What's Faster Than A Jet... And Twice As Loud?
Watch More Mustard Videos & Support The Channel: nebula.tv/mustard
Get the first 2 months of Skillshare for free: skl.sh/mustard4
Enjoy over 23,000 classes covering just about anything!
Support Mustard on Patreon: / mustardchannel
Mustard Merchandise: www.teespring.com/stores/must...
Instagram: / mustardchannel
TikTok: / mustardchannel
Facebook: / mustard-109952378202335
Twitter: / mustardvideos
Website: www.mustardchannel.com/
Until the mid 1950’s, small short-range airliners like the twin engined IL-14 were really the only type the Soviet Union produced. And that meant flying across the country’s vast territory required multiple stops for refueling. The exhausting flight could take could take over 24 hours and require multiple stops for refueling. The need for a new Soviet airliner was clearly pressing, especially since the country’s new leader Nikita Khrushchev had a much more open stance with the West and plans for visits around the world.
In 1955 the Tupolev Design Bureau was given a directive to convert the Tu-95 intercontinental strategic bomber into an airliner. It would be the quickest way to build the Soviet Union a new long-range airliner. Two parallel projects were launched. The first aimed to minimally modify the Tu-95 and convert it into a VIP transport for Soviet Heads of State (Tu-116). A second, more ambitious project aimed to turn the Tu-95 into a proper airliner (Tu-114).
The Tu-114 was significantly modified, but still retained the Tu-95’s powerful turboprop engines and swept wings, which were mounted lower to accommodate a wider fuselage. Other design changes include larger flaps, a taller nose gear and new stabilizers. The Tu-116 airliner is most notable for its incredible maximum speed of 880 km/h (550 mph), which is comparable to modern-day jet-powered airliners. It also boasted a very impressive (for it’s day) range of 10,900 km (6,800 mi). Early versions were configured in a three-class layout, which was rather unconventional for a Soviet Airliner. Features included, large tables, private sleeping cabins and a dining lounge served by a full-size kitchen in the lower deck . Entering service in 1961, only 32 Tu-116 were produced and they served with Aeroflot for 16 years, until they were finally retired from civilian service in 1977.
#Tu114 #Airliner #Turboprop
Select footage courtesy the AP Archive
AP Archive website: www.aparchive.com
Twitter: / ap_archive Facebook: / aparchives
KZhead: / aparchive and / britishmovietone
Special thanks to Classic Airliners & Vintage Pop Culture for providing incredible and rare Tu-114 footage and materials - see them in their full length at: / mcdonnell220
Special thanks to Nick Arehart for helping clean up our audio:
/ airhrt_
Special thanks to niltondc for helping model the Tu-114 used in this video:
/ niltondc
Special thanks to: Anthony, Christian Altenhofen, Coby Tang, Cole Gerdemann, Colin Millions, Danny Wolf, Felix Wassmer, Gibbo, Jake Hart, Joseph Zadeh, Mark Mills, Matt Waters, Razvan Caliman, Robert Tait, TheCraftedMultiverse, TOOLCO CORP, Trent Bosley, and Xan Daven for supporting us on Patreon and helping Mustard grow: / mustardchannel
Thanks for watching!
On landing in America, the ground crew at Andrews Air Force Base were dismayed to discover that almost all of their airstairs were actually too short to reach the door of the Tu-114. The Soviet Premier laughed it off, as he crawled down the evacuation ladder, no doubt laughing in his mind about "inferior American airstairs being unable to reach my plane!"
Inferior? Matter of debate I guess
@@cowboycamden5561 that's the joke lmao
@@Avionicx I know, don’t need to make a big deal
18 foot propellers makes it tall
power move
It's actually a pretty good looking plane aesthetically. The swept wings look really good with the turboprops.
kzhead.info/sun/jNBsYsdrbGSqm30/bejne.html
Indeed, I think this, the Concorde, Airbus A-380, Boeing 787 are the best looking passenger planes!
I agree.
Damn son, it's a beauty. So is the Bear
The best looking turboprop next to the Douglas C-133
Only 1 fatal incident during its 30 years career and it wasn't even the fault of the aircraft nor of its crew. That's impressive.
😂😆 Say what ?
what happened?
@@valeriyaaslanov3254problebly got shot down over another nation or detroyed on purpose
@@kaiserwasd yea
@@valeriyaaslanov3254 aeroflot flight 065. The pilots took off in snowy conditions unaware that the runway had not been fully plowed. The right wing hit a snow bank at near takeoff speed, ripping off the propellers from the 3 and 4 engines and causing the plane to veer off course. 21 of the 66 people on board died in a subsequent fire.
1:46 that rifle camera gives a whole new meaning to “screenshot” and has to be one of the most cursed gun images
Cam-Rifle
Lol Branden Herrera would not approve. Without his White Claw anyway
Cameras with stocks are still a thing today. It just so happens that it's an ergonomic way to hold something steady.
JFK assasin: I'm going to end that man's carrer! Also JFK assasin: damn wrong rifle
i was thinking that when i first saw it. i had to rewind to make sure i saw it correctly
I like how the representation of mph is a little US flag, while the representation of km/h is _an entire globe_
Zap Gun Merica
V E ‘murica
Cuz people usually arent used to measure speed in ,,hamburgers by football field,,
The British stil measure the speed of their ships as "Nautical Miles per League". And and they measure depths in "fathoms". That is unfathomable.
