 31 January 2018 11: 02
            +2
            Quote: VERESK
            , I can assume that work on this topic has already begun. No, and they won’t. It’s unrealistic to create a passenger from Swan.

            You know, I also thought about it this way at first ... but after a little reflection, I came to this ... with the NK-32, even in a modernized version, the Swan will be voracious and not cost-effective. Therefore, there are two ways ... the first is to create a dvigun more economical, which would not give out two mach, but still allow the civil Swan to accelerate to supersonic speeds. And the second, no matter how wild it may sound, reducing the size of the aircraft itself, with, again, installing more economical engines. The swan is really huge and given that tickets for it will not be cheap, 400-500 passengers per flight will still not be typed. And if you reduce its dimensions to 200-300 passengers, then everything can work out. That is, build a version of the TU-160 of smaller dimensions. Of course, this will not be Swan anymore ... let's call it TU-150. But the technology and solutions in this aircraft will be exactly taken from the construction of the Swan.
            1. HEATHER
              HEATHER 31 January 2018 11: 09
              0
              NEXUS. And it seems like a serious man. Please don’t go where you don’t rush. I have a war with the “specialists” here. T-infantry. They don’t think anything in Aviation. Too many “specialists” have divorced today. And you I apologize. I got into some. I'm sorry ... hi drinksAnd about the passenger supersonic, a couple of years. Development did not stop.
              1. NEXUS
                NEXUS 31 January 2018 11: 17
                +2
                Quote: VERESK
                NEXUS. And like a serious man

                Dear, I voiced my thoughts on this matter, which, in my opinion, can somehow affect the appearance of the civilian version of Cygnus. As it is now, the TU-160 is not suitable for the civilian version of the word at all. And therefore, only the replacement of dviguns with more economical ones, I'm afraid it will not be enough. At the same time, why on our airlines drina, in which you can seat 400-500 people, but due to the high cost of the ticket, he will not carry a tenth? That is why I said about reducing the mass and dimensions of this aircraft, although it is clear that it will be a completely different machine. But he emphasized that the assembly technologies and solutions used for the TU-160 will be used in the construction of such a lightweight version of this aircraft for civil aviation.
                1. HEATHER
                  HEATHER 31 January 2018 11: 36
                  0
                  Nexus! I cheat on the cost of tickets. I don’t have to fly on a non-existent car. Like all of us. Or are you of a different opinion? Nobody, even the President, will be able to determine the development of Aviation. This is the business of specialists who have not yet left the program in a salary of 7 thousand. These people have raised our country to those heights that mattresses from their B-1 have not dreamed of. And I do not care on ticket prices. I fly with BTA.
                  1. NEXUS
                    NEXUS 31 January 2018 11: 42
                    +2
                    Quote: VERESK
                    I don’t have to fly on a non-existent car. Like all of us.

                    Who knows ... they are trying to reanimate civil aircraft construction. It's good, but ... I have a strong feeling with the story with Swan that our leadership, as the hero of Vitsin in the famous film, is trying to pull out the lowest pot.
    2. iouris
      iouris 30 January 2018 19: 24
      +1
      Quote: Victor_B
      Only rich Pinocchio flew on Concord.

