Landing of airliners with a failed power plant - Airfield - LJ. Tu154

I decided to combine it into one post. The topic is scary, but perhaps someone will be interested in reading it in one post. For possible mistakes, please do not hit too hard, I will try to fix it immediately.

A person's fear of flying is irrational. But it is often reinforced by poor awareness of the achievements of modern aviation.

For example, engine failures. It seems to be common knowledge that a modern aircraft is capable of continuing to fly if one of the engines fails. But what is much less known is that the failure of ALL engines in flight does not necessarily lead to disaster. In the minds of many - modern liner- this is an iron that is capable of flying only using engine thrust.

However, it is not. Airliners have a fairly high aerodynamic quality - for example, in the Tu-204 it reaches 18. In fact, this means that after losing a kilometer of altitude in non-motorized flight, the aircraft can fly 18 km. If we take into account that the typical altitude for long-haul flights is 9-10 km (and for the Tu-154 in some conditions it can reach up to 12 km), we get that the crew has 150-180 kilometers of range to the nearest airport. This is quite a lot - after all, they try to lay air routes over airports (http://aviaforum.ru/showpost.php?p=231385&postcount=3 - here you can take the track of the real flight Ulan-Ude - Moscow). The issue of power supply to the most important aircraft systems when the engines are not running is solved by an emergency turbine pushed into the flow.

Naturally, landing an aircraft with a completely failed power plant requires enormous skill and luck from the crew. The altitude and range margin for planning on the airport runway is not enough - pilots need to very accurately land at a carefully calculated altitude. At the same time, they have no right to make a mistake - if they overfly or miss the plane, the plane will end up outside the runway - and not everywhere it is an open field - at many airports there are buildings or even residential buildings behind/in front of the runway. In a normal situation, the plane will simply go around - in an emergency there is no such chance. At the same time, landing can also take place in bad weather conditions with insufficient visibility - left without thrust, the airliner is forced to land where it can glide - regardless of the weather and the crew’s permission. In this case, it is often impossible to lower the landing gear and the plane has to be landed on the fuselage. If you managed to release the chassis, then when braking you can only rely on the brakes - and their capabilities in this situation are usually insufficient...

Despite the reliability of the technology, cases of failure of all engines are still not isolated. This happens for a number of reasons, often due to personnel errors when servicing the aircraft. Accordingly, cases of successful landings in such situations are also known.

Civil aviation of the USSR/RF was not spared such incidents. From recent:
- landing in January 2002 Tu-204 AK Sibir with inoperative engines. The reason is complete exhaustion of fuel.
- landing at Sheremetyevo Falcon. The reason is a malfunction in the fuel system

But the most fantastic story happened in 1963. The nose landing gear of the Tu-124 flight Tallinn-Moscow did not retract. It was decided to land at Pulkovo. Due to the second malfunction - a malfunction of the fuel meters, one of the engines stopped on one of the laps. Dispatchers gave permission for the emergency aircraft to pass over the city - and at an altitude of 450 m near Leningrad, the second engine stopped. Nevertheless, in such an extreme situation, the crew skillfully guided the plane over the bridges and landed on the Neva - no one was hurt. IMHO - this landing is much more difficult than the Chkalov flights under bridges.

Below the cut is a photo of the Gimli Glider after landing. In the text there are links to articles - there are more details about the planes and incidents.

Tupolev was undoubtedly a great designer. He kicked off the development passenger aviation in USSR. However, as we already understood, TU planes are much less reliable than Boeing and Airbus planes (read the article “Which planes are the most dangerous”). But let's talk in more detail about their safety.

The well-known TU-154 and Tu-134, which are gradually being phased out, were developed in the 60s and 70s. Already in those years, these machines were inferior to Boeings both in automation and in the number of crew and fuel consumption. TU aircraft also had advantages - low cost, as well as the ability to land almost on unpaved strips.

Is TU-154 safe?

The Tu-154 has two disadvantages. This is a high landing speed and the location of the engines at the rear, moreover, next to the hydraulics. When an engine explodes, it cuts off all hydraulics and the plane turns into an uncontrollable trough.

In addition, the TU-154 is piloted by as many as 4 crew members. Captain, co-pilot, flight mechanic, navigator. In the 70s, Boeings were controlled by two people and that was enough. At the same time, during a thunderstorm, the TU-154 can fly very high, that is, simply fly over it. Boeing is forced to maneuver between dangerous clouds.

Look at the start of the TU-154 engines. How complicated is this procedure? In modern Boeings and Airbuses, starting the engine is a little more difficult than in a car. And in TU planes there is a lot of manual work and a minimum of automation. Accordingly, even if the aircraft is very well maintained and practically new, there is always a chance that 1 out of 4 crew members will make a mistake. The notorious human factor is one of the main killers of TU aircraft. And considering that our pilots are driven with great intensity, a mistake can be made quite easily.

The TU-154 aircraft is very difficult to fly. The pilots who fly it can rightfully call themselves heroes. They are really very smart and know a lot. But this doesn’t make it any easier for passengers. Is TU-154 safe? If it is impeccably maintained and in the hands of professionals, then yes. But still, no one is immune from human errors. And the technology is Russian - you understand.

Is TU-204 safe?