We still use some imperial units in Britain, although Metric units are used alongside. A lot of exceptions are made to the metric laws, namely with Beer/Cider (or anything else sold as a pint), milk (sold in pints, although bottles legally must write how many litres next to it, so a bottle might say "4 pints, 2.273L) and land (acres).
When Nikita Khrushchev landed, by the way, the existing passenger ladders of the time couldn't reach the plane's door, so Nikita K had to wait until they went an got an actual ladder as an extension to reach the door... this actually made him smile and laugh, not get angry.
David Viola the good old days
When the enemy's passenger ladders aren't tall enough for your plane, it means you won the pissing contest. For now at least.
It's because of his simpleness just to up US on anything. A cheap stunt.
He didn't take his shoe off and beat the ladder,,,lol.
@Bruno56 he definitely had a character...
7:03 "divided into 3 classes" *Lenin's corpse begins spinning in it's display case*
Yes the upper class was probably party officials...
Lenin instituted the NEP, if anything the man was a supreme pragmatist
Lenin bought a Rolls Royce soon after taking power.
@@nts821 russian empire didn't produce cars, it didn't produce much things, just to know. Soviets had to buy the entire plants and factories from the western capitalistic companies during the GD.
@@KrutoiPersonazh Russian Empire produced cars
"This soviet airliner is about to make a big impression. Because it's headed straight for the United States." *honey get in the nuke shelter there's a soviet plane headed towards us*
Under rated comment looolll
Lol- wait
@Daniello Panggantara Nazi?
@Daniello Panggantara or joke
*honey get in the nuke shelter there's a Soviet nuclear bomber headed towards us*
-When your country's best airliner is really a bomber
Remember the old joke, about Americans spend a lot of money to invent a way to write in space (microgravity)...The Russians used a pencil. LOL 😂 Yep! Same spirit. ;-)
crpth1 well in this case the graphite dust could get into electronics and cause damage
I thought the same until I realized something similar here in America... We have money for wars, but can’t feed the poor (Tupac Shakur) Billions in military budget, and just a couple bucks for charity and homeless starving people.....
Eric x dual purpose like how a t-72 is now used as a standard taxi...
Even to this day every single built Russian passenger plane can be converted to military use in a case of emergency...
I have to admit that USSR had some f***ING great engineers!
you know we invented the helicaptor right?
@@DefyDistrict of course
Yeah, especially those that designed their nuclear subs. Glowing reports.
@@DefyDistrict I am a big fan of old Soviet engineering.
I thought they took some German engineers in for their designs?
I have seen TU95s landing an taking off from either end of the runway and it looks like a large road bridge with 4 windmills taking off. A truly breathtaking sight as it passes over you.
#su56 #tu133
It flies in circles at my summer house, which is near their base. Along with Tu-16, Tu-22. On day of military parade I knew they need 20 minutes to reach Red Square, so I watched them take off
Is it loud?
7:05 “divided into three classes” that’s not very Soviet of you comrade
*USSR anthem stops
Thing has change my comrade.
Not very tovarishch
@krepnata kadara "the blacks slaving in private prisons" class
@krepnata kadara gopnik class
I flew in the Tu-114 for 16 hrs non-stop in 1968. This presentation has excellent video graphics and footage. The story, told by an interesting voice, requires some rectifications for the sake of historical and technical accuracy. The 114 was not only the fastest propeller airliner. It was - and still is - the fastest propeller driven aircraft in history, with a top speed of 540 mph (this record stands since 1961). Some sources claim it was the Republic XF-84H. The 84H was designed to be faster than the Tu-114; but it was not able to fly beyond 520 mph according to the Smithsonian. Also the 114 was not the noisiest aircraft, nor its military siblings Tu-95/142. That distinction belongs to the same XF-84H which was called "Thunderscreech" by the Muroc Air Force Test Base personnel, who were made sick (vomit) by the sound of the aircraft's running propeller during ground runs. Watching the ground personnel around the Tu-95s and 142s, it is evident they are not in discomfort. Same applied to the 114 which had about 2000 hp less powerful engines and propellers. The claim that it had to cruise at lower speeds due to noise and vibration is not accurate. Actually it is the first time I ever heard of it. I flew one window ahead of the inner propellers tips. Technically that was the noisiest place inside the aircraft. It was not as quiet as a Bristol Britannia (the Whispering Giant); but it was quieter than the Super Connie shown in the video (I also flew in both). In fact, after almost an hour over the Artic Circle, I was bored and noticed a faint vibration that ran along the window sill like a very low frequency, mini-amplitude wave, passing every four or five minutes from front to rear like a distant slow rumble. My neighbour did not notice it; but my newly minted engineer's degree, wanted to show-off and kept searching for an explanation that never arrived, and soon I fell asleep. It was that boring. Its safety record of only one accident - on the ground - after decades in service, testifies that there were no structural issues with the original design. Of course, the military version, without the civilian cabin insulation must be noisier; but again the videos on this site do not show any crew member sick nor close to deafening distress. To this day, in my strong (not humble) opinion, backed by almost 70 years of Aviation love, I think that the Tu-95 and the SR-71 are the most exotic aircraft to ever fly.
thanks for sharing, and I've heard similar stories that the Tu-114 was heavily, heavily insulated so not even as loud as your typical prop powered regional [which i would guess many in the comments have been on at some point].. And typically cruised just above 800km/h with good economy, still a bit lower than 870km/h, but pretty fast. Poor thing was a victim of looking last gen and its height which was onerous for airports to accommodate. Still great to see it get some laud and love in this wonderful video!
