FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1956
1956 - 0395.PDF
6 April 1956 ;;;•..., Assessing the Tu-104 393 IT is refreshing to Study an aeroplanelike the Tu-104, in which design influ-ences have been not all-British, or all- American, but British, American, German and Russian. If one wished to be mean one could say it was a "poor man's jet- liner," for it is about as economical in design and manufacture as such an aero- plane could be. On the other hand it cannot be denied that to have brought such a machine to the point at which route-proving trials are taking place is no small achievement. Russia has been collecting large-jet experience only since 1951 at the earliest. Most of her work in this field has, naturally enough, been military, and it is not therefore surprising to find that the Tu-104 owes much to an established bomber design. Although the skin of the Tu-104 nose is of a different quality from that of the rest of the airframe it should not be inferred that the nose is, in fact, from a Badger production line. The trans- port has a much fatter fuselage (lift) and full section is developed rapidly. It seems, therefore, mat the nose and flight deck are merely based on the Badger design, but are not identical. The flight crew comprises two pilots (Capt. Starkov was in command on the London trip), navigator, radio officer and an engineer. A stewardess is also to be provided on Aeroflot services. The first Tu-104 was publicly demonstrated at Tushino last July and more than one machine has since been flown throughout "all the Russias." It is believed that one has flown routes extending to Vladivostok, and other flights include Moscow- Khabarovsk (nine to ten hours) and Moscow-Novosibirsk non- stop (2,000 sun). Although the Tu-104 is in production, few are believed to have been built so far. In spite of its bright finish there were signs that L-5400, which came to London, had flown I many hours. As a design the 104 has been described as "totally uneconomic" [ by a renowned British personality. This is probably an over- \ statement of the case, although there is no doubt mat the engines (they have been described as M-209s) are no match for the best of | the West in the matter of specific consumption. In the Badger they fare thought to have a maximum rating of 18,000 lb. The civil [engine is derated to 6,750 kg (14,890 lb), as we mentioned last I week, and the aircraft took aboard at London some 5,100 Imp. gal lof kerosine (the figure of 8,000 gal, or 60,000 lb, previously •reported is the total capacity of the tanks). On a 3i-hour stage Ithis appears excessive for this size of aircraft. Combustion |is probably poorer than in the best British engines, if the smoke isequent upon opening up the engines at sea level (as Starkov 1 upon arriving at L.A.P.) is any guide. Some people have said that 50 passengers on two turbojets is a " i idea. Frankly we cannot see why. It all depends on what Sine is chosen; if it be an untried powerplant then the idea makes J sense at all, but if it is a rugged, reliable engine then two nits should be cheaper and easier than four. The Tu-104 can y quite well at full load on one, and asymmetric problems hould b; trivial. In any case, there is every reason to believe hat this massive axial is, in fact, a very well proven engine, specially if it is derated to only 83 per cent of its military "Flight" photographs AS we have indicated in our leading article the visit to London of theRussian Tu-104 jet transport—almost the only occasion in peace-time upon which a virtually unknown aeroplane hat been presented for theworld's perusal—has inspired a remarkable series of comments and opinions, some sound, some contradictory and some ridiculous. Lastweek we published a first appraisal of this aeroplane; here we offer further conclusions. Notes on the interior appear on p. 401 and aspecial three-view drawing by D. I. Punnett will be found on p. 389. thrust. The 104 took aboard no water or watcr/methanol. We have described the undercarriage as stalky. This probably stems from the bomber ancestry, for the Badger has a mid- mounted wing which makes a long undercarriage a necessity. The 104 gear is, in our opinion, not at all bad, and probably has a weight of some five per cent, assuming the maximum weight of the aircraft to be 120,000 lb. A comparison with the Valiant B.2 shows many points of similarity. It is abundantly clear that the 104 is not a notably fast aero- plane; Mach 0.85 is certainly beyond it. For this reason it is evident that the considerable sweep angles have been a means to using thick surfaces; and the lower picture shows what we mean. Of course, a wing of this type greatly relieves the problems of finding space for fuel, and such items as flap jacks. The engines are can tile vered rearwards from the spar structure and one intake duct passes beneath the wing proper, while a second duct almost certainly goes through the spar webs. There is no question that the Tu-104 is designed to a cabin pressure differential of at least five pounds per square inch. The use of oxygen for all aboard is only prudent at an early stage in the career of such a transport, and there is no doubt that Russia has been deeply impressed by our own experiences with pressure cabins and does not wish to run before she can walk. There was no evidence of fail-safe design from the exterior, apart from the use of three main spars in the wing, but it would not be reasonable to suppose that Russia has ignored any of the West's experience in this field. To sum up, then: the Tu-104 is fairly fast, easy to fly, modest in its demands on airfields (both as regards runway length and pavement bending moment), cheap to build and maintain (in relation to its competitors), capacious and probably comfortable, and quite well developed. On the debit side, it is by no means as efficient on a cost-per-ton-mile basis as the West's jet transports promise to be, and it is also what might be described as "unsophisticated"—an overworked word, but one which does well to describe something which is rather dated in conception and conventional in execution. Yet there is no reason to doubt that the Tu-104 will do its Aeroflot job as well as could any other machine in the world. And this job, of course, includes propa- ganda as well as ton-miles-achieved. W. T. G. 15 t The upper photograph was secured horn a Whirlwind of B.E.A. on the last day that the Tu-104 was at London. On the left is the machine in a nutshell; thick wing, stalky bogies, and large turbojets close alongside the fuselage. Also visible are a static discharge spike and de-icing air outlets, both of which were mentioned last week.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
