Author Topic: Russian Space (Read 676 times)

mora · « **Reply #15 on:** April 23, 2007, 04:07:39 AM »

LOL Boroda. I guess fish is on discount today?

MrRiplEy[H] · « **Reply #16 on:** April 23, 2007, 07:32:06 AM »

Mora you should know already that Boroda really believes in this stuff.

FiLtH · « **Reply #17 on:** April 23, 2007, 08:58:45 AM »

mietla · « **Reply #18 on:** April 23, 2007, 10:12:26 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Boroda
F-15 is a lame copy of a MiG-25. It can't reach M3 and was built 4 years later.

Concord is a copy of a Tu-144 - it flew 3 months after Soviet design.

serious question Boroda. Is it true that Mig25's engines had to be replaced and overhauled after every M3 flight?

Viking · « **Reply #19 on:** April 23, 2007, 10:17:21 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Furball

Ever read about the "sting" in which Mi6 planted wrong information to the spy trying to steal the Concorde designs?

May have been why Concordski couldnt stay in the air for very long!

I don't want to rain on your parade, but "Concordski" is still flying ... unlike Concorde.

Chairboy · « **Reply #20 on:** April 23, 2007, 10:27:17 AM »

The Buran looks similar to the US Shuttle, but is significantly different. I wish I had noticed this thread earlier, this is one of my areas of knowledge.

The US shuttle has three massive SSMEs, and the airframe is built very differently than the Buran as a result, which relies on the Energia booster to get it all the way to orbit. Buran was rated to carry a little more payload, but it was essentially payload itself.

The Buran was more sophisticated than the US Shuttle, understandable considering that it first flew almost a decade afterwards. Unlike the US shuttle, it could fly a mission profile completely automatically, from takeoff to touchdown without human intervention. This was demonstrated on its first and only launch when it took off, orbited, and then landed (in a 30knot gusting crosswind) all on autopilot. The story is that the US shuttle probably has the same capability except for an astronaut driven requirement that the gear can only be deployed manually, but I don't have a good reference for that other than the conjecture in Jenkin's Shuttle.

Long story short, the Buran was an aerodynamic copy of the Shuttle to save time and development expenses (hence the appearance), but the similarities are skin deep. Both have advantages and disadvantages, and that pesky collapse of the soviet union means we'll never know how the two fare against each other in real performance.

Slash27 · « **Reply #21 on:** April 23, 2007, 10:32:08 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
I don't want to rain on your parade, but "Concordski" is still flying ... unlike Concorde.

Nice pic from 1997.

Where does it fly now?

Chairboy · « **Reply #22 on:** April 23, 2007, 10:48:22 AM »

The Concordski project completed, and I don't believe the Tu-144 is still flying, but I may be wrong.

Hornet33 · « **Reply #23 on:** April 23, 2007, 10:59:43 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
I don't want to rain on your parade, but "Concordski" is still flying ... unlike Concorde.

Yeah but look at the flag on the tail. The only reason it's flying is because we wanted to use it as a test bed. If the US hadn't been interested in that plane it would still be sitting in some park somewhere in Russia.

Concord had 20 airframes produced and those planes flew in international service for 27 years with the loss of a single plane = success

The Tu-144S went into service on 26 December 1975, flying mail and freight between Moscow and Alma-Ata in preparation for passenger services, which commenced in November 1977 and ran a semi-scheduled service until the first Tu-144D experienced an in-flight failure during a pre-delivery test flight, and crash-landed with crew fatalities on 23 May 1978. The Aeroflot flight on 1 June 1978 was the Tu-144's 55th and last scheduled passenger service.

A scheduled Aeroflot freight-only service recommenced using the new production variant Tu-144D aircraft on 23 June 1979, including longer routes from Moscow to Khabarovsk made possible by the more efficient RD-36-51 engines used in the Tu-144D version. Including the 55 passenger flights, there were 102 scheduled Aeroflot flights before the cessation of commercial service.

So the Tu-144 had 102 scheduled commercial flights in 4 years with only 16 airframes being produced and the program suffered from several crashes = FAILURE

Shifty · « **Reply #24 on:** April 23, 2007, 11:37:04 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
And 18 years after the cold war ended east and west keep posting their propaganda on the internet.

If Norway had produced a significant spacecraft, or military aircraft in the past 50 years, you'd probably post it too.

Ack-Ack · « **Reply #25 on:** April 23, 2007, 12:34:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Furball

Ever read about the "sting" in which Mi6 planted wrong information to the spy trying to steal the Concorde designs?

May have been why Concordski couldnt stay in the air for very long!

No, care to tell us? Sounds like a really cool story.

ack-ack

Estel · « **Reply #26 on:** April 23, 2007, 01:39:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mietla
serious question Boroda. Is it true that Mig25's engines had to be replaced and overhauled after every M3 flight?

No. Engines have their own cycle to repair and replace, but it's not based on speed. Usualy it was about 500 hours.

Estel · « **Reply #27 on:** April 23, 2007, 01:42:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
The Concordski project completed, and I don't believe the Tu-144 is still flying, but I may be wrong.

It's still flying. As a flying laboratory. One or two flights for a month.

Estel · « **Reply #28 on:** April 23, 2007, 01:48:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hornet33
Yeah but look at the flag on the tail. The only reason it's flying is because we wanted to use it as a test bed. If the US hadn't been interested in that plane it would still be sitting in some park somewhere in Russia.

Oh really? Tell me, where is an american supersonic passenger jet? You didn't steal enough brains to create it? Sorry, it's not our problem. It's business. You want to use it - pay for it.

The flag is because that time, this plane was used in international ecology program. And Russia and USA was only who payed for it. So, there are their flags. Nothing special. Just honor to payers.

Shifty · « **Reply #29 on:** April 23, 2007, 02:33:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
The Buran looks similar to the US Shuttle, but is significantly different. I wish I had noticed this thread earlier, this is one of my areas of knowledge.

The US shuttle has three massive SSMEs, and the airframe is built very differently than the Buran as a result, which relies on the Energia booster to get it all the way to orbit. Buran was rated to carry a little more payload, but it was essentially payload itself.

The Buran was more sophisticated than the US Shuttle, understandable considering that it first flew almost a decade afterwards. Unlike the US shuttle, it could fly a mission profile completely automatically, from takeoff to touchdown without human intervention. This was demonstrated on its first and only launch when it took off, orbited, and then landed (in a 30knot gusting crosswind) all on autopilot. The story is that the US shuttle probably has the same capability except for an astronaut driven requirement that the gear can only be deployed manually, but I don't have a good reference for that other than the conjecture in Jenkin's Shuttle.

Long story short, the Buran was an aerodynamic copy of the Shuttle to save time and development expenses (hence the appearance), but the similarities are skin deep. Both have advantages and disadvantages, and that pesky collapse of the soviet union means we'll never know how the two fare against each other in real performance.

Great info on the Buran, I've always wondered how it stacked up against the American shuttle.
Thanks Choirboy