Talk:Tupolev Tu-22/Archive 1

Untitled
Area rule was not discovered by TSAGI but by Germans in 43-44 according to Wikipedia :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.232.245.122 (talk) 11:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Nuclear Weapon Capability
I'm doing a project on the Cold War. Was the Tu-22 or Tu-22M capable of carrying Nuclear weapons?

East German crew members?
The passage "Search parties found the cockpit section of the aircraft, with three dead East German crew members still strapped in their seats." is not reliable. East Germans flew sorties in Mozambique but not for the Libyans. I´m quite sure. Otherwise I would be thankful for the sources of this statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.236.196.3 (talk) 12:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Foreigner Crew Members
Undoubtly in cold war times there was some Eastern Block instructors/air team leader on Africa & Middle East AF,but all we know  it's a rough guess on covered operations. Generally western weapons magazines reported only what Europeans & Imperialists Intelligence Agencies "leaks". In this foggy context reporting "east germany mercenaries" is a derogatory supposition.--Kiko 64 (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Makes absolutely no sense. The GDR never had the TU22 as an aircraft. Nor were there any training facilities for these aircraft in the GDR. Nor did the GDR train any of these crews. The Soviets did that themselves in the Soviet Union. These aircraft were stationed in the GDR with the Soviet occupation forces and were only operated and used by them. The statement that an East German crew flew in Syria is nonsense. Possibly one means a crew of the Soviet armed forces that was stationed in the GDR. The Arab crews from Syria and Iraq were trained in specially built facilities in Belarus, because the Soviets did not want to train them together with the Soviet crews. 84.133.178.239 (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

2008 South Ossetia war
Both this page and the Tu-22M page say that the page's subject was shot down over Georgia. It seems far more likely that it was a Tu-22M given that the Russian military doesn’t really use the Blinder much more anymore. News stories about the incident mention both aircraft types. There should be some way of determining which type if bomber was shot down. SirBob42 (talk) 03:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

- SirBob42: Below article describes the bomber as a TU-22M3 of Russian origin. []

Eagles301256 (talk) 06:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Nigel Ish (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Rudder Reversal?
It is unclear in the article how high deflection angles can cause rudder reversal, and how this is related to wing deformation. I think the article may be going for 'aileron reversal', but that's just my speculation. 24.84.217.137 (talk) 08:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Edits of a Banned Editor's Sock
I reverted all the edits of the Sock of the banned editor Irongron. I was away from editing due to obligations and missed what what happening until much later. Please see the banned editor's sock investigation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JamesBWatson&oldid=618034898#A_Very_Strong_Probable_Sock_of_an_editor_you_permanently_banned_in_April_2014_User:IRoNGRoN The IP 178.216.122.254 and ☭Soviet☭ User talk:Иронгрон Иронгрон is Irongron written in the Cyrillic alphabet... are both socks of ☭Irongron☭User talk:IRoNGRoN

Clarification
What does "maybe hit by twin-tubes that fired in N'Djamena airport" mean?Royalcourtier (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I have been wondering that for a while. My guess is that it means that a double-barrelled anti-aircraft cannon -- radar-guided or otherwise, perhaps 23mm or 35mm calibre -- was part of the air defences at the named airport, that it opened fire on the occasion in question, and that no-one in particular speculated that this may have been the cause of the aircraft's later demise. MPS1992 (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Maybe something like the Oerlikon GDF -- but that was used in the 1980s Falklands War against subsonic British Harrier aircraft with very limited success, so it is very dubious that it would have better success against a supersonic attacker. Also that system had a maximum target altitude of 3000 metres which would be well below the height the article describes the attackers as flying. Similar Soviet weapons had 23mm and 57mm calibres but again one is sceptical. MPS1992 (talk) 21:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * And finally -- it could mean a missile system, which one might think more likely to be able to take on a supersonic attacker in the mid 1980s, but missile systems of the era seem to come in threes and fours for some reason, not pairs, and those that did not were very rarely of such an appearance to be described as tubes. MPS1992 (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The cited source mentions nothing about "twin tubes".Nigel Ish (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes. It might be necessary to remove this interesting speculation from the article. MPS1992 (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Poor cockpit visibility
"..poor visibility compared to some bombers (doing nothing for the Tu-22's poor runway performance)" Anyone know what this means? ie how to word more clearly.Pieter1963 (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Droop nose. The Tu-22 didn't have one, but needed one. Like similar aircraft, that wing's stall speed demanded a high landing speed and even then needed a nose-high attitude, making visibility difficult. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed. "poor runway performance" is referring back to "very high landing speeds" at the end of the preceding paragraph. MPS1992 (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Landing gear
The section on development says the landing gear were made to retract into the fuselage to allow a thinner wing. Then a bit later it says a new landing gear was developed to allow a thinner wing root, suggesting a wing-mounted landing gear. Then in design it states that it had landing gear that retracted into pods in the wings. This is just confusing. Maybe at one point they considered fuselage-mounted gear before the design was finalized, but the article says nothing at all about them finally deciding against it. Basically it just mentions one aspect of one iteration of the design process, which vanished long before production, so I see no point in even mentioning it, especially without clearly stating that it did NOT survive to the final design. Also, some clarification on why a 3 man crew had 'positive political aspects' would be nice, because it is a mystery to me. A sing;e pilot allows a narrower cockpit, which reduces drag. A three man crew reduces weight, saves needed space and expense, costs the state less in training and supporting personnel and other practical benefits, all of which seem more obvious and important than some nebulous political benefits. The state needed to assign 25% fewer Soviet citizens to a duty which was potentially an assured death sentence if war ever broke out, causing less discontent? I honestly don't know. I also wonder who is defining 'few' when it says it is 'one of the few Soviet bombers to see combat'. I can think of a number of Soviet bombers that have seen combat, and unless there is a whole list of Soviet bombers I am forgetting about, I wouldn't call the ones which saw combat 'the few' compared with those that did.

64.223.126.95 (talk) 13:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Thrust
Oh yes, and in design, it says "159 kN (36,000 lbf) Dobrynin VD-7M, later 162 kN (36,000 lbf) Kolesov RD-7M2". 125kN and 162kN cannot both be 36,000lbs, unless we are rounding greatly.

64.223.126.95 (talk) 13:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Ukraine 2022
The reference of Ukraine 2022 likely refers to the Tu-22M, the modern variant that is still in service. 174.87.195.182 (talk) 07:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Photos
reminder that the Tu-22 and Tu-22M aircraft are not the same, and that photos of the Tu-22 should be of the 22, not the 22M Triebfugel (talk) 13:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks. However, the photo you added to the infobox was already in the article, so I replaced the second one. BilCat (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)