@Third time Lucky "If your story is true, could you please tell me more about the plane? Did it handle well? How hard was it to fly? Did it really live up to its reputation in terms of noise?" You need to re-read (word for word) what Tomas wrote. He was a passenger, not a pilot. And he already described the noise levels in comparison to other aircraft.
Curious and exemplary commentary sir. If I may, what were your life circumstances that allowed you to fly on such a fantastic aircraft? The video off the aircraft in actual flight ops seem to have been shot for propaganda purposes. This is what all manufacturers do, show their aircraft in the best light possible. Nothing wrong with that.
In reply to "Third time Lucky" Third time Lucky Sir, I find it insulting the expression "if your story is true", which implies I may be lying. Therefore, I refuse to engage your comment since, evidently, there will be no useful result from our exchange. Fortunately, a gentleman named David Zhren, a bit below answered your question better than I could have. Still, I wish you a Very Happy 2019!
@Todd Hageman Todd, I respect your patriotism; but I must respect truth even more. The Tu-114 holds the official speed record, certified by the FAI, the only internationally recognized official authority (as opposed to Guiness). The only propeller driven aircraft to come close was Rare Bear, a specially modified racing Bearcat. Regarding the XF-84H the following text makes it clear: "The two XF-84Hs flew less than 10 hours total. It may be the only U.S. Air Force aircraft that has never been flown by a military pilot. And to this day, nobody knows how fast a production F-84H would have gone. Republic made a wildly optimistic prediction of 670 mph, but neither of the two X-planes ever made it past 450 mph.(Actually 473 -479 mph, TR) Still, at the time this was thought fast enough to make the XF-84H the fastest propeller-driven airplane in the world, a claim that can still occasionally be heard today. But in fact, that speed record was already held by the huge, four-engine, eight-propeller Soviet Tupolev Tu-95 Bear bomber, which, with its high cruise speed of 545 mph, remains by far the world’s fastest propeller-driven aircraft. The Bear was already in service in 1955, when the XF-84H made its first flight. When the big Soviet bomber first appeared, Western observers pegged its speed at 400 mph, based on what they had observed during the XF-84H project. Tupolev, however, had realized that the key to high prop-driven speed was long, multiple, slow-turning blades, contra-rotating for maximum efficiency, not a screeching little three-blade paddle." These are words from a very patriotic American (and world's) institution, the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum. The full, and very interesting, article can be read here: www.airspacemag.com/how-things-work/zwrrwwwbrzr-4846149/
Some people don't give the USSR enough credit but this channel does
Derpsterio 29 oh man, I’m not Russian (I’m Ukrainian-American) but yeah, between the odds their country had faced during WWII and with all the efforts to compete with the US, they adapted and overcame like no others! There’s a reason why their people are a proud one. They are resourceful.
USSR fell apart their military power was 90% propaganda, the only credit they deserve is convincing you.
U know he desplayed russias borders not the ussr
The USSR had massive problems but hey, it still did a bunch great stuff such as spark the space race, develop advanced technology (mostly military), and before the government collasped stay a decently stable super power
@Jon Cocks DC-3: Guess I was stolen. TU-4: damn right, you are not ORIGINAL.
It's STILL the fastest turboprop airliner in existence. An incredible achievement, I think.
considering that it is as old as a B-52 now (my math is meth)
@@JeiHSJESSE WHY ARE YOU EXPOSING OUR PRODUCT HERE JESSE? THE DEA MIGHT BE WATCHING US JESSE
@@JeiHSB-52 was biult in early 60's
@@user-rl8hf8kt1rthe B-52 was built in the early 1950s entering service I believe in 1954 but anybody correct me if I’m wrong
yes cause nobody is interested in turboprops anymore and cant be bothered to build a faster one. Jets are simply more efficient
‘Cool! You converted a bomber into an airliner?’ ‘Da’ ‘Wait why are there still bomb bay doors?’ ‘Err... rapid luggage offloading?’
Rapid passenger offloading. Plane doesn't even have to land.
@@alexeyvlasenko6622 a red light starts flashing and a military official starts yelling "GO GO GO" as the passengers check each other's parachutes
@@BigWheel. What about a warzone landing
@beanz no not really
equip with parachute to increase chance of survive by a large amount.
"My plane is bigger than your plane" "My nuke is bigger than your nuke" "We got to space first" "We got to the moon first" "We invaded Afghanistan" "Oh yeah, watch this" I love how the Cold War reminds me of being a child.
Boys will be boys
Yeah the Cold War kinda bankrupt Soviet Union
"My new missile(probably sporting a MIRV warhead) goes Mach20" . . . as of late. 🙄
we never really grow up do we
JIGA BACHI But I have, the best, believe me the best SPACE FORCE in the universe
I consider this a late Christmas gift. Thank you, Mr. Mustard 💖💖
Mee to. How precise are his vids.
Thanks Mr Mustard - yet another fantastic subject choice!
Awesomesauce no u
Mr. Mustard needed to make a Big impression on his first Christmas!
Anyone noticed the title has changed from "How the Soviets one-upped the West"
I did.
