Military Review

The noisiest aircraft in aviation history

52

XF-84H in flight


At the turn of the late 1940s - early 1950s, the transition of military aviation on jet engines. The future was precisely with jet aircraft, but work on the creation of new propeller driven aircraft was still ongoing. The American experimental fighter-bomber XF-84H also belongs to similar projects. The aircraft became famous not so much for its unusual design, as for the terrible noise of the turboprop engine. No wonder the plane received the nickname "Thunderscreech" ("Thunder scream" or "Thunder screech").

The history of the appearance of the XF-84H aircraft


By the beginning of the 1950s, the transition of combat aircraft to jet engines was practically completed, the US aviation industry was no exception. The piston heroes of the Second World War, numerous Mustangs and Thunderbolts, remained only in the Air Force of the National Guard. At the same time, new models of fighters and bombers received modern turbojet engines (turbojet engines), which provided combat aviation with a high altitude and high maximum flight speed. The increase in flight performance gave jet aircraft undeniable advantages in aerial combat. But at the same time, one problem began to emerge.

The first jet engines were not economical. High specific fuel consumption directly affected the range of jet aircraft. And at some point, this problem became apparent to the US Air Force. Against the background of ever increasing flight performance, the reduction in flight range was a rather offensive drawback. To solve the problem, representatives of the American aviation industry were involved. One of the proposed options was the creation of a new fighter equipped not with a turbojet, but with a turboprop engine. Such engines were much more economical than turbojet engines.


XF-84H experimental fighter-bomber

In addition, other options were considered. For example, the use of outboard fuel tanks (PTB) or air refueling of an aircraft. True, in those years, refueling of tactical aircraft was carried out exclusively during long ferry flights. At the same time, PTBs were a simple and well-known solution, but for combat aircraft this was not the best option. Suspended tanks occupied the suspension assemblies, reducing the payload of the aircraft.

As a result, the scales were tilted towards the use of turboprop engines (TVD), which were much more economical than the existing turbojet engines and, at the same time, differed in greater power than the existing piston engines. Another advantage was their lower weight. Representatives of naval aviation. Since for carrier-based aircraft, flight range was key, and a lower landing speed was a very important plus. Over time, naval ideas captured the minds of Air Force specialists. Fortunately, there was something to work with. At that time, in the USA, the Allison company had already created a powerful XT-40 turboprop engine, which produced almost 6000 hp. In later modifications, the engine power was brought to 7000 hp. The development of a new combat aircraft equipped with a turboprop engine was entrusted to the specialists of the Republic Aviation Corporation.

Work on the XF-84H aircraft


Republic Aviation Corporation received an order to develop a new fighter-bomber in the early 1950s. The program itself for creating a new combat aircraft was initiated by the Air Force command in 1951 and was originally joint. It was planned that the Air Force and two Navy will receive four test aircraft, but already in 1952 the American fleet withdrew from participation in the program. The involvement of the Republic company in work on the new combat aircraft was justified and easily explained by the presence of successful developments. It was the engineers of this company that created such famous combat vehicles as the P-47 Thunderbolt and F-84F Thunderstreak.


F-84F Thunderstreak serial fighter-bomber

On the basis of the latter, which existed in the modifications of the fighter-bomber and the reconnaissance aircraft, it was decided to make a new experimental vehicle with a turboprop power plant. The new turboprop fighter-bomber took over the general aerodynamic concept, as well as a number of important components and assemblies, from the existing production F-84F aircraft. This approach was justified and allowed the developer company and customers to save not only money, but also time. The contract for the creation of the aircraft was signed in December 1952.

The fighter-bomber under development received the designation AR-46 in the company, then the designation was changed to XF-84H. The new aircraft was a single-seat midwing with an all-metal hull and swept wing. The chassis was made three-post, retractable. At the same time, the chassis, cockpit, a number of units, including the wing with all mechanization, were completely borrowed from the serial F-84F without making any changes to their design.

