Joe Blow Schmo wrote:Wow, no engine driven fuel pumps! And so many other systems without redundancy! Apparently it doesn't have a RAT either.
This is NOT a Cessna 150 that you fly at the local flight club. This aircraft, as many western types has a complex fuel system,which consists of many sections in each wing,a tank in the tail (AUX) and central tank in the fuselage. Each wing tank has its own (ELECTRIC) pump that feeds central tank which feeds the engines. Central tank pump (ELECTRIC) brings fuel to the low pressure engine driven pump (DSN-44),which supplies fuel to high pressure engine driven pump (NR-30КU-154). This is a basic fuel system description of TU-154M.
What other systems without redundancy??? You clearly don't have any idea how complex aircraft functions...
Cheers
Those of us actually flying things bigger than a 150 would like to think that a single failure (battery thermal runaway) wouldn't cause us to lose access to over 90% of our available fuel load.
Did you watch CNN again? I assume they told you "it was a single failure and they lost access to over 90% of fuel"?
Joe Blow Schmo wrote:Wow, no engine driven fuel pumps! And so many other systems without redundancy! Apparently it doesn't have a RAT either.
Pilots that actually fly things bigger than a Cessna 150 would not say nonsense like the one above...
Well I've flown a C172 (bigger than a 150), and I said the above "nonsense" so I guess your theory is busted.
PS-90A wrote:
Did you watch CNN again? I assume they told you "it was a single failure and they lost access to over 90% of fuel"?
To quote from the avherald article posted above:
On Sep 14th Russia's Ministry of Transport said, that first examinations suggest the on-board batteries overheated (thermal runaway) and failed taking out the entire electric system in that process causing the failure of all attached systems including navigation and radio equipment as well as the failure of both regular and standby fuel pumps followed by a fuel imbalance in the wing tanks.
So I ask, how can this happen? In the aircraft I'm familiar with you'd have to have about half a dozen unrelated failures to take out the entire electrical system. Even if that were to happen you wouldn't have any fuel issues. So were there other problems with this plane or does it simply not have the redundancy of more modern designs?
Are you related to the guy that designed this plane or something? You seem to be taking questions about it quite personally.
Do you read your writing before posting it here? How can you compare a C172 and a commercial JET??? Did you want me to get into details of the fuel system on a 172?
Besides don’t take anything personal on this forum nor related to anyone who designed TU154...
Cheers
Joe Blow Schmo wrote:
PS-90A wrote:
Joe Blow Schmo wrote:Wow, no engine driven fuel pumps! And so many other systems without redundancy! Apparently it doesn't have a RAT either.
Pilots that actually fly things bigger than a Cessna 150 would not say nonsense like the one above...
Well I've flown a C172 (bigger than a 150), and I said the above "nonsense" so I guess your theory is busted.
PS-90A wrote:
Did you watch CNN again? I assume they told you "it was a single failure and they lost access to over 90% of fuel"?
To quote from the avherald article posted above:
On Sep 14th Russia's Ministry of Transport said, that first examinations suggest the on-board batteries overheated (thermal runaway) and failed taking out the entire electric system in that process causing the failure of all attached systems including navigation and radio equipment as well as the failure of both regular and standby fuel pumps followed by a fuel imbalance in the wing tanks.
So I ask, how can this happen? In the aircraft I'm familiar with you'd have to have about half a dozen unrelated failures to take out the entire electrical system. Even if that were to happen you wouldn't have any fuel issues. So were there other problems with this plane or does it simply not have the redundancy of more modern designs?
Are you related to the guy that designed this plane or something? You seem to be taking questions about it quite personally.
Plans are to put it back into service, it has been pulled out of the "woods" and currently being examined and repaired for a ferry flight. It will be defueled and flown to a "ARZ" (avia remontnii zavod), stands for "aircraft repair factory". The biggest problem right now is the runway length...it's less than 3900 feet long.
---------- ADS -----------
Attachments
Thats pretty deep
Izhma TU-154M Main Landing Gear.jpg (101 KiB) Viewed 1050 times
PS-90A wrote:Do you read your writing before posting it here? How can you compare a C172 and a commercial JET??? Did you want me to get into details of the fuel system on a 172?
Besides don’t take anything personal on this forum nor related to anyone who designed TU154...
Cheers
I'm comparing it to the commercial passenger jets that I'm familiar with. You clearly missed the sarcasm with the 172 comment. Guess I shouldn't be too surprised, you seem to be missing a few things.
PS-90A wrote:Do you read your writing before posting it here? How can you compare a C172 and a commercial JET??? Did you want me to get into details of the fuel system on a 172?
Besides don’t take anything personal on this forum nor related to anyone who designed TU154...
Cheers
I'm comparing it to the commercial passenger jets that I'm familiar with. You clearly missed the sarcasm with the 172 comment. Guess I shouldn't be too surprised, you seem to be missing a few things.
Actually, PS-90a, I enjoyed and appreciated the technical info you had on this aircraft type. Thanks!
It's wild to think they're going to put it back in service. I would be interested however, to see how they got it out of a 3900' strip, that's probably not able to handle the tire pressures.
---------- ADS -----------
Last edited by swordfish on Sun Oct 03, 2010 1:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
FOD wrote: in one of the wealthiest geographic regions of the world
Wow, this is rather a statement We think much of ourselves here
Anyway, as one working in the telecom industry I'm happy to report that we are WAY behind as far as high tech, telecom, data/voice networking is concerned. Well behind countries in Europe, Russia, China, Japan, heck even behind the US (that was not always the case).
FOD wrote: in one of the wealthiest geographic regions of the world
Wow, this is rather a statement We think much of ourselves here
Anyway, as one working in the telecom industry I'm happy to report that we are WAY behind as far as high tech, telecom, data/voice networking is concerned. Well behind countries in Europe, Russia, China, Japan, heck even behind the US (that was not always the case).
I can vouch for this statement as well....we get pretty much ripped off here in Canada!
FOD wrote:These guys land this plane in futbuck nowhere, bass ackwards Russia
They landed at an airport. The airport is next to a town. Across the river are other towns. It's a populated area, that's why there's an airport there. You can see the built-up areas with Google Earth. So it's not surprising there's cellphone service.
We think much of ourselves here