I didnt notice it until i saw your comment
I thought the old title was less informative I like this one more
Except it wasn't true. The British PM Eden could have turned up to the conference in a De Havilland Comet, the first commercial jetliner
KZhead didn't like that...
The Tu-114 monument shocked me with its size when I flew into Domodedovo as a little boy!
Would you believe that they destroyed that monument to create a larger parking lot? A museum even offered money to buy it but the airport owners said no. Such a shame
Great job Gabe, and thanks for the mention!
@I’m not weird I'm taking a wild guess here.. But I'm pretty sure that Gabe is the guy's real name, who makes these videos.
@I’m not weird You don't know Mr.Gabriel Mustardo?
That's a nice channel you've got there yourself. Certainly gets a subscribe from me.
boo peekaboo Both you and Mustard didn't mentioned in your videos -- Why Tupolev didn't develop hydraulic undercarriage/landing gear when plane is stationary? Lowering the plane just enough for standard boarding stairs used by most international airports. Akin to the hydraulic lowriding cars. Edit: Or Airstairs instead?
It's cheaper for the airports to buy taller stairs (or just have the Soviets give them away) than to fit ever more complex hydraulics, adding weight and another point of failure. IIRC only the C-5 and the Antonov 125/225 can kneel, due to battlefield cargo loading requirements. After all those stairs are just simple pieces of metal that are stamped and welded together. And if Chairman Khrushchev wants to go to Timbuktu on his personal Tu-114, he'll tell Aeroflot to bring a cargo plane carrying the stairs to the destination beforehand.
I can't believe he does all his 3d modeling in SKETCHUP. That's an insane amount of skill.
Sketchup and Mustard is a great combo tbh
He uses Sketchup to create the models, but what does he animate and render them in? Great job by the way!
sketchup!? i can barely make it work for a car let alone an airplane
I used to use 3DS Max, and now I just use Solidworks for everything (even stuff it quite clearly wasn't designed for), but I don't even want to begin to imagine having to make these kinds of models in Sketchup... Way to make life needlessly difficult for yourself.
Would anyone else like to see a making of a Mustard video, too?
8:12 Turboprops are not less modern than Turbojets. In fact, turboprops are more efficient under certain conditions. They are most efficient in short distances and lower speeds. But passengers don't like them, because they look like old planes, are loud, and take more time.
They vibrate, the TU 114 cruise speed consumed so much fuel that in order to reach America the cruise speed had to be reduced to below 300 mph, which is why this plane was discontinued in 1963. Vibration was so bad that radio equipment had to be retubed in flight. Russia had no solid state electronics, another major disadvantage. The TU 114 was no match for the B-52 and was retired in 1975. BUFF's are still flying and will be for decades to come.
@@crankychris2did you really compared fuggib BOMBER and passenger airliner? I hope not, but the b52s rival is tu95, not 114, and they are both still in service and both will continue
Communism: Espouses the concept of abolishing class divides altogether. Communist Super-Plane: Has three classes for passengers. **Confused Karl Marx noises**
Back to gulag
@@MrDelgrigorov Bro that kinda was like a joke (Im from a communist state, so I can understand)
Всё гораздо проще - средний салон находился напротив винтов и в нём было очень шумно, только из-за этого лайнер имеет такую компоновку, ещё в нём было четыре купе для пассажиров с детьми.
yeah this plane confuses me so much too
@@MrDelgrigorov Cuba and Venezuela are pretty close to marxism. Its the closest out there.
1:46 Ok, whose big idea was it to make a camera that looks like a rifle and point it at world leaders? "Hey, is that a gun?" "N-njet, comrade, it is a camera."
LMAO, good catch, didn't notice it
*Sweats profusely in soviet*
Those are still made, just in plastic.
JFK also faced something similar..... it was just not a camera
@@sooryan_1018💀💀💀
I genuinely get so excited when you upload. Thank's for such greatly entertaining, educational and well done content.
Moritz Schmidt lol
A N I M E N I M E
TRUE
hey you again!
@Moritz Schmidtq
Thing is, range-wise Tu 114 only found a suitable replacement not with IL-62 (the plane you see at 8:27), but with IL-62M (improved, longer range version) in the early 70s. But because Tu-114 looked dated next to 707s and DC8s (no matter how great of an airplane it was), they opted for their early retirement and thought it was wiser to send IL62s with a refuelling stop rather than Tu 114s non stop. Prestige was at stake here...
propaganda always ruins things
@@JeiHS It probably says something bad about us as a species that looks and speed have more propaganda value than an honestly sterling safety record.
Recurring characteristic of Kruschevs and later eras, just like flying unfinished plane loaded with technicians over chain of military ships to rescue it when it crashes just because of better optics against US, the soviet space program and computer development suffered heavily too. Multiple missions failed because of unreasonable deadlines, friend of Gagarin died also to save Gagarin from flying deathtrap spacecraft everyone knew is not ready yet. Domestic computer development was pushed into background in favour of copying or reverse engineering of western designs. Even the cars, first lada was based on italian car for whatever reason.
The double inverted propeller is both beautiful and unique. It is regrettable that it was decommissioned. Along with the TU-160, it is one of my favorite aircraft.
A happy flight into the new year to all of you! 🎆
Happy New Year to you and yours M R.
@@denniswhite166 cheers, for you too!
So imagine this. You're an important person, and you drive up to fancy events in your 2001 Honda Civic. But everyone else drove fancy luxury cars. Unacceptable! So you say: "Hmmm. What if I pimped out an old Armored Personnel Carrier..."