Of the 76 TU-204s produced, only two fell. The first crashed solely due to the pilot’s inexperience. The second is due to reverse failure. In addition, there was a situation when two (!) engines failed on a Tu-204 flying to Novosibirsk in 2002, but it landed successfully. Pilots also complain about frequent failures. But in general, the aircraft is much more reliable than the TU-154. There are no problems with hydraulics, the plane has automatic equipment, the crew has been reduced to 2 people (initially there were 3).

Moreover, the TU-204 is the only aircraft whose wings do not require an anti-icing system.

In general, TU aircraft meet the standards, they fly stably, but still there are serious doubts about their reliability. Was it really impossible to modify the same PS-90A engine, to which the Federal Air Transport Agency already had serious complaints? Passenger reviews of the TU-204 are also of some interest.

TU aircraft are almost the same as VAZ cars. If you maintain them and know their weak points, they are quite reliable. But in general, the build quality is inferior to imported analogues. Therefore, the TU-204 is safe and quite modern, but a lot of time will pass before it is brought to fruition. It’s a pity - after all, I would really like the United States and Europe to buy TU aircraft from Russia, and not Russia to buy Boeings.

This is a kind of monument to this plane on the Internet, so let's repost it as much as possible.

The photos are some from the net. I did all the macro and close-up shots of the panels myself to convey the “atmospheric” feel of this car.

There is a lot of material, but you can’t tell briefly about such an aircraft. Let's go (the presentation is ambiguous and with humor).

In my life, for the first time I found myself in the cockpit of a Tu-154 in 1983. My uncle worked in the Minvodsk air squadron and took me, then a boy, into the cockpit. I still remember the white control columns (they were white then), mega-chairs with a cutout for the control column and VERY beautiful attitude indicators (photo below). The plane was powered up, was undergoing maintenance, and the “not ready for takeoff” sign was constantly blinking. Then it seemed to me like some kind of spaceship, no less.

This became the starting point. Love for aviation and this plane.

Subsequently, having retrained on the A320, I undoubtedly saw the advantages of Airbus and saw more disadvantages in the Tu-154. Nevertheless, it still evokes warm feelings (and not only for me).

Tu-154 is one of the most odious airliners of the USSR. Tu-154 is a very interesting collection of highly controversial technical solutions, in which advantages and disadvantages are woven into a super-complex pattern, and it is this pattern in all its ambiguity that causes a lot of talk among both professionals and amateurs (correspondents, critics and armchair experts).

In addition to Aeroflot, it was operated in 15 countries (mainly the socialist camp, or our comrades in the CMEA).

At the time when the Tu-154 was being developed, the airlines were dominated by the Tu-104 (the fastest), the Il-18 (the longest range), and the An-10 (the best takeoff and landing performance). It was not entirely logical to operate them simultaneously. The wise “glory to the CPSU” decided to develop a universal machine. The preliminary designs were created by An, Tu and Il.

Let's focus on the Tupolev Design Bureau. Initially, the project was created under the leadership of D.S. Markov, a little later S.M. joined the project. Jaeger.

Development work began in 1963. By 1964, the concept was more or less formed and included a 3- and 4-engine layout. I emphasize that in this plane the engines were only in the tail. No other options.

By 1965, the configuration was approved. 3 engines in the tail, NK8 engines (Tupolev loved them). It should be noted right away that this arrangement (3 engines in the tail) was popular in the world in the 60s, and we are not its authors. If I'm not confusing anything, we were almost the last to use it. At this time, there were already aircraft in the world with such a design.

The Tu-154 especially resembles the Boeing 727. There were a lot of rumors that ours had hijacked the American project. Like, this is the merit of the Stirlitz, who were able to get documentation for the plane, etc. There is no smoke without fire. And this is what happened:

In the mid-60s (I won’t say the exact date), a Boeing 727 made a call in Berlin and did not reach the runway (West Berlin). It fell exactly on the territory of our friendly GDR. And work on the design of the Tu-154 was already in full swing. Our specialists carefully studied everything they could. Then the story was born that the Tu-154 is a “licked” B727. In fact, ours only took “something.” Some solutions for wing mechanization, something with doors. Otherwise, these are different planes. And the Tu-154 is a parallel development.

The advantages of this design (3 engines in the tail) are reduced noise in the cabin, a clean wing - therefore high aerodynamic quality (distance-height), the Tu-154 has a very good one. The issued mechanization is 5.6, at flight level (clean wing) 16.5, despite the large wing sweep (a large angle reduces this quality, please note, there are no gliders with a large sweep), from a height of 10 thousand m it can glide 165 km.

The main competitors in this fight were the Tu-154 and the Il-74 concept. Tupolev won. In general, he was a symbiosis of an aircraft designer, a genius, a strategist, a sales manager, a PR man and a subtle politician. He was unique. Although with a tough character (one grater with Harold Kuznetsov is worth it). He really knew how to negotiate and promote his brand (delivery of aircraft to Bulgaria, gift of a boat with Tupolev symbols to the mumbling Ilyich, etc.). According to Yeger’s recollections, if Tupolev had not stated that the take-off weight of the Tu-154 would be 70 tons, today we would be discussing not the Tu-154, but the Il-74. Figuratively speaking, Tupolev simply gained “glory to the CPSU.” According to Yeger’s recollections, at that meeting Ilyushin’s jaw simply dropped.

So, in August 1965, work officially began on the creation of the Tu-154. From that moment on, Yeager became the chief designer of this aircraft (later A.S. Shengradt was appointed).

