Rear Bear Vs. The Russian Bear

Discussion in 'Aircraft Design / Aerodynamics / New Technology' started by pie_row, Dec 2, 2009.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. Dec 2, 2009 #1

    pie_row

    pie_row

    pie_row

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2009
    Messages:
    710
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    salt lake city Ut
    You changed what you wrote and what you quoted of me after the fact. And so this statement of yours is a lie.
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2011
  2. Dec 2, 2009 #2

    bmcj

    bmcj

    bmcj

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    12,962
    Likes Received:
    4,898
    Location:
    Fresno, California
    Rare Bear vs Tupolev Bear.

    You're comparing piston to turboprop!

    By the way, it's Rare Bear, not Rear Bear (or Bare Rear :gig:).

    ... or near beer?
     
  3. Dec 2, 2009 #3

    pie_row

    pie_row

    pie_row

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2009
    Messages:
    710
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    salt lake city Ut
    You changed what you wrote and what you quoted of me after the fact. And so this statement of yours is a lie.
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2011
  4. Dec 2, 2009 #4

    bmcj

    bmcj

    bmcj

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    12,962
    Likes Received:
    4,898
    Location:
    Fresno, California
    Maybe so, but the Rare Bear speeds are at (or near) sea level and include lots of speed-robbing turns.
     
  5. Dec 2, 2009 #5

    Starman

    Starman

    Starman

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2009
    Messages:
    2,011
    Likes Received:
    61
    Location:
    High in the Andes Mountains
    Silk purse - sow's ear
     
  6. Dec 2, 2009 #6

    pie_row

    pie_row

    pie_row

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2009
    Messages:
    710
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    salt lake city Ut

    The Tu=95 holds the propeller speed record for it's weight class at at 507 mph over a closed corce of 1,000km. FAI certifide record. I looked for the referance that quoted 996 kmph and didn't find it so I won't repeat it.
     
  7. Dec 2, 2009 #7

    autoreply

    autoreply

    autoreply

    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    10,732
    Likes Received:
    2,542
    Location:
    Rotterdam, Netherlands
    If you're comparing equivalent drag area and horsepower the TU-95 tops out the Bearcat. That's the slender fuselage, very powerful engines, swept wing, but also the sheer power sensity of turboprops you simply can't achieve with reciprocating engines.
     
  8. Dec 2, 2009 #8

    Starman

    Starman

    Starman

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2009
    Messages:
    2,011
    Likes Received:
    61
    Location:
    High in the Andes Mountains
    Good points, how about apples to apples, how fast will/would/has/can a TU95 go at sea level? What's the straight line top speed of the Bare Bear?
     
  9. Dec 2, 2009 #9

    bmcj

    bmcj

    bmcj

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    12,962
    Likes Received:
    4,898
    Location:
    Fresno, California
    I don't know any of those off the top of my head, but remember, TAS (true airspeed) is much greater than IAS (indicated airspeed) at high altitudes, while the speed of sound is slower. This means that your speed in terms of Mach number will be higher at altitude.
     
  10. Dec 2, 2009 #10

    Starman

    Starman

    Starman

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2009
    Messages:
    2,011
    Likes Received:
    61
    Location:
    High in the Andes Mountains
    To make it a better race, assuming the Rare Bear has a supercharger, find it's fastest altitude and then find the top speed of the TU95 at that altitude. It should be easy for the rocket scientists here.
     
  11. Dec 2, 2009 #11

    bmcj

    bmcj

    bmcj

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    12,962
    Likes Received:
    4,898
    Location:
    Fresno, California
    Just to give you an example, a plane flying at .8 Mach at 5,000 feet (Rare Bear) will indicate 480 knots with a true airspeed of 515 knots. A plane flying at .8 Mach at 40,000 feet (Tupolev Bear) will indicate 240 knots with a true airspeed of 455 knots. The difference in true airspeeds at various altitudes is why planes fly higher to cover more real estate faster.

    Also, comparing the Mach number of two means nothing unless it is done under the same conditions (altitude, pressure, temperature). For example, our plane flying at Mach .8 at 5,000 feet will cover ground 5 knots faster than a plane flying at Mach .9 at 40,000 feet. Despite being at a higher Mach number, the speed of sound is slower, and so is the true airspeed.

    NOTE: These numbers are taken from a chart and are not exact.
     
  12. Dec 2, 2009 #12

    pie_row

    pie_row

    pie_row

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2009
    Messages:
    710
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    salt lake city Ut
    You changed what you wrote and what you quoted of me after the fact. And so this statement of yours is a lie.
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2011
  13. Dec 2, 2009 #13

    Starman

    Starman

    Starman

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2009
    Messages:
    2,011
    Likes Received:
    61
    Location:
    High in the Andes Mountains
    And there you have it folks, the Rare Bear beats the Tu by a landslide and following mach numbers is like chasing ghosts.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2009
  14. Dec 2, 2009 #14

    pie_row

    pie_row

    pie_row

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2009
    Messages:
    710
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    salt lake city Ut
    You changed what you wrote and what you quoted of me after the fact. And so this statement of yours is a lie.
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2011
  15. Dec 2, 2009 #15

    autoreply

    autoreply

    autoreply

    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    10,732
    Likes Received:
    2,542
    Location:
    Rotterdam, Netherlands
    In fact, with constant pressurization (ratios) top speed at all levels for both a turboprop and reciprocating engine is almost constant :)
     
  16. Dec 2, 2009 #16

    autoreply

    autoreply

    autoreply

    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    10,732
    Likes Received:
    2,542
    Location:
    Rotterdam, Netherlands
    No, you won't.
    The lightest engines are motorcycle ones. The 190HP 1000CC engines weight about 85kg. So exactly 1 lbs/hp.
    The PT-6 does around 1200HP and 300 kg, so 0.5 lbs/hp.

    Not to mention that I'm comparing a pure racing engine without gearbox with the most reliable turboprop in the world.
     
  17. Dec 2, 2009 #17

    bmcj

    bmcj

    bmcj

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    12,962
    Likes Received:
    4,898
    Location:
    Fresno, California
    Autoreply is correct. In fact, the power output is largely a function of how much fuel you can put through it. The turbines win that race hands down for a given engine weight.
     
  18. Dec 2, 2009 #18

    Autodidact

    Autodidact

    Autodidact

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    4,513
    Likes Received:
    799
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    I hate to keep hollering Reynolds number, but might that have something to do with it? The TU-95 is a much larger airplane than the Bearcat. In naval architecture, a ship with a displacement type hull will have a higher hull speed the longer it is because it can only go the speed of a wave whose distance between crests is the same as the distance between the bow wave and the stern wave of the hull. It can go faster, but the efficiency goes way down. I realize that water and air are not exactly the same, but it does seem that the fastest aircraft tend to be fairly large. Missiles are probably the fastest but they are seriously overpowered. Any correlation between size and speed?:ermm:
     
  19. Dec 3, 2009 #19

    Starman

    Starman

    Starman

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2009
    Messages:
    2,011
    Likes Received:
    61
    Location:
    High in the Andes Mountains
    Or maybe not, at lower altitudes the TU will have more advantageous prop blade angles and more air for more engine power so maybe it could really crank it on and beat the Rear bare at lower altitudes, you would need to know if and/or how much the TU engines loose power at high cruise altitude.
     
  20. Dec 3, 2009 #20

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    13,826
    Likes Received:
    5,461
    Location:
    Orange County, California
    Are we really comparing a high-altitude four-engine bomber with a low-level closed-course racer just because they both have propellers? This isn't even apples-to-oranges. More like apples-to-aardvarks.
     

Share This Page



arrow_white