FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1989
1989 - 0061.PDF
Wingspan Length Take-off weight Comparative data Empty weight Tu-204 137ft 9in 147ft 8in 205,7001b 124,7801b 757 124ft lOin 155ft 3in 240,0001b 128,4501b also features electronic diagnos tics to match the Tu-204's design philosophy of high utilisation and low mainten ance burden (3,000hr per year with 30min turnrounds between flights is Tupolev's utilisation target). Although the Tu-204 is a little smaller than the 757 (though its wingspan is greater), its slightly lower empty weight suggests a creditable advance in Soviet structural engineering. At 93 • 5 tonnes, the aircraft has a 15 • 5-tonne lower gross weight than its American contem porary. It is deficient in payload- range (lifting its maximum paylcad only half the distance), but airfield performance is only slightly inferior. The gross-weight and performance shortfalls relative to the 757 result from the lower thrust available to the Tu-204. failed' looking up saw the aircraft far lower than normal i for a conventional approach, with flames from the port engine. The aircraft passed low over the village of Kegworth, which is just east of the Ml motorway, Britain's main north-south arterialroute. The 737 hit the motorway nose-high, which caused its tail section to buckle upwards. No vehicles appear to have been involved in the accident. Following the initial impact the aircraft slid across the road and up an embankment, com ing to rest in three sections. Remarkably, trkre was no fire at the crash site, the fatalities resulting from the impact and the damage to the fuselage. The 150-seat 737-400 had been delivered new to British Midland on November 8 last year, and had logged only 518hr flying time. The CFM56-3 engines which power the 737-300 and -400 have proved, remarkably reliable, with an inflight shut down rate of only 0-006/ 1,000 engine flying hours— about four times more reliable than the Pratt & Whitney JT8D engines which power earlier 737s. Libyan MiGs were armed United States Navy Grumman F-14 Tomcats shot down two Libyan Air Force MiG-23 Flog- gers over the Mediterranean Sea off Libya on January 4. The incident started at 09.55 GMT (11.55 local). Two F-14 Tomcats from the carrier USS John F. Kennedy were patrol ling in international airspace when two aircraft, later identi fied as MiG-23s, were detected, presumably by an E-2C Hawk- eye airborne early warning aircraft. They took off from Al Bunbah Air Base and headed towards the two Tomcats in what the US Navy describes as "a threatening manner". US Secretary of Defence Frank Carlucci says: "The MiG aircraft were detected shortly after they- left Al Bunbah, and were tracked as they closed on the two F-14 aircraft. The F-14 pilots manoeuvred to avoid the closing aircraft. They changed speed, altitude and direction. The Libyan aircraft continued to close in a hostile manner. "At about 14 miles range the US section leader decided his aircraft was in jeopardy and they could wait no longer. One MiG-23 was shot down with a Sparrow missile. The second MiG was shot down by a Side winder at six miles." The US Navy confirmed that two parachutes were sighted by the Tomcat crews. It is not known if the Libyan pilots were picked up, although a Libyan search and rescue helicopter was later seen searching. After the incident both F-14 crews were flown to Naples for an initial debriefing at US 6th Fleet headquarters. The lead crew later flew to the USA for a more extensive debrief by Pentagon officials. This was aided by video recordings taken by each of the Tomcat crews, using the aircraft's TV camera system (TCS), which is used for long-range visual identification. It should be noted that the F-14 crews did not know what aircraft type they were up against until the second crew identified them as MiG-23s at 5 n.m. range, some 30 seconds after the lead Tomcat had launched the first AIM-7. Until then the contacts were referred to as "bogies". The lead F-14 fired two AIM-7 Sparrows, which missed, and the second F-14 fired a further AIM-7, which hit the first MiG. The lead F-14 had trouble initially in obtaining an AlM-9 Side winder lock-on tone: this took about 60sec from his calling for Sidewinder selection. •• The Pentagon says that the incident bears no relation what soever to the alleged chemical weapons plant neafing completion about 70 n..m. south-west of Tripoli, which Libya asserts is a pharma ceutical factory but which is guarded by SAM sites. Libya has lodged a formal complaint Col Gaddaffi's assertion that the MiGs were unarmed is clearly untrue, as this picture of the second MiG-23 shows. Beneath each wing appears to be an AA-7 Apex, with a pair of AA -8 Aphids under the fuselage. The MiG-23 also has an internal 23mm twin-barrel cannon with the United Nations Secu rity Council over the shooting down of its aircraft. Libya says that its MiG-23s were unarmed and on a "reconnaissance flight". The MiGs were armed, and there is not a dedicated reconnaissance variant of the type, but it is possible that the Arabic for a surveillance flight was mistranslated. The carrier group is part of the normal US Navy 6th Fleet presence in the Mediterranean. Libya claims a 200 n.m. coastal limit which is not recog nised. Under international law the limit is 12 n.m. Libya also claims the Gulf of Sirte south of 32°30'N as an "inland sea". This claim is also not recog nised, and on August 19, 1981, two US Navy Tomcats shot down a pair of Libyan Sukhoi Su-20 Fitters which had fired on the F-14s over the Gulf of Sirte. A bombing raid on Libya by US Air Force F-llls in 1986, in retaliation for support ing terrorist activities, also strengthened the enmity between Libya and the USA. FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL, 14 January 1989 3
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