Initially the crew consisted of 3 members. 2 pilots and flight engineer. Subsequently, a navigator was added, because... the plane is very fast, but piloting and tinkering with the navigation device is problematic.

The Tu-154 was designed as a civilian aircraft. I'm not sure, but perhaps this is the first civilian aircraft of the Tupolev Design Bureau. Everything before this is a civilian modification of the military.

The chassis - 6 wheels on one bogie - made it possible to use a wide range of airfields. Because of this, spiteful critics called him “the centipede.” Although, the chassis are not strong point this plane. Quite the contrary (more on this later, where the shortcomings are).

The Tu-154 was not just fast. He is also fast-climbing. VERY. Plus a large range of vertical speeds. The rate of climb is over 40 m per second. This is a clear advantage of the three engines. Total thrust - 31 tons (initially, then increased!). Just imagine.

The prototype aircraft was made by 1968. But due to the race of the century at that time (Tu144 vs. Concorde), it stood for almost 8 months. Everything is as always, in general (this is described by Ilf and Petrov, the scene where the German was discharged, and then he sat in the waiting room and waited).

In 1969, the Tu-154 was shown at Le Bourget. He received high marks. I would say it almost created a sensation. Almost. The weak point is efficiency.

NATO gave him the nickname "carefree." I don't understand the logic. It feels like Anna Chapman was telling them.

The tests that took place during this period made it possible to refine the control system (ABSU) and much more. Regarding navigation, we even tried to install an inertial system, but something didn’t work out. All this was done on the 5th machine. After the whole range of tests, she was taken to VDNKh. Soviet children took pictures at VDNKh wearing it.

It should be noted that inertial systems always “fused” with Ilyushin. No wonder “glory to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union” placed orders from him for himself and the muttering grandfather in a hat and giant eyebrows.

Briefly, the difference between the course and inertial systems is as follows. The coursework works in the format of orthodromic coordinates: course and distance (the course is taken from the conditional prime meridian). The inertial system operates in the polar coordinate format (at the parking lot, the initial position of the aircraft is entered, and then acceleration is measured using accelerometer sensors and the distance is calculated by double integration). Majority modern aircraft equipped with inertial systems and GPS.

Start of operation - February 9, 1972 Flight Moscow (Vnukovo) Mineral water. Just in time for the holiday. Starting in April of the same year, they began to fly abroad (the first flight was to Berlin).

By the way, our grandfathers were very smart about its rate of climb and speed. We were actually faster.

After the first months of the regular season, many aircraft simply stood up for repairs. This is a normal process. Any aircraft, especially such a massive one, goes through this. But evil tongues began to call it Aurora, because, like, it’s always in the parking lot.

In 1974, the first modification appeared - Tu-154A. At this time, Aeroflot repainted its aircraft in a classic livery - with a blue stripe. The same one that those who were children then remember. Generation 70-80s.

Since 1975, the geography of the Tu-154 has expanded and included several hubs. This is how the concepts of “School” arose: Leningrad, Vnukovo, Krasnoyarsk, etc. Everyone claims that he is the best. Every (thinking) pilot has his own opinion about who is going too far. Let me just say that the commanders for this aircraft were initially approved by the Civil Aviation Minister himself. The geography of flights has also expanded. One might say, spasmodically. We flew all over the country.

Mastering it was not as easy as we would have liked, because... the plane is not simple. Not for the average pilot. Good aerodynamic qualities, but demanding. Everything must be within acceptable limits. This is not An2)), which can, in principle, do ANYTHING. Tu-154 was demanding. No diving under the glide path (“rubbing into the butt”), imbalance along the pitch channel on the glide path leads to an increase in speed, hence either an increased landing speed, or (even worse) a drawdown, which can turn into a tragedy. The number of incidents and disasters associated with this is countless.

Since 1975, A.S. Shengardt became the chief designer of the Tu-154. all the rest of the development of this aircraft is his contribution, the “advancement” of the Tu-154m (m-ki as it is also called) is his merit.

In ’75 or ’76 (I can’t say for sure), another problem arose - stabilizer flaps (at first the control was separate). More about this in the mechanization section.
Plus the problem of metal fatigue moments. They redid the wings, it was a whole campaign. Just imagine, converting 120 operational aircraft.
We redid the wing and made some extras. tank, the interior was redrawn, the APU and other systems were adjusted - the result was the Tu-154B.

Deliveries to friendly states have begun. Bulgarians, Hungarians, Egypt, Romanians, Koreans, Cuba, Poland, Czechs, China, Syria. By the way, it is in the livery of the Syrian airline that the Tu-154 (in my opinion) is most impressive. Narrow dark blue stripes only emphasize elegance, and converging to the nose slightly lower than those of Aeroflot, they make its appearance resemble a predatory kite. Really, this is the most spectacular livery.

Later, the Tu-154B1 was made into a B2. They increased the number of seats (a joke immediately started: they ask the conductor, why is your plane called TU-154B2? She answers, well, 150 passengers, 4 crew members. Well, what does B2 mean? I don’t know exactly, probably Tanka and I) .

By 1980, the Tu-154 was being promoted everywhere. Posters, calendars, etc. And with the Moscow Olympics - probably each of us has seen its logo.

The plane kept expanding its flight geography and home ports. There was even a cargo version. True, not many of them were built (after all, the country had the An-12 and the incomparable Il-76).