      Only 6% of the population fly here and, as a rule, they do not fly further than London. Here they are doing the whole checkout. For the general population, only the upper reserved seat shelves are available.
  7. Bastinda
    Bastinda 30 January 2018 07: 51
    +4
    Pay attention to the exhaust of the aircraft. Yellow?
    "The White Swan, tucked to the eyeballs, can accommodate 148 kilograms of aviation fuel. Not ordinary kerosene, but special nitrided fuel, which gives a characteristic yellowish exhaust smoke." If I am not mistaken, then the addition of HMD is not at all useful.
    “As for fuel consumption, everything is simple. With an economical cruise flight for a hundred kilometers, about a ton of fuel is spent. Another thing is supersonic flight. There are no exact numbers, but, according to the pilots, in this mode at a speed of 1800 kilometers per hour in sixty minutes the plane eats 50-60 tons of fuel. "
    1. HEATHER
      HEATHER 30 January 2018 08: 10
      +2
      in sixty minutes the plane eats 50-60 tons of fuel. " 30 tons at 1800. At cruising-650. And nitrogen was pumped into tanks from the time of the Second World War. For fire safety. The full gas station is 162 tons. Without ammunition, on the stage. I will answer engineer74-Tu-160 is not a supersonic aircraft, Really? And I don’t know! on supersonic, he travels not long and short! So whether it’s supersonic or not, you can decide. It can go for about 40 minutes on supersonic sound. Somewhere at 2200. With a flow rate of 52 tons. then only from scratch! Why? There are developments. And in the work to improve the design.
      1. Victor_B
        Victor_B 30 January 2018 08: 51
        +2
        Tu-160 is not a supersonic aircraft
        And it is true!
        Real supersonic planes are those for which supersonic is the nominal mode!
        This is: MIG-25-31, SR-71. Concord and TU-144.
        That's it!
        For all others, the sound is abnormal. Afterburner.
        Well, now, probably, the modern 5th generation.
        1. Horse meat
          Horse meat 30 January 2018 10: 42
          +3
          Want to say the Tu-160 is not aerodynamic, and carries too much air?
          This is the trouble of all passenger traffic, especially the A-380. (laugh).
          The most successful Boeing 737 in this regard.
          And constructing a superjet 100 is generally a betrayal of the country, they received bribes from a Boeing, for an unsuccessful construct.
          Boeing 737 does not want competitors.
          It’s cheaper to pay so that there are no competitors.
          Stalin would have shot such traitors.
          1. Vovanfalcon
            Vovanfalcon 30 January 2018 11: 08
            +1
            Superjet is quite a normal aircraft, it’s difficult to call it Russian, of course, but this is normal practice in civil aircraft manufacturing. EMB-170 (190), with which our Superjet can be compared (and not with the Boeing 737 classic, much less with NG), also not entirely Brazilian, there are Bombardier and McDonell.
            1. Horse meat
              Horse meat 30 January 2018 14: 19
              +2
              You’ll learn at least the easiest ballistics to begin with, talking about how to claim the superiority of a superjet to a Boeing 737.
              Physically this is not possible, who has more air resistance relative to the number of passengers?
              The designer is something that you should know?
              And everyone is exactly shitting, that means they got a bribe, and they did not betray the system, for that they betrayed their country.
              They sold it more precisely, and they were ordered, (by the wife) they will not refuse money, so they do not refuse.
              1. Vovanfalcon
                Vovanfalcon 30 January 2018 16: 47
                +1
                First, read carefully. I argued that these are different suns. For comparison with the Superjet, EMB-170 (190) is suitable. The second - they do not study ballistics in aviation !!!, but there is a subject aerodynamics. So you're not at a rocket range! I advise you to study some disciplines, and not to teach an aviation engineer with 30 years of experience in the technical operation of aircraft and engines. And after ... admission to service: Tu-154B (M), An-24 (26), Tu-204 (214), Boeing-737CL (NG), RRJ-95B (LR100) - this is a Superjet. So learn the materiel ... PionEr.
          2. Petr1968
            Petr1968 30 January 2018 17: 04
            +1
            Quote: Konin
            Boeing 737 does not want competitors.
            It’s cheaper to pay so that there are no competitors.

            737 and SSJ100 are not exactly competitors ... As if we were creating an airplane in a niche free of B and A. Another question there is enough different Canadians and others .. but not A and B.
        2. yehat
          yehat 30 January 2018 12: 49
          0
          I wonder if you will draw an analogy between the Tu22m3 and Tu-160 about supersonic
          1. Horse meat
            Horse meat 30 January 2018 14: 29
            +1
            Bombers are always more aerodynamic than passenger planes, as they do not need extra air and empty space.
            The larger the space, the lower the speed should be so that the money is not blamed on the wind.
            1. yehat
              yehat 30 January 2018 14: 32
              +1
              there is not quite equal dependence and the Tu-160 has to carry 2 revolvers with missiles inside, which is also not enough.
        3. Town Hall
          Town Hall 30 January 2018 16: 15
          +3
          Real supersonic planes are those for which supersonic is the nominal mode!
          This is: MIG-25-31


          Do these planes have cruising afterburner supersonic?
        4. Town Hall
          Town Hall 30 January 2018 16: 28
          +1
          Quote: Victor_B
          Real supersonic planes are those for which supersonic is the nominal mode!
          This is: MIG-25-31,




          MIG-25 / 31- cruising UNFORSEABLE supersonic?
        5. VIT101
          VIT101 30 January 2018 17: 49
          +4
          Quote: Victor_B
          Tu-160 is not a supersonic aircraft
          And it is true!
          Real supersonic planes are those for which supersonic is the nominal mode!
          This is: MIG-25-31, SR-71. Concord and TU-144.
          That's it!
          For all others, the sound is abnormal. Afterburner.
          Well, now, probably, the modern 5th generation.