Such solutions facilitated the process of creating the aircraft, but did not make the work of the Republic's designers all that easy. They had to work hard enough. So, a propeller was placed in the nose of the fuselage of an experimental fighter-bomber, and the engine air intakes had to be transferred to the root parts of the wing consoles of the aircraft. At the same time, the designers completely redesigned the tail unit of the machine, making it T-shaped. The keel has also changed, which, compared to the serial F-84F, has become higher and has changed its shape. Also behind the cockpit, the designers placed a triangular aerodynamic ridge. The fuselage of the aircraft was also changed, which became noticeably longer, and outwardly resembled the enlarged P-39 Aircobra from the Second World War.


The heart of the new aircraft was the XT40A-1 turboprop engine, which developed a power of 5850 hp. The engine itself was installed behind the cockpit, the gearbox was in the forward fuselage. A six-meter shaft ran between the engine and the gearbox under the cockpit. And since the XT40A-1 engine, in fact, was a pair of two Allison T38 engines, there were two shafts under the pilot's feet.

The use of such a powerful theater of operations at that time posed a serious problem for the aircraft designers. Finding a suitable propeller that could withstand this power proved to be very difficult. Only one company, Aeroproducts, took up the solution to the problem. The propeller created by the specialists of this company was most likely the world's first supersonic propeller. The product itself turned out to be rather unusual: the three-bladed propeller had a relatively small diameter - only 3,66 meters, but at the same time stood out with wide blades (up to a quarter of the span). Later it turned out that at maximum speed, the tips of the blades of this engine moved at a speed of Mach 1,18.

Tests of the noisiest aircraft in history


In total, Republic manufactured two experimental XF-84H fighter-bomber. The new aircraft first took off on July 22, 1955. To this day, one copy of the fighter has survived, which is located in the National Museum of the United States Air Force at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio. The second plane was scrapped. As you might guess, the tests of the new aircraft were unsuccessful. For example, during the tests, the design speed was not reached. It was believed that the XF-84H would be able to fly at 1158 km / h, competing with jet models, but in fact it was only possible to develop 837 km / h.

The testing process itself lasted no more than a year, already on October 9, 1956, the program was officially closed. On all flights from Edwards Air Force Base, Republic test pilots flew the aircraft, and were not involved in the Air Force. In total, both cars made 12 flights, of which only one was successful, and the rest were accompanied by accidents and breakdowns. During the flights, serious problems with the propeller were identified, in particular, failures of the propeller pitch change system. The testers also recorded a very strong vibration of the six-meter shafts that went from the engine to the propeller.


Experimental fighter-bomber XF-84H during testing

But the biggest problem was the unbearable noise that the plane emitted already on the run down the runway. The speed of rotation of the propeller blades was supersonic, which caused the formation of noise that could not be borne. As the technical and maintenance personnel of the base pointed out sarcastically, the plane could not overcome the sound barrier, but the machine did overcome the “noise barrier”. It is believed that it was the experimental XF-84H aircraft that became the noisiest aircraft in stories aviation. The takeoff noise was heard up to 25 miles from the airfield (approximately 40 km).

The acoustic impact was so great that the staff at the base began to have headaches, dizziness and nausea. And this is at a distance of hundreds of meters from the plane. It was dangerous to be near the fighter with the engine running, even with special ear muffs. During tests on the ground, cases of fainting and epilepsy were recorded. Quickly enough, the staff at Edwards AFB disliked the new experimental vehicle. Problems also arose at the air base's control tower. Aircraft noise and vibration could damage or adversely affect the operation of sensitive equipment. After evaluating the "sound effects", the plane was towed as far as possible from people and the control tower before the start. It is safe to say that the unsuccessful completion of the tests was unlikely to upset any of the airbase personnel.

In addition to the ridiculous achievement in terms of noise levels, the aircraft held the record for the highest flight speed for turboprop aircraft for some time. The Soviet strategic turboprop bomber Tu-95 was able to beat this record. True, the Tu-95 is a multi-engine aircraft, and the XF-84H was a single-engine aircraft.
Author:
52 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Free wind
    Free wind 23 August 2020 05: 41
    +8
    Interestingly, the designers periodically return to the use of turboprop engines, and the achievement of supersonic speeds on them, but so far to no avail. Although what is supersonic for a passenger plane for, I do not understand. Get to the airport, check in. check in luggage, then get luggage, the gain is not big in time, unless a helicopter is waiting for the passenger.
    1. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx 23 August 2020 06: 34
      +1
      Quote: Free Wind
      Interestingly, the designers periodically return to the use of turboprop engines, and the achievement of supersonic speeds on them, but so far to no avail.