In 1984 they began producing the Tu-154m (it flew in 1985). There are a lot of modifications: engines, APU (retracted deeper), flaps (from 3-slotted to 2-slotted, the non-retractable tail was hidden), slats along almost the entire length of the wing, etc. Even the dashboard is different on the M-ki. It is 30% more economical than modification B. Figuratively speaking, one ton is saved per hour of flight.

Solovyov engines differ in sound. That whistling, chilling metallic sound that most people associate with Mka is precisely the D30KU engine. The Japanese once compared the sound of the Tu-154m to a samurai sword in the cold. It really does have an icy metallic color to it. And my friend Yoshizawa-san, sitting in the tail during takeoff and hearing the roar of the engines, said - UNBELIEVABLE.

The plane has evolved. There were developments related to Buran, I already mentioned the cargo version. The most important thing is that the Tu-155 was made using cryogenic fuel. And then they all screwed up, as is our custom. Because the topic is “irrelevant” (according to Gorbi and El-Tsin). In January 2017, China launched a hydrogen-powered aircraft. But in our country, most of the specialists from that school simply died. Time takes its toll.

The capitalist period for the Tu-154 was both good and deadly. A number of companies have developed it to a very modern level. The navigation system has been updated, the TCAS anti-collision system, noise reduction improvements, drag-reducing wingtips, a redesigned interior, and much more. But, in modern conditions, increased fuel consumption has negatively affected the future fate of this aircraft.

In November 2009 there was last flight in the St. Petersburg detachment - commander Larchenko.
December 31, 2009 - last flight on the Tu-154 at Aeroflot, commander Chuprun.
Aeroflot started 2010 without this car.

High-profile disasters:
The Donetsk disaster is one of the saddest pages in history. There are 2 authoritative opinions that the plane could have been taken out. But to do this, you need to understand the aerodynamics of the T-tail design. At high angles of attack, the engines are “shaded” by the flow from the wing, the compressor simply cannot cope, and the situation may end in surge (which is what happened). There is no use in pulling the steering wheel towards you. The crew tried to take the plane out and remove the roll. According to Chernopyatov N.E. (one of the commanders of the Leningrad school is a person whose opinion I am inclined to trust) - there was no need to correct the roll. On the contrary, a strong “blockage” of the aircraft would have brought the engines out of the “dead zone”, avoided surge, and then taken them out. Almost all the pros I know criticized the cap's behavior. As for pulling the steering wheel towards yourself: the famous Ershov once said that any disaster begins with thoughtlessly pulling the steering wheel towards yourself in order to keep the plane in the horizon. Summary of this tragedy - do not appoint people as commanders who have served as 2 pilots for more than 4 years. In my memory, this is the only major obser of the Leningrad school. The rest of the commanders are aces with a capital A.

The Poles with their catastrophe... they have been coming to this for a long time. Firing the commander who could fly, and instead putting in a dude with no balls (he was the co-pilot the year before. Less than a year flew as the ship's commander. Who was he BEFORE? He flew as a co-pilot on a Tu-154 for the commander of the ship that Kaczynski took to Tbilisi during the war on 08/08/08. that commander commands great respect. Tbilisi closed, they flew to Baku, and what did Kaczynski do? - he fired the commander of the ship, who made the only correct decision, and appointed the second pilot as commander of the ship). Allowing the old farts from the party to yap and put pressure on the commander in flight (the Air Force commander was in the cockpit and destabilized the situation as much as possible). Inability to enter in such conditions (by drives). Inability to make a decision NOT to enter. This meaningless note with an altimeter and pressure adjustment...
A lot of everything. There is no point in blaming the Russians here. You just need to be able to fly.

Izhma. I don't even know where to start. The pilots heroically corrected the p...ts that their flight engineer had organized for them. Due to low temperatures and the “old age” of the battery, thermal runaway occurred. According to the flight manual, the flight engineer is required to check the battery current every 40 minutes. This was not done. Read the rest in the report. Let me just say that by connecting a dead battery with a short one inside, he simply turned off the entire power system. And then the crew struggled, trying to land the plane safely (by the way, it was later restored).

Technical details and features.

About mechanization:

No one lands on a clean wing in normal mode, otherwise they would have to perform the approach at a very high speed, and the stripes would be made sooooo long. To enable flight at low speeds (relatively) the wing mechanization is used - flaps, slats, spoilers, stabilizer.

Flying at low speed is dangerous in itself, because... speed is close to stall speed. Extension of flaps and slats increases the lift of the wing and solves the above problem. True, aerodynamic drag increases and increased engine thrust is required.

A small digression: this is why the F117 stealth plane can fly. Its aerodynamics are a median between a combine harvester, an ax and a turd. But the increased mode of the motors does not allow this iron to fall.

More information about flaps:

When the flap is deflected, the wing profile bends and its area increases. This gives an increase in lift, both due to an increase in area and due to an increase in the flow bevel angle. The angle of attack of a single-slot flap is greater than the angle of attack of the wing, and to prevent flow stall, a slot is used, through which part of the flow is bypassed from the high-pressure area under the wing to the low-pressure area above the wing. As the deflection angle increases, this becomes insufficient and the flap again finds itself at the critical angle of attack. The deflector located between the wing and the flap acts as a “slat” for the flap, directing air from an area of ​​high pressure to an area of ​​low pressure along the chord of the flap and thereby “blowing off” the boundary layer and tightening the section of continuous flow. Thus, on the Tu-154M, at flap extension angles (the angle is calculated along the flap chord) up to 28* inclusive, the flap remains single-slotted, the deflector is located inside the wing. When released at an angle of more than 28*, the deflector extends and deflects, ensuring the flap operates at high angles of attack. Thus, a double-slot flap makes it possible to deflect the mechanization at large angles and increases the area and curvature of the wing, and therefore the lift, more than a single-slot flap.