Later your friend shows up in a nice luxury Cadillac. And you, hehe, you enters the hood with your 8x8 BTR 70 with 8 32 inch chrome wheels. Flame hot paint job. Full long limo interior even with a jacuzzi at the back. Moonroof is so lame dawg, your whole turret is made of a domed glass. And do you know this apc is nuke hazzard proofed? Yea you can party through chernobyl. See the number 4 reactor core melt down closely while partying.
enter the hummer
You know, you can actually buy an APC from U.S. Gov auctions. Have fun with that.
@@wangruochuan hahahaha!!!
... so the next time you show up on a Hummer.
I feel like people in America are still reluctant to give the USSR the credit they deserve for their creations. They really did stand toe-to-toe with America.
@Lone Ranger Being the devil's advocate here, you'd see so much more hate on Russian videos than American ones. Just compare the videos regarding the national anthem on both countries.
@@user-dd8vo7or2d USSR anthem slaps, but there is a lot of controversy surrounding USSR.
No they really didn’t.
We know that the europeans did the best
Propaganda is a bitch, very few people in the US have even a vague clue what the USSR was actually like.
I don't care how loud that sounds, the buzz of those engines is *_delicious_* to my eardrums.
This Aircraft is one of the most beautiful propeller driven Airliner ever! Huge and Stylish at the same time! Also the fastest propeller driven Airliner ever!😎
You can hear it three days before it arrives...
Short answer: No Long answer: heeeeeeeck no
Have you ever gone DC-6? Convair 440? DC-7, ??? Try it.
NO NO, It is THE most magnificent propeller driven passenger aircraft ever. Don't even start with the Constellation.
@@chrislong3938 that is grossly understating the noise Concorde also made
One of my favourite Aircraft !
Yeah its so cool :D Althougg i only knew of the bomber version lol
Same! 👍🏽
this was an impressive airliner. hands down. the soviet union had many amazing achievements and pushed global innovation. they deserve credit for that.
If Kruschev had have stayed Premier through the 80s, the USSR might truly have given us a run for our money, as Saint Ronnie destroyed our working Middle Class, pushing us way down from where we were through the 70s, whereas the Soviet citizens were enjoying a steadily, if slowly, rising standard of living. It stands to reason that they might have at least caught up to us, had they stayed the course.
Right now, they do not deserve credit for anything except murder and mayhem.
sadly some poor political manuvers and using communism just for propaganda made the nation dissolved to 14 more countries for the benefits of fat guys on air conditioned buildings
@@rasputin1338 considering the timing, yeaaahh their achievements can stay here for a bit while we solve the problem that is a random war
@@rasputin1338 The Soviet Union has been dead and gone for 32 years at this point. There's no shame in honoring past achievements.
Nice, another thumbnail update (as of July 12, 2023). Nice seeing Khrushchev being happy.
Just doing a little test with this one :)
@@MustardChannel mustard r u good at being good to be good for the good of the people because they like good too?
i knew the thumbnail guy was new!
I’ve been waiting for a Mustard video for SOOOOO LONG
me too
Ik
Mark of Excellence That's because the 3D modelling used in Mustard's videos takes hundreds of man hours to edit and painstakingly hard to create, each frame is carefully edited, every 24 frames per second, times 5 minutes of 3D CGI = hundreds of hours editing, but at least he gets paid back with views, $1,500 per 1 million views
It's like crack to me
Ikr
Rumor has it that on his TU-114 flights, Premier Khrushchev took lessons on diplomacy using Skillshare 😂
Haha, this should be a slogan for the ad! :D
Also Tupolev took lessons on IMPRESSING THE SHIT OUT OF THE WEST on skillshare 😂
very true Brandon Daniels
Where can we go to learn more about Skillshare?
U Fucking NORMIE !!!!!!!!
I can imagine how” comfortable “ and silent that thing is . Because sometimes over my house flying An-22 with same engines and it’s one of the loudest thing I’ve ever heard
Actually, it has a very good sound insulation, and on the footage people are not showing any kind of distress.
Noise regulations in non-Soviet airspace probably played a bigger role in its phaseout than cabin comfort. No point in keeping this plane to show off civil aviation power if it can't even fly to other countries' airports.
I've rewatched this video over a dozen times, the plane's just too beautiful and your 3d animation looks fantastic.
6:50 - I love this shot of American servicemen/engineers stood in awe of the Tu-114.
(they may be trying to reverse engineer the plane somehow to the west would be dominant)
Those turboprops are rated at 15,000 shaft horsepower making a total of 60,000 maximum output per big Bear. These aircraft are amongst some of the most spectacular ever designed, despite being birthed from weapons meant for nuclear genocide
The turboprop engines has been designed by German engineers from company called Henkel.
@@sakadabara The turboprops were designed by the Kuznetsov OKB in the USSR, based on German designs.
@@sakadabara Like the washing machine detergent producer?
A machine's original purpose as a nuclear bomber doesn't contradict or hinder its status as a spectacular design.
My shaft is rated at 15,000 horsepower.