      They teach physics poorly at school ... laughing
      The noisiest aircraft in aviation history

      The interest in the plane is the same as for the records from the Guinness Book of Records. Pure curiosity. But this is not the only stillborn embodiment of the search for world inventors and designers. Sunday morning - just right. wink
      1. Shurik70
        Shurik70 23 August 2020 19: 10
        +4
        Quote: Free Wind
        what is supersonic for a passenger plane for, I don't understand

        If it is from Moscow to St. Petersburg, yes, there will be no weather for half an hour. And if from St. Petersburg to Vladivostok?
        From London to New York, for example, it takes more than 12 hours to get by subsonic. Supersonic less than 8 hours. The difference is significant.
        1. Revolver
          Revolver 24 August 2020 02: 55
          0
          Quote: Shurik70
          From London to New York, for example, it takes more than 12 hours to get by subsonic. Supersonic less than 8 hours. The difference is significant.

          Just fly from LHR to JFK and back like Concorde did. He went to supersonic only over the ocean, and over populated areas it was forbidden, because the noise he made could burst glass in the windows and eardrums. And on subsonic sound, he ate kerosene as if not into it. And at subsonic sound it was very noisy. My favorite beach is exactly under the takeoff route from JFK, and the Concorde's takeoff was unmistakable, even with my eyes closed.
    2. aristok
      aristok 23 August 2020 06: 47
      +3
      Quote: Free Wind
      what is supersonic for a passenger plane for, I do not understand. Get to the airport, check in. check-in luggage, then get luggage, the gain is not big in time, unless a helicopter is waiting for the passenger.

      It is clear that the passenger supersonic sound makes sense only when ensuring fast delivery of customers to the airport and instant check-in. This can only be ensured by drastic exclusive measures - for example, a separate registration building with its own parking area (or even a platform for the helicopter you mentioned), an accounting, maintenance and security service ... And then very fast transfer to the plane. This will be expensive. The price tag will be very high, but I am sure that there will be enough people willing to pay in this case.
    3. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 23 August 2020 08: 46
      +4
      Quote: Free Wind
      Interestingly, the designers periodically return to the use of turboprop engines, and the achievement of supersonic speeds on them, but so far to no avail. Although what is supersonic for a passenger plane for, I do not understand. Get to the airport, check in. check in luggage, then get luggage, the gain is not big in time, unless a helicopter is waiting for the passenger.

      At long distances, the gain can reach 5-6 hours !!!
    4. Brylevsky
      Brylevsky 23 August 2020 09: 09
      +7
      Although what is supersonic for a passenger plane for, I don't understand

      The flight from Spain to Uruguay takes about 11 hours. I flew several times at work, I really didn’t like sitting for so many hours .... And from Moscow to Primorye for 8-8,5 hours. Although ... if some of the seats in the aircraft cabin are replaced by two or three tiered "bunks" lol , then you can suffer for 8-11 hours somehow ...
      1. Liam
        Liam 23 August 2020 09: 19
        +1
        Quote: Brylevsky
        The flight from Spain to Uruguay takes about 11 hours. I have flown several times

        12-13 hours. And how much is an economy class ticket from madrid to montevideo?
        1. Brylevsky
          Brylevsky 23 August 2020 10: 01
          +6
          Oh, I don’t know already ... The last time I flew there and from there was in 2008. One joy was: in those years, Iberia gave good wine on those flights in small bottles, very convenient. So I drank my own wine, then the wine of non-drinking comrades, then even to the girls - the flight attendants approached, tried to portray something like: "Madam, la pa sezhu ...." laughing, they did not refuse, in general, after the first meal, I fell asleep safely under the influence of alcohol, and it was not so sad to sit. Have you also had a similar experience? Long flights, I mean?
          1. Liam
            Liam 23 August 2020 10: 43
            +5
            I can tell you a secret that a flight on a supersonic Concorde cost an average of 15-20 times more than on a regular liner. Do you think a lot of passengers will take this kind of flights with such prices for the sake of economy a couple of hours of flight?
            1. Brylevsky
              Brylevsky 23 August 2020 12: 42
              +3
              Do you think a lot of passengers will take this kind of flights at such prices in order to save a couple of flight hours?