          A supersonic aircraft is considered to be capable of exceeding the speed of sound, that is, 1200 km / h. The residence time in this case does not matter. MIG-25 and 31 are able to exceed the speed of sound only in afterburner mode, like other aircraft cited as an example. At present, the only mass-produced car capable of flying at supersonic sound without afterburner is the RAPTOR F-22. Well, flying without afterburner in supersonic sound is not an end in itself, but the ability to save fuel and increase flight range.
          1. Town Hall
            Town Hall 30 January 2018 17: 57
            +1
            Quote: VIT101
            At present, the only mass-produced car capable of flying at supersonic sound without afterburner is the RAPTOR F-22.




            F-35 too
            1. VIT101
              VIT101 30 January 2018 18: 40
              +2
              F-35 too [/ quote]

              As for the F-35 - no definite answer. According to some sources, it does not have the possibility of supersonic in the afterburner mode, according to others it has, but in a time-limited mode.
              1. Town Hall
                Town Hall 30 January 2018 18: 50
                +1
                [quote = VIT101] F-35 too [/ quote]

                As for the F-35 - no definite answer. According to some sources, it does not have the possibility of supersound in the afterburner mode, according to others it has, but in a time-limited mode.[/ Quote]


                According to whose data the f-35 has no afterburner supersonic?


                The time-limited concept is quite relative. This restriction probably applies to all aircraft. Who has more who has less. And is connected with fuel reserves
        6. HEATHER
          HEATHER 31 January 2018 07: 16
          0
          This is: MIG-25-31 Are they without afterburner? And I, who had served in the Air Force for 20 years and did not know! wassat
      2. Lozovik
        Lozovik 1 February 2018 20: 28
        +3
        Quote: VERESK
        30 tons at 1800

        Is it a Tu-160 then? Even the Tu-22M3 tons of 80-90 will burn at this speed.
  8. engineer74
    engineer74 30 January 2018 07: 58
    +6
    How much can you win a well-deserved bomber? Tu-160 is not a supersonic aircraft; it travels far and short in supersonic! Only in the air defense breakthrough mode. So, if the collective "passenger" is a collective farm, then only from scratch!
    IMHO
  9. Tatanka Yotanka
    Tatanka Yotanka 30 January 2018 10: 06
    +6
    Putin-froze the blizzard, and immediately rained down about the awesome need and significance of the civilian version)))
  10. pavelty
    pavelty 30 January 2018 10: 56
    +2
    Comrade Goryashko is right in everything, he’s done well, but he didn’t say where to get such an engine that will provide the necessary traction and fuel consumption will be low?
  11. graf1980
    graf1980 30 January 2018 11: 24
    +3
    turn to Rogozin, he has long been planning the colonization of Mars
  12. Nemesis
    Nemesis 30 January 2018 11: 48
    +2
    What kind of supersonic are you talking about, even if you don’t have money to equip the army with everything you need ?! Or for yachts and other toys for the oligarchs, money, as always, there is ?!
  13. AlexVas44
    AlexVas44 30 January 2018 11: 54
    +2
    It feels like an article to test our patriotic feelings for ... (Homeland?).
    You can build an airplane today, but without engines. Today, there are no satisfying requirements for a commercial aircraft. And it's hard to say when they will be. I suggest those wishing to read an article on this topic. It is read easily and everything is clear with the problem of creating a civilian supersonic aircraft.
    https://thequestion.ru/questions/356287/v-chem-pr
    oblema-sozdaniya-grazhdanskogo-sverkhzvukovogo-sa
    moleta
  14. Altona
    Altona 30 January 2018 11: 56
    +1
    For some reason, Putin surprised me when he told the factory workers that, supposedly, this is "what we can do." And if you write the economic program not to Kudrin and don’t send money to the USA, then you can still do something wrong, Vladimir Vladimirovich.
    1. Petr1968
      Petr1968 31 January 2018 09: 34
      +1
      Quote: Altona
      And if you write the economic program not to Kudrin and don’t send money to the USA, then you can still do something wrong, Vladimir Vladimirovich.