Mustard. I love this channel. Nicely explained, not too short or too long. Perfect voice for commentary and actual acurate Historical Stories. 10/10 love it! ;)
"The Soviet ̶b̶o̶m̶b̶e̶r̶ airliner is about to make a big impression, because it headed straight to United States" looks like a tu 95 to me (I have no idea its a tu95 for real xD)
No it's not, a different one, added cabin, lowered wings, etc
@@chickenfootlicker but but the new F15 pilot didn't know the difference , should I shoot .
That’s because it was a Tu-95 converted into a Airliners
My father serviced those planes, not civil TU-114 but TU-95 bombers in the south of Russia, he made for me something like exursion on the base and for this incredibile plane too. I clearly remeber sitting on the above double-cannon turrel operator place and turning left-right and up-down. I was about 5-7 year old child
that is very Russian of you
Take your kid to work day! Thanks for commenting!
Man, your dad is awesome
Just yesterday I actually went inside Columbine III, Eisenhower's plane. It's at the national air Force museum in Dayton Ohio
I've been there before, the photos online really don't justify how cool it is to be there.
And my company is restoring Columbine II! I get to see her every day!
Yeah, I was in that Connie, and while there, got to walk thru Kennedy's Air Force One, and got to stand on the point where Johnson was sworn in after the assassination.
Fantastic Air Museum.. and it's free to park and free admission. If you want to see it all give yourself 3-4 hours at least..
Finally I see someone genuinely analytical in their story-telling, without politics mixed in! Thumb up!
I flew in one in 1979, from Moscow to Irkutsk via Omsk (for a refueling stop). My main memory is that it was uncomfortable and noisy.
I figure the reason for the reason for these videos taking longer than usual is because of the outstanding quality of the video, and the top notch animation/narration. Either way it is worth the wait.
Couldn't have said it better.
Ok
after all it's about quality, not quantity
The TU-114 is also a looker, much like the old DC-3 and the DeHavilland Comet 4. Clearly modern transport is better in every conceivable way, but designers have lost their way over the years.
Looks, but… sound is a problem.
To quote Tupolev himself, "an ugly airplane won't fly" :)
They haven't really lost their way. It's more than practicality won out over looks. After all the people you want to impress are not politicians or the public but airliners and they care about efficiency. How many people can it fly per month for how much money in fuel and maintenance?
planes don't get architects so its almost all practical (as it should be)
Are modern airplanes better in every conceivable way? I don't think so. I hate having no leg room, and the Boeing 777 is rather noisy compared to the 747, and those Boeings have seats that are too narrow. A DC7's seats are about 2 inches wider, and you have more leg room as well. Why put reclining seats in if you can't recline them?
I'm learning such a lot from watching Mustard. Excellent subjects to present. A lot of hard work I can imagine, but it's much appreciated, I can say that.
such beautiful plane. don't think any airliner should be "outdated". These are engineering marvels. There should be no expiry date for that. wish I could still board one of these today.
yeah same i wish i could dash 44m forward in wright brother's plane
Considering that Tu-95 is technically still in service as Tu-142, Tu-114 could also still be around no problems. It's a very reliable and fuel efficient design.
1:45 That guy with gun-alike camera stabilizer... Asking for trouble
In Soviet Russia, you no shoot camera, camera shoot you
Zenit sold them in the UK as the Photosniper . camera-wiki.org/wiki/Zenit_Photosniper
These cameras were called photorifles. Photography was called Photo-hunting.
Paul Queripel those kinds of stabilizers are still made. I have one.
@@kishascape try making a vlogging video with it while in a airport or city centre and let us know how it goes!
When a mustard vid comes out, u know its gonna be good! ;)
Can we please appreciate the hilarious contraption the photographer has built at 1:46. What a legend lmao
'screenshot'
A normal day becomes a good day when Mustard uploads
and a good day became better when it's not very controversal and whiny Muriboys on the comment section is not whining over a youtube video
I've never spammed so fast to watch this. Your quality of work is fantastic. I don't mind waiting long. But in the end we get something educational, visually fantastic and very entertaining
More top quality content, you deserve more subscribers!
It is great but I don't like the leader (Of the Soviet Union)
Thanks for another great video, Mustard. I must admit to a lack of any knowledge regarding the Tu-114, as the Tu-95 is the long-range turboprop that usually comes to mind immediately. I enjoy these informative videos!👍😎
when you suddenly go down a youtube recommendation rabbit hole and is stuck watching 2 hours worth of aviation videos.
Your work is so good, and so thorough, it can actually be summed up in word......PERFECTION.
he mispronounced khrushchev every single time, a trait i've seen many americans do with simple words, like oblate and spheroid, for just 2 examples
Blender is a promising tool, especially if we talk about real time rendering inside complete 3d modeling software. Just go to the 2.80 version even thought it's still in a beta. Your channel is a huge inspiration and the fact that you just started to learn Blender it's a big boost for me to continue my learnings. And thank you for unbiased coverage of our soviet legacy of coldwar byproducts ;-) I'm surprised that you didn't go for a more popular and used TU-95, and while watching this video I wanted to know your perspective about ongoing usage of that bomber in a military. One more thing! You made a mistake in 2:08 mispronounced IL-14 as /ail/, the correct pronunciation is /eel/ because it's Russian abbreviation.
Great comment! I know how meaningful it is to see unbiased coverage of your culture's legacy.
@@deus_ex_machina_ We're all just geekin around even if it's build for killing purposes (I mean the 95 model).