              With the current world order, no, not much. Only when the average person in the world turns from a human consumer into a human creator can such flights become a reality. But "neither me nor you will have to live in this wonderful time."
            2. Proctologist
              Proctologist 23 August 2020 16: 43
              0
              It is precisely by adding up all the arguments in these comments, we come to the conclusion that on practice is being created right now! Supersonic business aviation, that is, small (private) planes for clients for whom the ticket price is not a significant factor, but their own time is valuable. All new startups, independently of each other, design and build just such aircraft (Boom, Aerion, etc.).

              Very related to the topic of the article and another problem of supersonic - noise, which did not allow Concorde to fly over populated areas, land. The new developments are supposed to reduce noise from breaking the sound barrier, which should allow supersonic passenger aircraft to fly without directional restrictions.
            3. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 23 August 2020 18: 43
              +1
              Quote: Liam
              this kind of flights with such prices to save a couple of flight hours?

              )))
              If there is savings.

              According to the law of meanness, a considerable number of passengers who do not mind paying this price for a ticket can also afford a jet. So if the starting and / or ending point of the trip was outside the Concorde route (London-NY, Paris-NY), then you can save the same time by taking a direct flight of a large jet. It is much more expensive, but worth it.
              1. Liam
                Liam 23 August 2020 19: 16
                -1
                I was not interested in details, but I doubt that the radius of business jets reaches 10 K km. Too much fuel is needed. They are used for comfort and not for the sake of speed. In the sense of not being tied to a schedule, you do not need to drive to the airport in 3 hours, check-in, luggage. ..that's all. I flew out when necessary, where necessary, having arrived 15 minutes before departure.
                Yes, and there are no special business motives to fly somewhere super fast often. In the pre-Internet era there were more such needs. Now it is not necessary to fly to a meeting in New York in the morning if you need to be at your wife's DR in London in the evening. Video conference without leaving the ticket office and no jets)
                1. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 23 August 2020 21: 19
                  +1
                  Quote: Liam
                  I was not interested in details, but I doubt that the radius of business jets reaches 10 K km.

                  Why doubt if you can know?
                  https://jets.ru/enc/
                2. Revolver
                  Revolver 24 August 2020 02: 58
                  +1
                  Quote: Liam
                  Now it is not necessary to fly to the meeting in New York in the morning if you need to be at the wife's DR in London in the evening. Video conference without leaving the ticket office and no jets)

                  And with your wife, too, by videoconference? wassat
            4. Potter
              Potter 24 August 2020 22: 01
              0
              It's not a secret. The refusal to operate the Tu-144, of which 15 were built, as I remember, was not based on technical problems, but in a simple economy - even cheap kerosene of the 1970s cost too much for the appetite of this glutton.
              1. Zementbomber
                Zementbomber 14 September 2020 12: 05
                0
                The refusal to operate the Tu-144, of which 15 were built, as I remember, was based not on technical problems, but in a simple economy - even cheap kerosene of the 1970s cost too much for the appetite of this glutton.

                It is on the technical really. + "unexpectedly" (who would have thought, in fact!) the consequences of the initially curved TZ MGA and MAP in terms of practical range emerged.
      2. English tarantas
        English tarantas 23 August 2020 13: 11
        +4
        Mmmm, poor fellow, how do you like the weekly journey across all of Russia, on a Russian train?
        1. Brylevsky
          Brylevsky 23 August 2020 13: 27
          +5
          Thanks for your participation and sympathy wink .
          how do you like the weekly journey across Russia, on a Russian train?