      And if it were not for Kudrin’s egg, we would suck our paw after the fall in oil prices. Did not think about it?
      By the way, you do not keep a supply of money at home, from paycheck to paycheck, spend the rest?
  15. faiver
    faiver 30 January 2018 12: 37
    +2
    again, this nonsense about the passenger Tu-160, the question is - which civilian airports are able to accept it?
    and why do we need it? we have problems with the regional and even bigger problems with small aircraft, especially east of the Urals ...
  16. BAI
    BAI 30 January 2018 13: 28
    +1
    supersonic aircraft can only be realized as a "toy for the rich"

    For the rich, you need to use the Tu-22.
    1. HEATHER
      HEATHER 31 January 2018 07: 19
      0
      For the rich, you need to use the Tu-22. belayWHY IMMEDIATELY BOMB?
  17. certero
    certero 30 January 2018 14: 15
    +2
    Reducing the Tu-160 passenger supersonic will not work for one simple reason, the Tu-160 engine is not designed to operate on supersonic throughout the flight. And without this, a supersonic passenger plane is not needed.
    Another thing is that you can probably develop a supersonic passenger plane from scratch and make it economically viable in the vastness of Russia. Only for this you need a megaproject
    1. xtur
      xtur 31 January 2018 00: 16
      0
      > Tu-160 engines are not designed for supersonic operation during the entire flight.

      not only engines, his glider is not designed for long supersonic flight, the glider also needs to be changed. But it must be changed in any case, for a passenger aircraft, a variable sweep is not needed.
  18. turbris
    turbris 30 January 2018 14: 56
    +1
    The problem of supersonic flights for Russia, with its vast territory, is obvious. Who does not want to fly to the Urals, Siberia and the Far East twice as fast? Of course, the main problem is the economic operation of such aircraft, but there is a way out - these are state subsidies, in this case they are justified and it is quite possible to reduce fuel prices and airfield services for such flights, which will not greatly affect the budget. So, under certain conditions - this is a very real idea, feasible in a fairly short time.
  19. tezey
    tezey 30 January 2018 15: 28
    +1
    In history, there was a similar attempt to create a passenger aircraft based on a military one - it was a Tu-95 bomber, its analogue - the Tu-114 aircraft carried out passenger transportation, but due to the fact that the aircraft turned out to be very expensive in terms of flight hour, it is in civil aviation not exploited in droves. Some kind of nonsense. What do you mean was not exploited in droves. Tu-114 was manufactured in Kuibyshev in 1957-1964. . 31 serial aircraft were built, which closed at that time the long-distance transportation of air passengers. The Tu-114 had exceptional fuel efficiency and, like any economical aircraft, the Tu-114 provided a higher level of flight safety than its counterparts, since it had a huge, according to current concepts, fuel supply for leaving for a reserve airfield. For example, when entering Khabarovsk, the Tu-114 commander with a maximum landing mass always had a fuel balance of at least two, or even four (!) Hours of flight, depending on the wind along the route. After the operating time by the majority of the aircraft was no more than 15 hours, all Tu-000 aircraft were decommissioned by November 114 and decommissioned no later than summer 1976. Apparently, the author of the words about the Tu-1977 and its lack of efficiency confused it with the Tu-114. In the case of the Tu-144, there really was a refusal to operate the machine due to economic inefficiency.
    1. Cossack 471
      Cossack 471 30 January 2018 16: 02
      +4
      I don’t know why the Kremlin dreamer turned this topic around. probably that we would discuss it. and the reality is this. that it’s cheaper to fly to China from China and to Finland from Europe. Who is buying oil from whom?
      1. Cossack 471
        Cossack 471 30 January 2018 16: 06
        +1
        By the way, how can I not recall 20 million high-tech jobs. 80 inflatable sports complexes. 100 thousand managing houses. the ruble as a reserve currency and a lot of different crap
  20. prior
    prior 30 January 2018 16: 00
    +1
    If "someone" is so keen on flying at supersonic sounds - you need to give him a personal MIG-31. And Mach 3 flies, and he can defend himself, and expenses are acceptable, and there is no need to build special runways, and money for normal planes will remain.
  21. Petr1968
    Petr1968 30 January 2018 16: 47
    +4
    The trendsetter concern Boeing closed the supersonic project. And there the guys are smart, they know both in economics and in technology ... And then GDP bam decided everything))) It's funny, I don’t believe ... and before the elections it’s even harmful to listen to them.
    1. turbris
      turbris 30 January 2018 17: 33
      +2
      Why did you define Boeing as a trendsetter? They didn’t have supersonic passenger airplanes in operation, and why the project was not closed to us. The guys are smart there, but it means some profane people work for us? We had a Tu-144 you did not forget? And we also had the first Tu-104 passenger airliner, so don’t have to lick Boeing’s ass here.
      1. Town Hall
        Town Hall 30 January 2018 18: 14
        +2
        Quote: turbris
        We had a Tu-144 you did not forget? And we also had the first Tu-104 passenger airliner, so don’t have to lick Boeing’s ass here.