Blender is awesome. It's hard to get into for some, because the UI is not very optimized. Most options are very hard to find. But Blender definitely has everything to become bigger than Cinema 4D, Maya and 3DS Max
@@Enceos just use Space and type in needed option
“I wanted to know your perspective about ongoing usage of that bomber in a military.“ I assume you’re concerned about continuing to use a bomber that old. Honestly, the United States has the same problem. We continue to use the B-52, a truly ancient design. It still uses 8 TF-33 engines, which are one of the oldest jet engines out there. To give you some idea, they were essentially the second jet engine ever to have a bypass. We’ve even dabbled with the idea of replacing them with 4 modern CFM-56 engines... Nope... Haven’t bothered. Government doesn’t want to spend the money to even so much as upgrade these planes, let alone replace them. I think the reason both the TU-95 and the B-52 have fallen by the wayside is that the air arm of the “nuclear triangle” would be considered the last hope, considering how much more capable missles and subs can be. And even when it comes to the air arm, the US at least has some designs more likely to be successful, like the small number of B-2s. If either country had to rely on B-52s and Tu-95s in its intended role, then the world’s probably gone to hell in a handbasket anyway. In otherwords, they’re just there “just in case all else faile”, and pressed into service in other roles in the meantime (such as conventional bombing and ASW in the case of the TU-95). I certainly hope we’ll never need to use either aircraft in its intended role. Maybe it’s for the best nobody really has a replacement for either aircraft.
I'd like to see a tutorial video on how you use SketchUp (9:04) to create the models as well as the software used for general art.
honestly ive been starstruck by the quality of the 3d animated segments of these vidoes since the minute i saw them, and youre telling me you made these animations with a program ive been fighting with to make a solid object that dosent have a microscopic hole somewhere? bravo good sir.
i can't even make a new file💀
at 1:08 he said "your the advocate of capitalism, and im the advocate of communism" Edit: Damn thx for all the likes, and holy crap Mustard put a heart on this comment!
"Let's kiss"
Imagine if he replaced Stalin at the time. Wonder how diplomatic affairs would go.
Huh, now that I replayed it, Russian doesn't sound so hard.
@@ritagasper1958 Oh boy let me tell you there some similarities and differences you would not expect xD
InfiniteFences yeah I know, lol
Excellent video about the converted Bear Bomber into a passenger airliner
GERMAN LUFTWAFFE IN REVERSE.
In soviet russia, we turn military bombers to civilian airliners.
I keep seeing you everywhere wwot
*Tu-114 was not converted,* only Khruschev's plane was.
@@StrangerHappened Oh was his the only bear converted to an airliner?
I love this thing. Easily one of the coolest and most unique airliners to ever fly
Like the Tu-95 it was derived from, the Tu-114 is a simply magnificent aircraft! An aviation masterpiece.
Gotta love the Kuznetzovs. Your videos make my day !
Gotta love Tupolev!
@@samovarmaker9673 Old man Tupolev and his crew of engineers were a bunch of bad asses (pours one out for the Aeronautical Legends and Gulag Homies).
@@GIGABACHI I'm still mostly impressed by Korolev
@@jur4x The Rocket Guy ? Another classy talent.👍👌
Excellent video. I'm curious, how long does the final render for the 3D portions of video take you?
i really think that he's using Unreal Engine for rendering, based on how i see shaders and post processing look. So it should be realtime rendering, it's possibly faster than the video editing render
Do you make the models?
@@404killer Yes, he makes the models.
I’m not sure he does, on his Patreon account he mentions that one of things supporters contribute towards is the purchasing of new stock 3d models. So I think in most cases he buys ready made blank aircraft models, adds his own textures, and then animates to suit his needs. Which is a logical workflow for projects of this scope, as building accurate 3D models to this level of detail is a highly skilled and time consuming task, so it’s often far more cost effective to just buy one rather than spend two or three days modelling it from scratch .
I know im late commenting this, the quality of this video is absolutely stunning. The montage, the music, the quality of the narration is absolutely perfect!
I feel like this is Mustard's best ever video. It's subtle, but pay attention to how he weaves in the narrative of Nikita Khrushchev and this plane. How many other KZheadrs could do this? They would instead tell me how many feet the wing span is, and that the landgear is bicyle configuration
Actually, this has tricycle gear, bicycle gear is used by things like the Harrier and B-52. Otherwise, I agree with you completely.
It is, tells the best story
The Mig 25 story is great too
7:40 The reason it was so loud was that the tips would pass each other at almost hypersonic relative speeds, so every time a blade passes one behind it there is a sonic boom
Wasn't it like about 30 times per second?
This channel is underrated. Your videos are amazing. What I like the most is that it is very informative.
I like how the title is "How the Soviets turned a bomber into an airliner" which is literally the exact same thing the American flight industry did after World War II
You'd also probably like the original title even more:- _“How the Soviets One-Upped the West”_
Actually American converted military transport, bomber isnt easy to modify which is why British failed to revitalise their bomber fleet
@@HowToChangeName Good point, I didn't really give it much attention
i mean it is easier to tear of the bombing equipment and put some chairs in it rather than telling those musky companies to design one in 7 years
Totally breathtaking! These machines are a work of art.
*_"S O V I E T F O R C E O N E."_*
Muxite no it would be USSR Air Force one.