          I don't know, I have no such experience. I talked about how hard it is for me to sit in a chair for 8-11 hours straight. You also don't walk along the aisles in the cabin of the plane, because you have to bother people ... Yes, you yourself flew, you know everything. And the train ... my friend, I have the experience of a long stay in the barracks and in the hostel, I think I can handle the train. The most important thing there is not to drink with strangers, do not gamble with them, do not eat with unwashed hands and observe personal hygiene. laughing . hi
          1. English tarantas
            English tarantas 23 August 2020 14: 11
            +2
            Well, I didn’t fly on an airplane, but I think to sit on an airplane for half a day, and to sit on a train for half a day are different things. In the plane, the seats are more comfortable, and there is no such chu-chuh-tygydyk.
            observe personal hygiene

            Well, this is not easy. In an airplane, hygiene is not a problem, it does not fly so much at all, but in trains there is one room per carriage and that one with sanitary zones. And the rest is correct, the main thing is not to drink or poison.
            1. Proctologist
              Proctologist 23 August 2020 16: 45
              +4
              The train has large windows and, most importantly, the landscape changes behind them, not so depressing as flying over the clouds. The ability to walk to the dining car is also important. I get noticeably less tired on a "sitting" train than on an airplane. Well, the pressure is also normal, probably.
              1. English tarantas
                English tarantas 23 August 2020 23: 22
                0
                The ability to walk to the dining car is also important

                We have already decided that it is impossible to drink and poison.
                The train has large windows and, most importantly, the landscape changes behind them

                Once I drove from east to west, drove a hundred kilometers and the landscape turned into an almost irreplaceable forest ...
            2. Sergey M. Karasev
              Sergey M. Karasev 24 August 2020 18: 12
              +1
              in trains, one room per carriage and one with sanitary zones.

              Both toilets have been working for a long time. And the sanitary zones are slowly but surely disappearing into oblivion with the installation of dry closets in the cars.
    5. Saxahorse
      Saxahorse 23 August 2020 20: 45
      +2
      Quote: Free Wind
      Get to the airport, check in. check-in luggage, then get luggage, in terms of time the gain is not big

      Unfortunately, the "achievements" of the bureaucracy can easily destroy any technical tricks. Believe it or not, back in the early 2000s all this took about 15 minutes. It was quite normal to fly on a business trip halfway across the country and return home by nightfall.
      1. Revolver
        Revolver 24 August 2020 03: 00
        +1
        Quote: Saxahorse
        Believe it or not, back in the early 2000s it all took about 15 minutes

        Thank the Arabs for 9/11
  2. mat-vey
    mat-vey 23 August 2020 06: 28
    +2
    "The acoustic impact was so great that the staff at the base started to have headaches, dizziness and nausea." - it seems that this "impact" was planned to be used in the M-25 "Infernal Mower", if the Chinese begin to cross the border "in small groups of 5 million people" .... but then the nuclear bombs got better and the idea was abandoned ..
    1. BastaKarapuzik And
      BastaKarapuzik And 23 August 2020 15: 06
      +1
      I climbed to look for what the M-25 is and was found here, on the Military Review
      https://topwar.ru/155286-proekt-samoleta-m-25-udarnaja-volna-protiv-nazemnyh-celej.html
  3. mr.ZinGer
    mr.ZinGer 23 August 2020 08: 36
    +6
    Thanks to the author, I learned about this device for the first time.
    Interestingly, there is information about how the Americans managed to remove power from two shafts by one propeller with such power and how the gearbox was arranged.
    Yes, there are two theaters behind the pilot, this is strong.
    I remembered the German Griffin, where the problems with the engines were never solved.
    1. mat-vey
      mat-vey 23 August 2020 08: 45
      +2
      Quote: mr.ZinGer
      Yes, there are two theaters behind the pilot, this is strong.

      The Tupolev Tu-91 "Bychek" had one, but more powerful ...
      1. mr.ZinGer
        mr.ZinGer 23 August 2020 09: 08
        +1
        Thank you reminded.
        Yes, then there was still romanticism in aviation.
        What ideas did not come true.
        1. mat-vey
          mat-vey 23 August 2020 09: 10
          +2
          Quote: mr.ZinGer
          What ideas did not come true.