        And what happened to the Tu-144?



        Since when is the Tu-104 first passenger jet airliner? ... surprisingly close ...
      2. Petr1968
        Petr1968 31 January 2018 09: 24
        +1
        Quote: turbris
        so do not lick Boeing's ass here.

        Do you think Tupolev Design Bureau is whiter than technically stronger than Boeing? And does Boeing just have the brains not enough supersonic to do? Sorry, but maybe the Moskvich car is a hundred years ahead of BMW, we’re not going to lick BMW’s ass, right?
  22. certero
    certero 30 January 2018 18: 49
    +1
    Quote: Petr1968
    The trendsetter concern Boeing closed the supersonic project. And there the guys are smart, they know both in economics and in technology ... And then GDP bam decided everything))) It's funny, I don’t believe ... and before the elections it’s even harmful to listen to them.

    Boeing did not close the topic of supersonic passenger, but could not make a supersonic passenger. Unlike Airbus and Tupolev.
    Feel the difference.
    1. Petr1968
      Petr1968 31 January 2018 09: 29
      0
      Quote: certero
      Boeing did not close the topic of supersonic passenger, but could not make a supersonic passenger

      I will say the words of the satirist: "Nuuu tauupye !!!" )))
    2. iouris
      iouris 31 January 2018 15: 29
      0
      Quote: certero
      Boeing did not close the topic of supersonic passenger, but could not make a supersonic passenger.

      In the United States, they refused to create a supersonic passenger aircraft at the design stage, evaluating the economic consequences. For the creators of Concord and Tu-144, reputation considerations were more important. The economy showed that the Boeing was "to the right."
      1. Petr1968
        Petr1968 31 January 2018 16: 29
        0
        Quote: iouris
        For the creators of Concord and Tu-144, reputation considerations were more important. The economy showed that the Boeing was "to the right."

        Ponty is our everything, this is part of our mentality .. that's why we are different from the Americans!
        We want Ragozin to fly on a bomber at the UN ... and be dropped from a bomber !!!
  23. Radikal
    Radikal 30 January 2018 19: 59
    +1
    I remember some years ago, in my opinion, when the first Sukhoi Superjet took off, the Guarantor said with irony (hidden mockery) something like this: "... it was passenger aircraft built from the bombers in the USSR, and we say we will go the other way!" And then suddenly hello to you - you give the passenger supersonic based on the Tu-160! And what happened to us that we suddenly changed our minds? wassat Maybe he thinks that we don't remember well some of his maxims on different topics? In vain! sad
  24. fa2998
    fa2998 30 January 2018 21: 59
    +3
    Quote: Konin
    45 tons of cargo is 600 passengers, you can immediately forget about the seats.

    You still do not carry pig-iron discs, where do you get 2 battalions of passengers with such a narrow fuselage? Yes, an airtight, warm one needs to be, and it should be supplied with air too.
    I would better not climb such judo experts that do not understand! The Tu 144 was initially a commercial failure. Tickets covered only a small part of the cost of the flight. But it was a symbol, we can, even the first ones. Everything was state-owned. Both the design bureau, aircraft manufacturing plants, and Aeroflot received free operation. Even the pilots were trained for state money.
    And now. Sponsor design bureau, then a plant. Who will buy such a golden plane? Operation will be astronomical. Tickets for several thousand bucks. Can we date from the budget ?? negative hi
  25. MadCat
    MadCat 31 January 2018 03: 57
    +3
    As for the passengers - the cost of tickets is also significant for them. But the very idea of ​​a supersonic aircraft is beautiful, it's a decrease in time spent on the road. Supersound is about 2 thousand km per hour, and now we fly at speed 800-900 km per hour. That is, we can fly on passenger flights more than doubled faster.

    everything has already been calculated a long time ago, the time spent at the airports is still longer even than some flights, so that the output gain becomes minimal, and did the Concorde experience teach anyone else nothing?
    Such an aircraft, I am almost sure it will not pass certification for noise and efficiency in the US or Europe ...
    1. Romulus
      Romulus 31 January 2018 04: 36
      +1
      Quote: MadCat
      winning at the exit becomes minimal, and hasn't Concord's experience taught anyone yet?

