Passenger Jet Explodes At Russian Airport

The first 100 or so Tu-154s were prematurely removed from service in the early 1970s due to cracks appearing in the structure… ouch, pretty expensive…

Was this a manufacturing or a design issue? I have to admit that I was unaware of this. I always understood that the withdrawal of these machines was due to upgrading to ‘B’ spec and not to any major flaw in the aircraft itself. However I am more than happy to be corrected on this or any other topic here, if the correction is right, then thats more knowledge for me!:D Interesting that until the arrival of the Tu154 and the Il62, the Soviets favoured the ‘porthole’ design in their pressurised airliner construction.

Why point that only on the 154…the Comet suffered much more dire consequences in that regard.

Of course it did, but people were learning as they went on with the Comet. It’s quite a different case to something like the 154.

Comet was the first, Comet wasn’t intentionally built like a brick §h!thouse the way the Tu-154 and other Soviet airliners were – and maybe because this a thread about the 154?

Why point that only on the 154…the Comet suffered much more dire consequences in that regard.

In terms of safety and integrity it is very rare to find evidence of any Soviet airliner crash involving fatigue or design induced airframe failure. The dreadful crash, in dubious circumstances, of the Tu144 in Paris is a very public exception to this.

The first 100 or so Tu-154s were prematurely removed from service in the early 1970s due to cracks appearing in the structure… ouch, pretty expensive…

I fully understand what you are saying and I may not have made myself totally clear. I didn’t mean to imply that you were implying that the Soviets reversed engineered Western designs, although of course they did with the B29/Tu4 bomber. Throughout my 28 year aviation career, which sadly came to an end on Dec 21st , I have so often come across references to “Soviet copying”, “Soviet spies in Filton and Toulouse” “VC10ski” “Those Russian death traps” etc, etc, it just browns me off;) In terms of safety and integrity it is very rare to find evidence of any Soviet airliner crash involving fatigue or design induced airframe failure. The dreadful crash, in dubious circumstances, of the Tu144 in Paris is a very public exception to this.

I have been very lucky to have had much to do with Soviet/Russian airliners and their crews. As you say, the Tu154 really does look like it means business, but then again I think they all do. Although the 154 is not my favourite, if you have never been part of the pushback crew on a Tu154B and heard all 3 spool up at close quarters, then you just haven’t lived! In 1985 I spent 3 days at the Interflug technical school at SXF learning weight and balance and ground handling procedures for the Tu134A and IL62M. They were a great bunch of guys there and very professional. I worked for Aeroflot at LHR for 12 months in ’93 and took the opportunity to see their operation close up in Moscow during my induction course there. I just wish I’d had the opportunity to sample the Tu114.

I think maybe you misunderstood my point, Interflug. I wasn’t saying Soviet aircraft are reverse-engineered from western designs and I know aircraft design has its roots routed firmly in physics; the general configuration passenger aircraft have had for the last 40 years is widely considered the most efficient so I know all aircraft look broadly similar. I more meant the untrained eye could very easily mistake an IL-62 for a VC-10 or a Tu-204 for a 757. 🙂

I don’t have masses of experience with soviet designs but I do think they rank among the most awesome looking aircraft of the commercial jet age. I remember the first time I ever saw a 154, it was at AMS maybe 6-7 years ago when my interest in aviation was just starting to really develop and I just remember thinking… What the hell is that?! I was immediately struck by its size, its general look of ‘I mean business’ and most of all by the fact this big, rugged plane was stunningly beautiful, and I still get the same feeling whenever I’m up close to one. Their days may well be almost numbered but it’s going to take something fairly serious to knock that aircraft out of my favourites list!

Yep, it’s funny how many of the Russian aircraft are along very similar lines to their western counterparts. Trident/Tu-154/727, IL-62/VC-10, Tu-204/757 (one variant of the 204 even uses RB-211 engines). The closest in terms of first flight were the VC-10 and IL-62, their first flights only being a year apart, the others were more like 5-8 years. Interesting stuff. 🙂

Mmmm. But how many design solutions are there for an airliner to perform a specific function in a safe and efficient manner? The following link illustrates this perfectly:

http://www.vc10.net/History/Comp_il62.html

I have read that it is the dissimilarities of the Tu144 to the Concorde that are more noteworthy in fact, than the similarities. Soviet airliners were produced to fulfil the specific requirements of the relevant 5 year plans devised by the government of the time and many of the engineering solutions were ‘home grown’. The economics of these aircraft were of secondary importance but safety was not. IMO the parameters within which the Soviet airliners were built and operated are a major difference between Soviet and ‘western’ types, which makes direct comparisons with Airbus, Boeing etc, of little relevance.

I am very lucky to have travelled on, and I guess some would say survived, very many Soviet types and I’m still here. I can honestly say that at no time did I feel unsafe on any of them, except on a North Korean An24 domestic flight in a thunderstorm when half of has had no seat belts!