          Well, this is always the case in technology - shortcomings and lack of material, technical and technological base are compensated by the ideas of designers ...
  4. Kote Pan Kokhanka
    Kote Pan Kokhanka 23 August 2020 08: 45
    0
    Sergey, thank you, honestly did not know !!!
    Regards, Vlad!
  5. gramophone
    gramophone 23 August 2020 08: 56
    +2
    it was possible to try to make a special propeller with swept blades, deflect the blades from the vertical by 30-35 degrees, (less resistance, etc.)
    1. NOMADE
      NOMADE 23 August 2020 09: 06
      +2
      Then it was not known, this has been tested for the last quarter of a century on the basis of such experiments, calculations and blowing of models
  6. Bad_gr
    Bad_gr 23 August 2020 09: 57
    +1
    Strangely, the plane has a blade tip speed of Mach 1,18. and is considered the most noisy (it was heard 40 km from the airfield), our Tu-95 propeller tips have a speed of Mach 1.6 (I came across just these data), propellers 8.
    Q: does it make less noise than the XF-84H?
    (at airfields, it seems, no one loses consciousness from its noise, or are our people stronger?)
    1. AlexVas44
      AlexVas44 23 August 2020 12: 27
      +1
      Quote: Bad_gr
      ... in our Tu-95, the propeller tips have a speed of Mach 1.6 (I came across just these data), propellers 8.
      Q: does it make less noise than the XF-84H?

      And if you count in the blades, then 32 against 3 ... Well, what kind of health do you need to have? laughing fellow stop
    2. 113262a
      113262a 23 August 2020 12: 37
      +3
      In 84, during the exercises in Magdeburg, Tu-95s were bombed on the training ground. We were 5 kilometers from the scene of the action, besides, the planes were flying at high altitudes - contrails were visible. The guts vibrated exactly! 8 planes, and here it is! Even tank headsets almost did not weaken the sound.
      1. Potter
        Potter 24 August 2020 22: 11
        0
        You're dramatizing. I have been to Kalinin-Tver many times under the landing line at the Migalovo airfield An-22, which has engines like the TU-95. It is above the city center and the train station at an altitude of less than 500m. These engines and propellers do not have such terrible noise.
        1. 113262a
          113262a 25 August 2020 13: 02
          0
          Often 8 planes passed over the city at the same time? The noise was pulsating, not monotonous, most likely, some kind of resonance, really the guts were jumping out! And this is with us-eighties, who are accustomed to reactive noise at full throttle and depressed PCA pedal.
    3. Kostya Lavinyukov
      Kostya Lavinyukov 23 August 2020 12: 37
      +2
      At the end of the article there is a remark about the Tu-95. He's really noisier.
  7. iouris
    iouris 23 August 2020 11: 17
    +1
    L-29 with a Tu-95 engine.
  8. Polymer
    Polymer 23 August 2020 18: 29
    +1
    The testers also recorded a very strong vibration of six-meter shafts, which went from the engine to the propeller.

    With such a shaft length, only intermediate lunettes would save from vibration, but there would have been many problems with them given the technological capabilities of those times. In general, constructors have been unnecessarily complicated.
  9. Aviationism
    Aviationism 24 August 2020 08: 47
    +1
    I'm surprised that the author of this great article made a major mistake and none of the commenters noticed it. The fastest propeller-driven aircraft in the history of aviation is the Tu-114. It was he, in 1961, who set all the records that are still standing. Tu-95 never set any public records; which is not clear to me. According to all the laws of aerodynamics and physics, the Tu-95/142 should be faster than the Tu-114.
    Tu-95/142 is smaller in all dimensions, lighter, has a smaller midsection and more elongation f-zh; less drag as a midplane and more than 10000 hp of additional total power (this is almost one fifth of the engine). Despite, the Tu-95 has never attacked any records.