@@kishascape RED force one sound better
Yes yes ajajajan
Air soviet one seems alot better
Ah, the Legendary TU-114, amazing for startup airlines playing in the early 70s on Airline Empires
It wasn't the first time the Soviets converted a bomber into an airliner: the Tu-104 (the world's second jet airliner, and for a while after the Comet 1 was grounded the _only_ jet airliner in operation anywhere) was a similar modification of the Tu-16 "Badger" bomber.
The main converter seems to have been the UK, which makes sense: while they had a surfeit of bombers unlike the US they had not built thousands of military transport to project forces across the globe, which could now serve as airliners: - the Avro Lancaster was converted into the 691 Lancastrian (several Lancastrians were built from scratch rather than converted) - the Handley Page Halifax could be (and largely were, after the war) converted in to the *Halton* civilian variant, though many got converted into freighters instead (40 participated in the Berlin airlift) - the Bristol Brabazon was an evolution of Bristol's Type 167, a pre-war proposal for a large bomber The US didn't much convert bombers to airliners as they had literally thousands of transports available. The Douglas A-26 Invader stands out as airliner-adjacent though: many were converted to executive planes (e.g. On Mark's Executive, Marketeer, and Marksman). It remained pretty popular (relatively, these were not high-volume operations) until "proper" executive types like the Gulfstream became more readily available. Also technically the Tu-104 was not a conversion of the Tu-16, it only had its flying surfaces. So more of a derivative.
I mean... They just got it a new fuselage and go "Ey let's fuckin' go, jet flying taxis"
The Tu-104 and Tu-116 were both developed in a rush, using bomber fuselages, yet the former was one of the most deadliest, while the later was one of the most reliant. Engineering never fails to astonish me.
Really handsome looking plane.
A surprisingly good looking plane, all of its proportions are pleasing. I wonder if a modern turboprop (or propfan) airliner of similar specifications and requirements would offer any advantage over planes already in service.
@@Vespuchian Interesting idea. However, modern fanjets are extremely efficient, quiet and of gigantic proportions, whereas large turboprops are well behind the largest jet engines in effective power, and their propellers are noisy, although modern scimitar-bladed props are quieter than the straight contra-rotating ones seen on the Tu-114. Props wre tried by NASA twenty or thirty years ago on a DC-9 testbed, but the noise was prohibitive and the efficiency less than that of fanjets, which basically are turbine-driven impeller fans (many-bladed props with a cowling). The noise of propellers is due to the transonic speeds at their tips relative to the air, as sitting next to the propellers on an older turboprop aircraft painfully proves. Modern planes such as the Bombardier Q400 muffle this quite well with an active system, but I certainly felt the shock waves on the Ilyushin Il-18 and the otherwise wonderful Fokker F-27 Friendship, standard airliners in the 1960's.
awuma Thank you, I was unaware turbofans had surpassed modern turboprops in efficiency.
they had us in the first half not gonna lie.
50s technology, and terrible avionics
These videos are loveletters to aviation.I was not interested in it...until i found Mustard.
Great piece of documentary filmmaking. Most entertaining - thx
Thank you, I didn't know. Now I know. A bomber of that class flies over my house every year on May 9 for a parade in Moscow. The drone is terrible and all the cars trigger the alarm ... Thank you...
It is really a shame that because of weather there hasnt been an airshow for the last few years
Tu114 is one of the most beautiful planes for me
jerry metcalf he just like the plane, let him
I agree
It is a beautiful plane, love to see one one day before they all get scrapped like the one on display outside some Russian airport. It's old technology but is impressive, looks better that the Bear version. No I ain't buying a t-shirt.
Russian Troll much?
@@ronaldreed7698 Is saying F-22 is impressive considered "American troll" according to your mindset as well?
The intro in this episode between the music, visuals, and commentary always gives me goosebumps. Great episode, Thank You!
wow the tu-114 is like a flying cruise ship
Wait till you see the Airbus A380
USSR's innovations and inventions were amazing, glad to see a channel credit them for these.
Hey Mustard, I just wanna say that your videos are so good I can never get enough of them. Keep the good quality content up and try to post more frequently
*sees that mustard has highlighted post -goes to google -searches “how to be famous”
All your videos contents are impeccably done, clean concise and excellent narration. Good job man, I'm sure your channel will be huge in the near future.
The way the engine nacelles stick out in front of the wings make it look a little fragile. Of course it isn't and the rest of the craft is state of the art for its time. Quite a beautiful aircraft to behold.
I saw one that had taken off from Heathrow - a very distinctive sound!
Excellent presentation. Modern high by-pass "turbofan" jet engines - such as in a 787 - get most of their thrust from the front turbine blades, which act similar to a propeller. I'm told that 60% of the thrust is from the front blades (discharging air backwards and flowing around the jet engine) and 40% of the thrust comes from the jet itself.
That 60% thrust from the fanblades is still "jet thrust". It is just that it is from the cooler air which bypasses the turbine in the centre. Propellers on the other hand generate thrust is a very different way, by generating "lift" like aircraft wings, but moving perpendicular to the direction the aircraft moves, and the "lift" is thus in the forward direction.
Finally new video
No question,.. TU-114 was/is remarkable! Fantastic!
Sketchup and Mustard. What a combo.
There hasn't been a single boring video on this channel. Thanks for the effort you put into these videos!
Notification Mustards uploaded ( cancels wedding )
😁😁😁😁
Literally 🤣🤣
Hey i didnt realize that thumbnail until now, Is it recently changed?
Yes
I really love how you introduce topics of your videos