As an ardent Soviet airliner nut it grieves me to say that my beloved Soviet era Tupolevs, Ilyushins, Yaks etc, may have had their day:( But there is still some hours in them yet. With suitable and proper maintenance and operational procedures, they still have a year or two in ’em.

Video of the burning plane:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7eb_1294086768

Maybe, maybe sometime soon again – BAE all British Taranis is a UCAV

Maybe, maybe sometime soon again – BAE all British Taranis is a UCAV in development- military albeit.

Who knows good R&D Brits prefer to stay in Blighty (like RR who are bravely weathering current Trent 900 and 1000 ‘storms’) possibly some complete civil design/developments/production may start up again (not just major components for Airbus).

It’s on my wish list for 2011 and ahead.

British R&D continues, just sadly not making our own aircraft anymore. Those days ended just after 9/11 with the RJX. A real shame. 😡

Why apologise – its true – I have flown in Tridents and 727s

Re 727ski

Slight diversion from the thread but I could not resist.
The Trijet idea came from the Hawker Sidely Trident and was copied by Boeing as far as I remember.
Sorry

Why apologise – its true – I have flown in Tridents and 727s and in their time they were great, fantastic, stupendous – HS Trident brought out many pioneering safety features for it’s time.
Dare I say it – my CPL flying instructor was Captain on the Trident, I was on board en-route to an academic examination as a final year pre university college student and (long before airline terrorism was even dreamt of) I was honoured with being permitted to sit in the First Officers seat for a short duration. It was as I described it stupendous as a cockpit array for its time.
A toast to great British R&D and long may it continue.

Yep, it’s funny how many of the Russian aircraft are along very similar lines to their western counterparts. Trident/Tu-154/727, IL-62/VC-10, Tu-204/757 (one variant of the 204 even uses RB-211 engines). The closest in terms of first flight were the VC-10 and IL-62, their first flights only being a year apart, the others were more like 5-8 years. Interesting stuff. 🙂

Re 727ski

Slight diversion from the thread but I could not resist.
The Trijet idea came from the Hawker Sidely Trident and was copied by Boeing as far as I remember.
Sorry

I’m getting a bit tired of you claiming I said things I simply didn’t. Please tell me where I said they didn’t “deserve” nice planes? Where on earth did I say that? And you should know full well how I intended the word “nice” to come across, I shouldn’t even have to explain that. Seriously, stop misquoting me. It’s insanely annoying.

This is getting tiring to be honest. I understand your point of view but you’re being massively ignorant of the facts, and not only that you’re going wildly off-topic. We’re not debating the value of human life; you’re not the only person here to understand how valuable life is (I’ve lost enough friends to know that more than well, believe me). Simple fact: if you can’t afford something you can’t buy it. I want a Canon 5DII but I don’t have £1800 spare, so I’m using a 6 year old camera that’s been hammered – it still works. Not the same you may say, but the principle is pretty much identical.

To address your points on aircraft uses, flying doctor services to my knowledge rarely use aircraft even a third the size of a 737, medical aircraft like the Orbis eye hospital aren’t generally owned by developing countries (because funnily enough they can’t afford them), aid relief is usually provided by nations other than the nation needing it (otherwise they wouldn’t need it in the first place), and commuting overseas isn’t something that’s really too much on the mind of the average third world farmer. Can you kinda see my point? You’re applying western logic to a situation that’s completely different. That just doesn’t work.

To be honest I’m going to stop discussing this until you stop misquoting me and start accepting the facts.

I have quoted you correctly and fully

As for aid programmes to get developing nations better aircraft, I like the idea but in all honesty I think those nations probably have higher priorities like ensuring everyone has food, medicine, etc, rather than buying nice planes.

I have added your exact quote to the post above.

Some where the essentials in countries where travel overland (due to terrain, floods, landslides, etc) is prohibitive (e.g. good roads, railways, etc) good airports fulfil many of the needs you speak of as priorities for these developing countries. Flying doctor services, flying operating theatres (for some types of surgery), aid relief, transport of commuters (safely) to centres of industry or business (within the country of overseas) without having to enforce expensive family relocation.

By saying in 2011 that they don’t deserve ‘nice planes’ as a priority, is possibly taking a condescending attitude towards these struggling nations and their people – the word ‘nice’ isn’t necessarily a word that would describe their needs in airliners for passenger transport.
I wonder whether the grieving families of those who have perished in multiple crashes in ‘older’ (economic in your words) aircraft used to transport fare paying passengers would agree that their tragic losses/sacrifices do not deserve a re-assessment of the methods used for deploying/acquiring passenger aircraft in those regions?

I have said it quite early on in this thread ‘human lives lost are the same where ever they are in the world – they are human lives’

Hi tenthije some responses below

[QUOTE=tenthije;1683586]A 737 is not at all unafforable for African airlines. It’s just not a NG…………..Except for the mayor African airlines (Kenyan, South African, Egyptair etc) they all operate old equipment.

Might I ask what your first car was? ……… I got one of the most reliable cars there is, for a car 15 years old anyway.