But the three-slot one, built on the same principle (deflector - flap - deflectable tail) has more disadvantages than advantages over the two-slot one, so the Tu-154M used a two-slot flap instead of the three-slot one on the Tu-154/154A/154B.

The disadvantages of three-slot flaps are the structural complexity of the mechanism, synchronization and strength. For example, the tail of the internal flap of the Tu-154B, for strength reasons, remained deflected by a couple of degrees in the retracted position. The abandonment of a three-slot flap in favor of a two-slot flap on the Tu-154M made it possible to fit the retracted flap into the theoretical wing profile, which gave a significant gain in drag at flight level. They simplified the transmission and made an intermediate position of 36*, this made the double-slot flap on the Tu-154M more effective.

From an aerodynamic point of view, the more links the flap has, the better (see picture). Because many links provide a smoother curvature of the profile and a smoother, multi-stage flow of air from the lower to the upper surface of the wing.
From a technology point of view, any strength expert will say that it is better to abandon mechanization altogether, and an aerodynamicist will say that it is best to use a four-slot flap, so a double-slot flap is optimal.

From the point of view of tolerances and strength, there is one not very pleasant moment - the speed on approach with flaps at 45 degrees and the restrictions on release at this angle are very close. Didn't finish checking it a bit - there is a risk of damage. Many pilots complained about this at first.

It was constantly being improved. The number of chambers in the tires, the braking system (after takeoff, at the time of cleaning), the ventilation of the brakes, the front foot, or rather its control (“tiller” instead of pedals and an increase in the angle of rotation to 63 degrees while taxiing) and so on changed.

The chassis was constantly being improved and remained one of the most vulnerable points.

It is precisely because of the chassis that the Tu-154 is poorly suited for deep modernization. Briefly: the plane seems to be hanging on the cylinder struts of the main struts, which are stretched the more, the more the plane is loaded (the more the struts are compressed and tilted). When the strut locks are opened, the plane instantly lies on its belly, and the huge landing gear nacelles only increase the midsection of the plane.

The release of the struts is against the flow, in the manual of the Tu-134, where the chassis design is the same, there is a clause: the time for releasing the landing gear from a hand pump is 15-20 minutes. On the Tu-154, with its larger sizes, such a release would take about 50 minutes. The overall kinematic design of the chassis puts an end to modernization.

ABSU is a source of both pride and criticism. In the days of old airplanes, the evolution of the control wheel was transmitted by cables to the surface. Figuratively speaking, you feel the wind with your hands. All old planes are like that. You feel all the efforts and density of the air literally with your hands. The Tu-154 used a booster system that was new for that time. The pilot does not directly control the ailerons or elevator. He controls a complex spool mechanism, and the load on the steering wheel is simulated with special loaders. The next generation of such systems is Fly-By-Wire, it has already been used in the Tu-204. Then this system was new, different, simply different from everyone else. For those who knew her work, it was simply a matter of pride.

Criticism: objective and far-fetched

Tupolev is often criticized for his aerodynamic designs. Large wing sweep, negative V, etc. The fact is that the tasks (from the glory of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union) that he received required the creation of high-speed cars. He was literally required to make a plane that could reach 1000 km per hour. That is why the high sweep, high speed on approach, etc.

In a number of parameters, the Tu-154 has unique dynamics due to its aerodynamic solutions. For example, its wing is called “elastic”. The wing is flown around by a supersonic flow at Mach number = 0.695. Tu-154 flies, B-shka at M=0.88, M-ka at 0.86. What is supersonic flow? How is it harmful, how is it characteristic? A shock wave appears on the wing, can you imagine - the plane is subsonic, the plane itself flies before the sound, so what is the speed behind the plane? - subsonic, and on the wing supersonic. Appears due to the thick profile. The thicker the profile, the faster supersonic flow appears on the wing.

The plane is subsonic, the flow behind the wing is subsonic, and the lower the speed, the higher the pressure, and the air flows from higher pressure to lower pressure. The result is a flow through a shock from a zone of high pressure to a zone of lower pressure. This causes increased aerodynamic drag of the “thick wing”.

How did Airbus or Boeing solve this problem? They have a “thin profile”, “clean wing”, and thereby remove the supersonic flow. What do we use to remove on a thick profile? Sweep angle, and therefore the Tu-154 has the largest sweep angle among subsonic passenger aircraft. The Tu-154 has a sweep angle of 35° on the wing, 40° on the fin and 45° on the stabilizer. 45° is half of 90, but because of this it is the fastest. It remains to be recalled that the true speed depends on the physical state of the air (pressure, temperature).

In addition: if the plane has a positive wing V, then the plane does not stall, it can be stalled, but it does not stall itself. The flow stall comes from the fuselage, and when the lift force becomes less than necessary, it simply lowers the nose and accelerates. The Tu-154 has a negative V.

