Talk:Tupolev Tu-114

message: How many of these aircraft survive? --Ragemanchoo 13:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survivors? 

message: The Tu-114 had two headlights attached to the nose landinggear, never seen that before as I recall,
was it unique for the Tu-95/Tu-114?
RGDS
Alexmcfire
:Try Super-Connie. rgds, 46.115.51.105 (talk) 00:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headlights in the landinggear?

message: Where these things as loud and damaging to hearing as the Bear bomber, or was that patched up for the civilian version? - MSTCrow 00:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noise 

message: I could swear that one of these was "Russian Air Force 1" for Boris Yeltsin at one point.  I seem to remember an incident at Denver International Airport when Yeltsin's plane (after he met with the US President in Colorado) had to wait for the temperature to cool off a bit so the plane could take off at our pressure altitude with enough fuel onboard to get back to Moscow non-stop.  This would have been in the mid-1990's. 147.145.40.44 22:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet/Russian Government Transport Version? 

message: I don't think Tu-114 was ever used in VIP transport role . At least not into the 80/90s...
Also I think, the word "The Soviet Government Instructed the..." to "Tasked" will suit the tone of the narration with reminder of the article..
Swraj (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RuAF 1? No chance... 

message: The record(s) of 09/04/1960 is 877.21kph according to the reference #2 at the bottom, not the 857.277 in the article. ????
AMCKen (talk) 21:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the 5000-km record is faster; that speed is the relevant one. Tim Zukas (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Speed Record

message: This statement in the introduction is suspect, as there is no source for it, and there is no record of a Tu-114 crashing, let alone 3.184.161.12.195 (talk) 23:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navigator to US Diplomat 

message: I noticed one of the performance claims, "Maximum speed: 870 km/h (470 kn, 541 mph) at 8,000 m (26,250 ft)," puts that at Mach 1.1.  While a decidedly subsonic aircraft might achieve this in a dive prior following total loss of control and subsequent fatal crash, it's a flat out impossibility in level flight.  At 18,000 ft MSL, that would Mach 0.96.  But at 26,250 ft MSL and 541 mph, the ONLY way you're going to achieve 470 kn (KIAS) is if the temperature is 150 deg K COLDER than Standard Day conditions of 236.14 deg K.  That's -186 deg C, or -305 deg F, at which point air is no longer air, but either liquid or solid, depending on which component of the air you're examining.  SO!  Let's get real, here!  If the Cruise Speed is 478 mph, and you're flying at 18,000 ft MSL, that's Mach 0.67 and 322 kts.  That's believable.  Bump that up to FL 340 and you're looking at Mach 0.72 and 247 kts.  Also believable.  Just saying whoever's posting the performance stats needs to run them by an aviator to ensure they pass muster.  The Tu-114 never has been, and never will be a supersonic aircraft unless it's in an uncontrollable dive.Clepsydrae (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Its only supersonic if you are measuring Calibrated Air Speed - if TAS then it comes out at Mach 0.78 - which is entirely reasonable, particularly as the aircraft did set world speed records of similar magnitude, which will be groundspeed.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: As a professional aviator with 29 years and thousands of hours of experience, I hereby confirm your calculations are in error.Clepsydrae (talk) 04:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: As a graduate of test pilot school and a professional test pilot for over 30 years, I can state unequivocally that 870 km/h CAS at 26,250 ft would be Mach 1.1.  But, maximum speeds published in WikiPedia are true airspeed. Mach 1 at 26,250 ft MSL on standard day = 1,109 km/h TAS, 689 mph TAS or 599 KTAS.  Thus 870 km/h TAS would be M0.78.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rv8 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Performance Exaggerations 

message: The second sentence in the second paragraph states "Although it was able to accommodate 224 passengers, when operated by Aeroflot, it was more common to provide 170 sleeping berths and a dining lounge".  The use of commas both before and after the middle part of the sentence makes it unclear whether it is intended to mean "Although it was able to accommodate 224 passengers when operated by Aeroflot, it was more common to provide 170 sleeping berths and a dining lounge", or "Although it was able to accommodate 224 passengers, when operated by Aeroflot it was more common to provide 170 sleeping berths and a dining lounge".  It would be good to learn which meaning was intended by the unsourced statement, and then change the comma placement or wording to make the statement clear.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rv8 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typical passenger capacity ambiguity