>comparing the most versatile of all cargo planes on the planet to the loudest, fuel chugging half baked copied heavy strategic bomber that is known as "the deaf maker" and so so very much not suited for anything that's not long range cheap cruise missile lobbing
But they're both turboprops, so that's clearly not the big problem the latter has, and following from that switching to jet engines wouldn't really help it all that much either.
>long range cheap cruise missile lobbing
Which seems to be a role the Russians think is really important, so that worked out pretty ok for them.
To be fair, B-52s aren't going to do anything besides lobbing cruise missiles if we find ourselves at war with a non sandmoron nation.
The difference is that our cruise missiles actually work as intended.
>The real question is why they never changed it.
Because their whole empire crumbled so they lack the money, resources and the brain power to improve and create better shit. Same shit would have happened if America was the one to fall.
Having eight engines for a payload less than what an A350 can lift with two isn't exactly impressive either. But hey, these living fossils still work, are somewhat cost efficient, so why change them?
Props are way more efficient at lower speeds, moreover it's a turboprop engine meaning there is also a "jet engine" inside, the net thrust is given by the prop + jet
Of course, you retards see the props and assume they generate all the thrust...
>Turboprop >prop and engine generate thrust.
I mean technically I guess but this is a pretty retard take as the vast majority of the work produced by compression and combustion is going to go into the propeller. I think you're confusing a turboprop with a turbofan.
No turbofan has either mixed or separated fluxes, the fan only serves to move huge quantities of air and give it a low speed but a huge efficiency.
Turboprop has a propeller in the front which does the exact same thing as a fan but has can be modified to have constant efficiency in a speed range, unlike the fan which is only good at a certain condition.
In both cases they are moved by the free turbine, and in both, you have the dm/dt (u_exit - u_asynt) + Ae(Pe - Pa) contribute.
Yeah but the point is that a turboprop would utilize most of the energy created in the Brayton cycle in powering the turbine for the propeller accelerating the air out of the core a minimal amount for a marginal amount of thrust. This is why it's efficient because a little bit of speed over a large surface area is better than a lot over a small area assuming equivalent flux due obviously to the KE put in being linear for mass vs quadratic for velocity.
Funny thing about the Tu-4 was that Stalin wanted a B-29 so badly there were orders to soviet engineers given to copy it 100%, no deviations allowed. Of course this was a problem because the Soviet Union didn't have access to exotic material fabrications technology that Boeing and its contractors had so soviet engineers had to 'make a B-29 but with heavier and worse parts'.
>stole
They just inspected it thoroughly for any defects before giving it back comrade. They didn't want the Americans to have a defective plane after all *~~))
Actually, the correct story is that the plane was heavier because when converting from imperial, they had to choose the closest metric equivalent, but had to on the side of caution so would choose the bigger closest equivalent instead of the smaller closest equivalent.
I'm going to cut them some slack because they don't have an economy. On the other hand we shouldn't ever have a problem with our aircrafts because we're literally pouring hundreds of billions into them.
It made sense in the 1950s when the USSR couldnt build fuel efficient enough jet engines. The real question is why they never changed it.
Because it's probably easier to design a whole new plane, which they did with Tu-160, I believe.
>design whole new planes
Should've just done a Peacemaker and strapped a few jet engines on in addition to the propellers.
>The real question is why they never changed it.
It still works.
>comparing the most versatile of all cargo planes on the planet to the loudest, fuel chugging half baked copied heavy strategic bomber that is known as "the deaf maker" and so so very much not suited for anything that's not long range cheap cruise missile lobbing
One of these is not like the other
But they're both turboprops, so that's clearly not the big problem the latter has, and following from that switching to jet engines wouldn't really help it all that much either.
>long range cheap cruise missile lobbing
Which seems to be a role the Russians think is really important, so that worked out pretty ok for them.
>moving the goal posts
False equivalence, retard.
To be fair, B-52s aren't going to do anything besides lobbing cruise missiles if we find ourselves at war with a non sandmoron nation.
The difference is that our cruise missiles actually work as intended.
Because they still can't
>The real question is why they never changed it.
Because their whole empire crumbled so they lack the money, resources and the brain power to improve and create better shit. Same shit would have happened if America was the one to fall.
because Tupolev is institutionally retarded and Antonov is in a different country
Having eight engines for a payload less than what an A350 can lift with two isn't exactly impressive either. But hey, these living fossils still work, are somewhat cost efficient, so why change them?
Props are way more efficient at lower speeds, moreover it's a turboprop engine meaning there is also a "jet engine" inside, the net thrust is given by the prop + jet
Of course, you retards see the props and assume they generate all the thrust...
>Turboprop
>prop and engine generate thrust.
I mean technically I guess but this is a pretty retard take as the vast majority of the work produced by compression and combustion is going to go into the propeller. I think you're confusing a turboprop with a turbofan.
No turbofan has either mixed or separated fluxes, the fan only serves to move huge quantities of air and give it a low speed but a huge efficiency.
Turboprop has a propeller in the front which does the exact same thing as a fan but has can be modified to have constant efficiency in a speed range, unlike the fan which is only good at a certain condition.
In both cases they are moved by the free turbine, and in both, you have the dm/dt (u_exit - u_asynt) + Ae(Pe - Pa) contribute.
Yeah but the point is that a turboprop would utilize most of the energy created in the Brayton cycle in powering the turbine for the propeller accelerating the air out of the core a minimal amount for a marginal amount of thrust. This is why it's efficient because a little bit of speed over a large surface area is better than a lot over a small area assuming equivalent flux due obviously to the KE put in being linear for mass vs quadratic for velocity.
It's a B-29 ripoff
To be precise, improved version of that ripoff
Funny thing about the Tu-4 was that Stalin wanted a B-29 so badly there were orders to soviet engineers given to copy it 100%, no deviations allowed. Of course this was a problem because the Soviet Union didn't have access to exotic material fabrications technology that Boeing and its contractors had so soviet engineers had to 'make a B-29 but with heavier and worse parts'.
Don't forget that they literally stole B-29 to study and copy them.
>stole
They just inspected it thoroughly for any defects before giving it back comrade. They didn't want the Americans to have a defective plane after all *~~))
Actually, the correct story is that the plane was heavier because when converting from imperial, they had to choose the closest metric equivalent, but had to on the side of caution so would choose the bigger closest equivalent instead of the smaller closest equivalent.
it looks menacing
and looking cool is all that matters
PS
turboprops are cool
>Sir, engines or props for or new plane?
>Yes
B-36 is sex
>*snorts a line of crystal*
>HUA! You know what? Why we don't throw a nuclear reactor on the plane while we are at it?
>*puts down the crack pipe*
>YO WHAT IF WE GAVE THEM TRACKS SO THEY CAN LAND ON A FUCKING FIELD AFTER ALL OUR AIRSTRIPS GET GLASSED?
I'm going to cut them some slack because they don't have an economy. On the other hand we shouldn't ever have a problem with our aircrafts because we're literally pouring hundreds of billions into them.