The same applies to old Tupolevs. They are not particularly economical, but they are cheap to buy and very strong. You can run them into the ground, sometimes even literally, and still fly them out. Just look at the Alrosa crash-landing into a forest mid september 2010. It will be repaired. I’d like to see a Western design try to pull that of. (actually, no I don’t, the fewer crashes the better but you’ll get my drift)……..[/QUOTE]

Hi tenthije
Okay I am fully aware of the state of some places that are used as airports or make shift landing strips in many less developed countries. For transporting freight – sure; but transporting human lives of poor innocent people – NO.

By saying TU’s are okay in these countries as passenger transport, we are simply condoning the widening gap between rich and poor and the absolute zero value placed on ‘human lives’ in these countries by their own, in many cases corrupt business people/leaders. We are saying ‘cattle class’ or worse is fine for ‘them’ since they aren’t ‘us’.

To answer your question – My first car was my dad’s – a new German built VW Beetle 1200, when he was given a company car . I later moved to a new VW 1300s and then migrated to faster autos in Europe.

I am not arguing about TU’s being capable of being run into the ground, or their repair-ability but I share fully your last comment in that paragraph [QUOTE=tenthije;1683586]……….(actually, no I don’t, the fewer crashes the better but you’ll get my drift)/QUOTE]

I do get your drift but cannot condone the huge losses of innocent lives in TU154 crashes (just under 3000 lives lost since 1973).

If you’re going to quote me then do it properly! I didn’t say it was mainly due to human error, I said quite a lot of incidents were. There’s a difference.

As for aid programmes to get developing nations better aircraft, I like the idea but in all honesty I think those nations probably have higher priorities like ensuring everyone has food, medicine, etc, rather than buying nice planes.

I have no problem with enthusiasts appreciating technically interesting models

On 1st January 2011, 18:49 RIP…… lost their lives.
I’d love to fly on a TU-154, but I would need a large bottle of brave pills before getting on board. As they age further and are farmed out to second and third-tier carriers, their safety record is unlikely to get any better…….That’s what I’d be thinking of, irrespective of the type’s safety record.

I too share you enthusiasm mrtotty
I have no problem with enthusiasts appreciating technically interesting models. I spend most of my time doing the same. Flying in many now can be extremely expensive. That’s me – my life, I choose the possible risk for my pleasure and interest, no problem with that. The same interest that says I’d love to drive a Bugatti Veyron at it’s max speed on the German test track as James May (TG) did.

That is a whole different and exhilarating enthusiasts’ ‘ball game’ from packing innocent fare paying passengers (that place their trust in the airline) into the same model of aircraft and quoting PMN, that their lives (just under 3,000 lost in TU154 since 1973) were mainly lost due to ‘human error’ rather than anything else.
Added to clarify PMN’s quote “If you’re going to quote me then do it properly! I didn’t say it was mainly due to human error, I said quite a lot of incidents were. There’s a difference.”

Even developing nations (BRIC) in 2011 should be seeking the support of all international resources including negotiating preferential terms with Boeing and Airbus and other aircraft manufacturers to get their countries moving along with aid from the WB, EIB, etc to develop airports. Large companies have financial discretion on trading with any customer and may even get their country’s national subsidies from aid programmes in their efforts to do so if it’s in the interests of a nation developing democratically.

I am a ‘bean counter’ with a very ‘human heart’ and believe that substantial profit that generates good organisation sustaining cash flows can be made ethically while also valuing human lives.
The origins of both the Boeing 737 and TU154 are the mid to late 1960s yet a 737 is unaffordable while a TU154 is affordable to poorer nations.
This is the insurmountable mountain unfortunately.

A 737 is not at all unafforable for African airlines. It’s just not a NG. They are ‘200 series, or perhaps high-cycles/hours ‘300s / ‘400s / ‘500s, or operationally undesirable ‘600s. Except for the mayor African airlines (Kenyan, South African, Egyptair etc) they all operate old equipment.

Might I ask what your first car was? Was it a brand new full-spec Mercedes, or did you do with an old VW Golf that barely came through the MoT. That’s how I started my motoring career. Not because I prefer a 15 y/o Golf over a Mercedes… purely because I needed a car for work, but could afford nothing better. I got one of the most reliable cars there is, for a car 15 years old anyway.

The same applies to old Tupolevs. They are not particularly economical, but they are cheap to buy and very strong. You can run them into the ground, sometimes even literally, and still fly them out. Just look at the Alrosa crash-landing into a forest mid september 2010. It will be repaired. I’d like to see a Western design try to pull that of. (actually, no I don’t, the fewer crashes the better but you’ll get my drift)

edited to addd:
Also remember that the former Soviet designs are more tailored towards conditions in Africa. They are designed to operate from ill maintained runways. Some types are even designed to operate from fields, since they where intended to be drafted by the armed forces should the cold war have gone hot. The western types are designed for modern, well maintained airports. Most African airports, in particular the regional and local ones, are in a bad state of disrepair. And that’s assuming they where ever right to begin with!