    I'm surprised that the author of this great article made a major mistake and none of the commenters noticed it. The fastest propeller-driven aircraft in the history of aviation is the Tu-114. It was he, in 1961, who set all the records that are still standing. Tu-95 never set any public records; which is not clear to me. According to all the laws of aerodynamics and physics, the Tu-95/142 should be faster than the Tu-114.

    Tu-95/142 is smaller in all dimensions, lighter, has a smaller midsection and more elongation f-zh; less drag as a midplane and more than 10000 hp of additional total power (this is almost one fifth of the engine). Despite, the Tu-95 has never attacked any records.

    For Russia, the achievements of the Tu-114 are a matter of great, well-deserved pride. In the west, for propaganda, they try to diminish them in every possible way or completely ignore them, often claiming that this particular F-84H is the fastest propeller-driven aircraft in history and the Tu-95/142 is the most
    Russia, the achievements of the Tu-114 are a subject of great, well-deserved pride. In the west, for propaganda, they try in every possible way to diminish them or completely ignore them, often claiming that this particular F-84H is the fastest propeller-driven aircraft in history and the Tu-95/142 is the noisiest.
    Please friends, criticizing yourself is very important for a healthy memory, but being humbly proud of your present achievements is very important for a healthy soul. This is not paternalism, but friendship!



    1. Aviationism
      Aviationism 24 August 2020 09: 03
      0
      Okay, but can you please explain what I broke?
    2. iouris
      iouris 24 August 2020 12: 11
      0
      The Tu-114 was used to "monster" the USSR's presence of a carrier capable of flying to the United States with a "gift". Khrushchev flew in on a visit, and at the same time "made some noise."
    3. Angelo Provolone
      Angelo Provolone 16 October 2020 04: 03
      0
      Quote: Aviationism
      Tu-114 is a great, well-deserved pride

      The one that cracked at all the seams from vibration? And when people flew on it, they hoped: "Well, when will it finally fall apart?"
  10. Aviationism
    Aviationism 24 August 2020 09: 36
    0
    Friends, I am writing from Canada. For some unknown reason, my comments are distorted so that they are almost impossible to read. Does this only happen to me, or is it a common problem? Thanks for the help.
  11. PilotS37
    PilotS37 24 August 2020 15: 22
    0
    The use of such a powerful theater of operations at that time posed a serious problem for the aircraft designers. Finding the right propeller that could handle this power proved to be very difficult. Only one company, Aeroproducts, took up the solution to the problem. The propeller created by the specialists of this company, most likely, was the world's first supersonic propeller.

    The problem was not with the loads (Tu-95s still fly), but with the speeds ...
    Supersonic flow around the end sections of the propeller makes it ineffective.
  12. PilotS37
    PilotS37 24 August 2020 15: 38
    +1
    In addition to the ridiculous achievement in terms of noise levels, the aircraft held the record for the highest flight speed for turboprop aircraft for some time. The Soviet strategic turboprop bomber Tu-95 was able to beat this record. True, the Tu-95 is a multi-engine aircraft, and the XF-84H was a single-engine aircraft.

    So what?
    Here, just, everything is and vice versa: the larger the diameter of the propeller, the less speed it "locks", ceases to provide an increase in thrust. So the XF-84H - which, by the way, was de facto a twin-engine - with its small-diameter propeller, theoretically had an advantage over the Tu-95 precisely in reaching the maximum speed (in addition, the wing of the Tu-95 was not optimized for reaching the maximum speed, and to ensure the maximum range at a given cruising speed - "feel the difference!" (C)).
    And "multi-engine" has nothing to do with it: the thrust-to-weight ratio is important. For Tu-95MS it is 0,324 hp / kg (4 * 15 / 000), and for XF-185H - 000 (84 * 0,447 / 6), almost 000% more!
    So in Repablik they tried hard ...
  13. spech
    spech 28 August 2020 07: 23
    0
    The XF-84H was a single-engine aircraft.

    Motors after all 2
    the ХТ40А-1 engine, in fact, was a pair of two Allison T38 engines
  14. Angelo Provolone
    Angelo Provolone 16 October 2020 04: 00
    0
    The Soviet Tu-95 strategic turboprop bomber was able to break this record

    Well, who if not us? If you fool, so to the full