      As for fuel consumption, then everything is simple. With an economical cruise flight, about a ton of fuel is spent on a hundred kilometers. Another thing is supersonic flight. There are no exact figures, but, according to the pilots, in this mode at a speed of 1800 kilometers per hour in sixty minutes the plane eats 50-60 tons of fuel. (this is from the words of the pilots TU-160)
      In this case, not ordinary kerosene, but a special nitrided fuel, which gives a characteristic yellowish smoke on the exhaust. Yes, this is what allows the bomber to fly without such refueling over such long distances. Note that you have to go broke on equipment for nitriding fuel, and the usual aircraft TS-1 will not work for you, look for the T-8 and get ready for the costs.
      But I'm afraid this will not stop the commentators - adherents of supersonic for the passenger liner. )))
      1. MadCat
        MadCat 31 January 2018 05: 46
        +5
        Quote: Romulus
        As for fuel consumption, then everything is simple. With an economical cruise flight, about a ton of fuel is spent on a hundred kilometers. Another thing is supersonic flight. There are no exact figures, but, according to the pilots, in this mode at a speed of 1800 kilometers per hour in sixty minutes the plane eats 50-60 tons of fuel. (this is from the words of the pilots TU-160)

        here this idea was already voiced, the president managed to freeze stupidity, but since he is perfection itself, then of course everyone needed a projection sharply. If this bomber is re-equipped + certified, then the development cost will be like that of the Death Star. (Of course, Palputin is supposed to, but still ... laughing ).
  26. turbris
    turbris 31 January 2018 11: 36
    0
    Quote: MadCat
    here already voiced this thought, the president managed to freeze stupidity

    Are you all looking for an opportunity to bite the president? Look do not choke, he never says just like that, if he said, it means there are already certain developments and plans, they are already doing this in Kazan. This means that a supersonic passenger plane will be, in any case, the development task has already been set.
  27. srha
    srha 2 February 2018 20: 44
    0
    I don’t know about the plane. But did anyone look at the price of aviation kerosene? Today in Russia, approximately 40 rubles per ton. And the price of oil from which kerosene is made? On the world market, it’s about 000 rubles per ton (according to the official exchange rate), and the cost of oil production in Russia is apparently lower. And how is it that they get a ton of kerosene for 2500 rubles plus gasoline, fuel oil and so on from how many tons of oil at 2 rubles? Although why am I ... Gasoline is selling even more expensive! And when I compared it with the price of liquid oxygen - 500 rubles per tonne - "it disappeared." Could it be cheaper to fly rockets on moonshine with liquid oxygen?
    1. Golovan Jack
      Golovan Jack 2 February 2018 20: 48
      +3
      Quote: srha
      On the world market, about 2500 rubles per ton

      Maybe for the "barrel" (barrel, 160 liters)?
      And even this barrel (and it’s definitely less than a ton) now costs about 4000 rubles.
      Bookkeepers, damn it ...
      1. srha
        srha 5 February 2018 22: 33
        0
        I made a mistake, instead of 4000 I took 400, right of course (1000/160) * 4000 = 25000 rubles per ton. By the way, in the states, AK has about the same price, and in Russia it is 40000.
  28. lance
    lance 2 February 2018 20: 47
    0
    Mr. Veresk, if you are in aviation, I think a military bomber, you should know that the MiG-31 is capable of flying more than 3 hours in afterburner (no talk about the overhaul period). that 160 unlike many statements maintains 2500 4,5 hours. Only NK32 engines immediately to kapitalku. records on closed routes must be known, no one is looking at the capital. In addition, the NK47 was developed and tested. Its cruising speed db to be 1890km / h. True, he did not go into the series, then, but today there are other possibilities. the interior space of passenger airplanes may be changed; who said that it should remain monoblock? can be divided into two blocks in length. I really prefer civilian weaving -tu144. bring it to mind with new technologies easier and cheaper
  29. HEATHER
    HEATHER 5 February 2018 16: 56
    0
    There is no Tu-160M2. In development. The usual one is shown. The idea itself is to develop both a business jet and a passenger. There are no engines. They can’t be built in a couple of years. Although they are working. But not soon. Summer 7, at least .160 m2 is on a slipway .Autumn we want to raise. Like a suit of tramps. Most importantly, engines. Otherwise, there are no problems.