The Tu-154 is often criticized because it cannot be flown without ABSU. This is nothing more than the opinion of amateurs (or correspondents). The Tu-154 airframe was initially designed to work with ABSU, in other words, for dampers in all three channels. ABSU-154 is FAR from one autopilot, it is a complex complex of systems. The plane can be designed to be stable, but for the sake of efficiency or speed characteristics - for this, you can vary the transverse “V” of the wing (so that the lift force, roughly speaking, not only keeps the plane in the air, but also stabilizes the roll), and the wing profiles, and You can leave stability to the automatic system. Which is what was done on the Tu-154. It's not wildly unstable without it, that's how it's designed.

One of the most unpleasant moments in control is the inability to trim the plane in pitch using a stabilizer, which has been done for a long time and everywhere (even on the Tu-204). Tupolev Design Bureau did not want to overweight the tail (it is already heavy due to three engines). It was considered that a fixed angle of the stabilizer during flight would be sufficient, repositioning the stabilizer is used only to compensate for the moment from the flaps - increased fuel consumption at flight level, high sensitivity to alignment and its small operational range, which has led to disasters more than once or twice. Elevator efficiency.

Initially, the control of the flaps (diving moment during release) and the stabilizer (created a pitching moment) was not combined. There were many cases when they forgot to move the stabilizer and the plane soared VERY high in seconds. To avoid reaching extreme angles of attack and subsequent stalling, the control was made combined and synchronous, with a slight dominance of the stabilizer. Everyone has noticed that when the flaps are extended, the plane “swells”; this is actually provided by the stabilizer.

Well, after that about trimming. There is no trimmer as such on the Tu-154. There is a trim effect mechanism (MET). And the load itself, as I indicated earlier, is simulated by loaders. With the MET switch on the yoke, you trim the plane, but this is achieved by precise positioning of the elevator or ailerons (not the trim). Piloting is largely done with your fingers. This is exactly what the newly minted Sherlock from the BBC series of the same name meant when he said that he recognized the pilot by his thumb. This is not relevant for Airbus pilots (Fly-by-wire will do everything itself), here Sherlock made a mistake.

The Tu-154M is also criticized for its obsolescence. The fact is that the M modification was rolled out in 85 ( regular flights), and the Airbus A320 in 1987 haunts many. At the same time, the A320 is head and shoulders above in terms of automation and control system. Just the next generation. Armchair critics forget that during the modernization the task was not to make a new aircraft. We corrected the shortcomings of the old aircraft and received the Tu-154M.
We must not forget that in 1989 (literally 2 years later) we rolled out the Tu204. Basically the same concept as the A320. With the EDSU system - an analogue of FBW. The level of execution, of course, was lower, especially considering what was going on in our country at that time (Gorby tried his best).

A few more facts and stories

In 2016, the Hong Kong company Pacific Jet Group temporarily changed its logo and placed the silhouette of a Tu-154 on it. This was not done by chance: at that time, a strategic contract was concluded for the supply of aircraft to Angola (African countries have historically treated the Tu-154 well). In order to butter up the customer (on the advice of the Russians), the logo was changed literally for 3 months. Immediately after the conclusion of the contract, we returned to traditional symbols - the tail of an airplane in Pacific colors.

A funny incident happened to me in 2015. The A320 simulator needed tables. To get by with little expense, we decided to buy from a TU-154 (from the passenger seat). Having made an order from a private seller and received the parcel, I had to make a transfer to his card. Something was distracting, it was just laziness. I looked for 1000 reasons not to go to the bank that day. Literally 5 hours later I read in the news that the department I was going to was robbed by some thug with a gas pistol.

I still carefully keep books on the Tu-154, collect and constantly add to my collection.

All the pilots of the old school talk about the teamwork of their crews; they flew together for 10-15 years. Modern world dictates new rules - if everyone works strictly according to CRM, the crew can be changed. Each approach has pros and cons. On the one hand, teamwork turns the crew into a single organism. On the other hand, “covering up” appears. Most companies are NOT for permanent crews. The assigned crews remain on charter for VIP clients.

There is an expression: “Whoever has flown a 154 can fly anything.” It is twofold. On the one hand, this plane was not for the average pilot. Specific scheme depending on alignment. He did not forgive mistakes. On the other hand, there are many cases where experienced commanders were unable to retrain for the new type of Glass Cockpit concept. A different piloting concept (no AUASP, but a safe Flight Envelope is shown).

The Tu-154 is often criticized for its uneconomical engines. This is also twofold. It is more powerful, faster and has a higher rate of climb. It's like complaining that a Rolls-Royce eats a lot and is heavy, or complaining that a Bugatti consumes a lot of fuel. The Tu-154 has a real drawback - it is overweight. He has more of his own iron than the others. Compare the weight of an empty plane divided by the number of passengers carried for Tupolar, A320 and Boeing 737. Unfortunately, the Tu-154 loses in this parameter. His power is “eaten up” by his own excess iron, which he is forced to carry.

When I studied at the training center on the Tu-154, the instructor immediately showed me that only the ground speed should be shown on the airspeed and ground speed indicator (the one on the central panel). ALWAYS. This is how you see the difference between ground and airspeed. And you will detect in time if something is wrong with the PVD. The instructor said: “maybe someday this will save your life.” Analyzing a lot of cases of steering wheels being pulled to the balls, I am inclined to agree with him.

Tu-154 is really beautiful. The outline of the nose is simply unique. By the way, the dreamliner, the vaunted dreamliner... well, take a closer look at his nose in profile... you’ll understand everything for yourself.

Ridicule of previous pilots at modern ones is a tradition in aviation. Now they accuse us of becoming operators and forgetting how to fly. Those who began to master the Tu-154 were told that because of the booster system they did not feel the real effort and the plane; when they began to fly in closed cockpits, the aviation pioneers laughed: “What are you thinking, fly in closed planes.” Unfortunately, this is a tradition - mass criticism of change.

I would like to end with the words of A.S. Shengardt (simply the wisest man), which he said in the film about the Tu-154 (My Legend): “No matter how you fuss around on this earth, I still flew and will fly. And those people who boarded the plane and took the helm in their hands knew that it would not let them down. And he reciprocated them.”

The crash of the Tu-154 aircraft of the 223rd flight detachment of the Russian Ministry of Defense became one of the biggest tragedies of the past year. There were 92 people on board the liner, all of them died. In each such case, the emergence of different versions of what happened is inevitable. Lenta.ru tried to figure out what was happening.

NB: Everything said below about the causes of the plane crash is a presentation of versions that have not yet been officially confirmed. Until the publication of official conclusions about the results of the investigation into the causes of the disaster, none of these versions can be considered true.

Circumstances

The Tu-154B-2 aircraft, tail number RA-85572, produced in 1983 at the Kuibyshev Aviation Plant (now the Aviakor plant), was operated almost all the time by the Ministry of Defense - first as part of the 8th Special Purpose Air Division of the USSR Air Force, then created in 1993 of the 223rd flying detachment.

As of the day of the disaster, the aircraft had about 11 percent of its flight life with an average flight time of just over 200 hours per year, which is relatively little for passenger airliners, which in civil aviation are operated with an intensity of 1000 or more hours per year. The assigned service life of the aircraft was 37,500 hours, or 16 thousand landings, and it could be extended to 60 thousand hours and 22 thousand landings.

Tu-154B-2 has currently been taken out of commercial service due to non-compliance with accepted noise standards and high fuel consumption, but military vehicles still remain in service.

The aircraft operator - the 223rd flight detachment of the Ministry of Defense, a Russian state aviation enterprise - provides air transportation in the interests of government agencies and performs irregular cargo and Passenger Transportation, as a rule, personnel of the armed forces. The enterprise was organized on the basis of the 8th special purpose aviation division (8 adOSNAZ, 8 adon) of the Russian Air Force in Chkalovsky in accordance with the presidential order Russian Federation dated January 15, 1993 No. 37-rp “On ensuring the activities of the 223rd and 224th flight detachments of the Russian Ministry of Defense” for air transport in the interests of government agencies.

The plane took off from the Chkalovsky airfield near Moscow and was supposed to land for refueling in Mozdok, but weather conditions The refueling airfield was changed to Sochi. The airliner took off from Sochi at 05:25 and fell, according to available data, spending two minutes in the air before the crash.

The flight's destination was the Russian Khmeimim airbase in Syria. The plane of the artists of the Alexandrov military ensemble, journalists and the military personnel accompanying them. In addition, Elizaveta Glinka, known as Doctor Lisa, and the head of the Department of Culture of the Ministry of Defense Anton Gubankov were on board.

Versions

The main publicly discussed versions of what happened come down to three: equipment malfunction, pilot error, terrorist attack. A concomitant factor to the first two could be the weather, but the available data on the actual weather conditions in Sochi at the time of the disaster indicate that they were quite acceptable:

Visibility 10 kilometers or more. Cloudiness in several layers: the lower layer is 5-7 octants (eighths), with a lower edge of 1000 meters, above it there is another layer, continuous with a lower edge of 2800 meters, temperature +5, dew point +1, pressure approximately 763 millimeters of mercury. The runways are dry. East wind 5 meters per second. At sea - wave height is up to 0.1 meters.

All three versions can neither be confirmed nor excluded before the official conclusions of the investigation commission, but you can try to “lay out on the table” the available information, at least in order to organize it.

The last time the RA-85572 aircraft was repaired was in December 2014, and in September 2016 it underwent scheduled maintenance. The aircraft's total flight time over 33 years of operation was 6,689 hours.

This age and service life are completely normal for aircraft in military service. Thus, one of the main cargo-passenger aircraft of the US Air Force, the C-135 Stratolifter, built from 1956 to 1965, still remains in operation, and the total service life of these aircraft may approach a century - they will remain in the Air Force until at least 2040 -s.

The Tu-154 itself is a reliable aircraft, however, no aircraft are insured against technical problems, and, of course, this version will be one of the main ones.

The crew of the crashed airliner is described as experienced. The Tu-154 plane that crashed in the Black Sea was flown by first class pilot Roman Volkov.

“The Tu-154 military transport aircraft of the Russian Ministry of Defense was flown by an experienced pilot Roman Aleksandrovich Volkov. Roman Volkov is a first class pilot. The total flight time is more than three thousand hours,” the military department told a TASS correspondent.

Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Petukhov, the navigator of the crashed Tu-154B-2, took part in the rescue of "" in April 2011. Then a plane of the same model landed at Chkalovsky airport with a faulty control system. The Tu-154B-2 RA-88563 was planned to be transported to Samara for repairs. After the plane took off, problems were discovered in its control system. The plane began to sway in the air and bounce, which was noticeable from the ground. Journalists later called the liner dancing.

Nevertheless, the plane was returned to the runway in Chkalovsky thanks to the skillful actions of the crew. Petukhov was the navigator of the “dancing liner”, along with his colleagues he was awarded the Order of Courage.

At the same time, taking off from coastal airfields has always been not the easiest procedure, and the Tu-154, especially in the “B” version, is described by many pilots as a fairly strict aircraft to fly, placing high demands on the pilot, which also does not allow one to dismiss the version out of hand possible tragic mistake. According to civil aviation pilots, a little over three thousand hours of experience for the commander of a machine of this class is insufficient.

Finally, considering political situation, one cannot exclude the possibility of a terrorist attack, including due to the specific features of the organization of military flights. Unfortunately, the stringency of screening and security on military passenger flights is much less than on commercial airlines. As noted by many military personnel and civilians who have experience flying Ministry of Defense aircraft from Chkalovsky and other military airfields, pre-flight inspection on such flights often comes down to an empty formality in the form of checking passenger lists with documents, especially when “their” team is flying. When flying abroad - to Syria, for example - it is somewhat stricter (border formalities are included), but even in this case it does not compare with traditional measures at most civilian airports developed countries.

Under these conditions, it is possible to assume the presence of an explosive device on board, which could have been placed in the luggage of the liner during loading or carried on board during an intermediate landing in Sochi. In any case, the possibility of such a development of events is not excluded by the special services, which began checking those who could have access to the plane at the departure airport and in Sochi.

A variation of the version of the terrorist attack is the assumption put forward in some media about an attack on the plane using a man-portable anti-aircraft missile system, which could have been carried out by terrorists either from a boat or from a residential area on the coast, but this option is hardly possible, given that the crashed airliner was supposed to land in Mozdok, and if they intended to attack him during landing/takeoff from the refueling airfield, they would have been waiting for him there.

One way or another, the investigation has just begun. A plane crashing into the sea can seriously complicate it - a steep drop in depth in the Sochi area, where the continental slope at an angle of 45 degrees drops sharply downwards, 500, 1000 or more meters, and a thick layer of silt will greatly complicate the search for the wreckage of the airliner. The Il-18V aircraft that crashed in the same area in 1972 fell a little further from the coast - at a distance of about 10 kilometers, but its debris went to a depth of 500 to 1000 meters, and neither large parts of the fuselage and wings, nor flight recorders could be found .

Given these conditions, every hour matters: with every hour, the wreckage that has sunk under water will sink deeper and deeper. This, obviously, is understood by all responsible persons - the diving elite of the Ministry of Emergency Situations and the Russian Navy is being transferred to Sochi - deep-sea divers from all four fleets, with special equipment and underwater vehicles.

MOSCOW, December 4 - RIA Novosti. Aviation experts do not know cases of Tu-154 aircraft landing when all three engines failed at altitude and call for abandoning the operation of passenger aircraft aircraft similar type.

The crew of the Tu-154 aircraft of Dagestan Airlines OJSC, which flew flight No. 372 from Moscow to Makhachkala at 14.07 Moscow time on December 4, a few minutes after departure from Vnukovo airport, informed dispatchers about the failure of all three engines at an altitude of 9.1 thousand meters and decided to make an emergency landing at Domodedovo airport. As a result emergency landing the plane skidded off the runway and broke into several pieces.

According to the transport prosecutor's office, there were 163 passengers and nine crew members on board, including seven children. As a result of the emergency landing, two people were killed and about 60 people were injured.

Miraculous Rescue

The president of the trade union of flight personnel of the Russian Federation, commander of the Il-96 Aeroflot Miroslav Boychuk, who previously flew Tu-154B and Tu-154M, expressed the opinion that it is possible to land a Tu-154 type aircraft with three engines failing at an altitude of nine kilometers, but To do this, it is necessary to demonstrate “remarkable skill.”

“If at such an altitude all the engines on an aircraft of this type fail, then you can plan (to fly with the engines failed) another 120 kilometers. Here you need to show skill. The fact that they rolled off the runway means that they are most likely we insured ourselves and landed without reverse,” Boychuk noted.

“They are great. What they did is something of a miracle,” said Boychuk, who has flown about five thousand hours on the Tu-154B and Tu-154M, including about two thousand hours as an aircraft commander.

In turn, another expert, general director of the consulting company Infomost (lat) Boris Rybak, told RIA Novosti that a Tu-154 type aircraft can be safely landed if the third engine fails at low altitude, but he noted that he had not heard of cases when aircraft The Tu-154 was landed with three engines failing from a great height.

No longer up to par

Experts believe that the condition of aircraft of this type is no longer at its previous height, and engine failures are a very alarming symptom, calling into question the further operation of aircraft as a whole.

The fisherman said that he knows of a case where the pilots managed to land a plane without casualties when the third engine failed 10-15 meters from the ground.

“If the failure of the third engine, after the failure of the first two, occurs at a low altitude, then it is possible to land the plane, in particular because the hydraulic accumulators do not fail immediately. If the failure of all engines occurs at a high altitude, then the plane is uncontrollable and it is impossible to land it,” - Rybak said, adding that he had not heard of such cases, but if it happened, it was “great luck.”