Buran vs USA's space shuttle

[BUG_EAF322]

Anyway they both suk compared to the dutch.
We invented the cd to copy all ur toejam.

[john9001]

the concord has never made money , it is subsidized by the french and english govts

[Dowding]

the concord has never made money , it is subsidized by the french and english govts

1) The US aviation industry is subsidized heavily by the US government, in terms of insurance

2) There hasn't been an English government for several hundred years.

[GRUNHERZ]

Mig25 was very snsitive to running at anywhere near Mach 3, for example I read that the engines were often only good for one mach 3 flight and had to be replaced on landing. This in fact happend during the israel recon flights.  Plus its engines were very sensitive too throttle changes because they were designed intially for an enormous cruise missle which naturally ran on a constant power setting.

[GRUNHERZ]

2) There hasn't been an English government for several hundred years.

Some people are just too damn anal..

[Ping]

S'ok Dowding...at least ya still got the Queen.

[GRUNHERZ]

But the problem is when people describe the Mig-25 as a mach 3 plane. It wasnt, except for short bursts after which the engines were pretty much destroyed in one flight.   That was not the case with SR71.

I'm saying the plane is no miracle that got a supposed Mach 3 sprint capability for nothing - there were serious drawbacks and compromises in the design.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by john9001
i get so tired of people always saying russia is always better than the USA (b-29) some people seem to want to put down the USA because we are so good, if the russians did not have stolen plans of USA stuff they would have nothing.

Now lets see, how did the US get into the space race in the first place...hmmm...

Lots of Nazis on the NASA Payroll pal, I bet you didnt know that, or maybe you were just avoiding that pesky little fact. But Oopps, they were not nazis at all, because von Braun and his merry bunch of rocket scientists were all USA democrats deep inside.

You should try to think before you talk mr "USA is so good and everyone steals our technology", because when you dont, you are just displaying your ignorance in an arrogant manner that tends to piss people off.

[GRUNHERZ]

I wouldnt say it was versitale, just fast enough and prolly cheap enough if you ignore the new engines after every mach 3  flight.

[StSanta]

The Russians have made seeral very good aircraft. Where the US relies on technology and software to get performance, the Russians like to play around with physics. Aerodyamically they've produced very sound planes.

Also their plaes are created to operate under quite harsh conditions. I've seen the runway sweeps in the US - to make sure something isn't sucked into the engie. The Russians build planes that can land and take off on very primitive runways.

I think that the US approach is preferrable when you want to minimize loss of human life. It works great as long as all the complex pieces are in place. However they have relatively long turnaround times and if the background technology isn't in place, their effectiveness goes down dramatically.

Of course the US ensures that the tech is in place. I've often wondered whether this reliance on hi tech and everything being just OK was good. I guess it is, as long as you have economical dominance and can control when how and why.

[Toad]

.

[GRUNHERZ]

You gonna elaborate or be mysterous Toad...

[NUKE]

The Buran is superior to the Shuttle ... it should be, considering it was designed a decade later, and with the all the benefits of the US' experience with the Shuttle. That the Russians have no funding to finalize its development and use it, is another matter entirely.

How do you figure that the Buran is superior to the shuttle when it only ever made one test flight? The shuttle has a long list of susessful missions. What has the Buran proven? It was never even completed.

As for the Mig 25, read "Mig Pilot" and you will learn that the only times it was clocked at mach 3 on a mission were when it's engine was throttled and out of control.

Now the SR-71 and Valkerie ( mach 3+ bomber) were both designed in the late 1950's and went into service by 1964. They both are far beyond anything the Russians have built, even till now.

Russians are better at aerodynamics and mechanical things????
I could give a long list of US built aircraft that are superior in aerodynamics and design to what the Russians have built.

[Innominate]

Originally posted by john9001
yeah? where is the russian blackbird? oh , they didn't steal the plans yet  or they don't have the titanium or (insert excuse)

No titanium?
To build them, The US govt had to use dummy companies to buy the titanium from the russians.

When it comes to technology, the cold war was russia's german scientists vs america's german scientists.

Originally posted by NUKE
Now the SR-71 and Valkerie ( mach 3+ bomber) were both designed in the late 1950's and went into service by 1964. They both are far beyond anything the Russians have built, even till now.

Russians are better at aerodynamics and mechanical things????
I could give a long list of US built aircraft that are superior in aerodynamics and design to what the Russians have built.

The Xb-70 Valkyrie never entered service.  Only two were built, both as research aircraft, not bombers.  One was lost in a mid-air collision, the remaining one is at the USAF museum.

As for aerodynamics, modern russian fighters have a huge edge over anything american when it comes to the dogfight.  The US(Probably correctly) has focused mainly on long-range weapons, and less on the close in fight.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by GScholz
No argument there Grun. The Mig-25 and the SR-71 was not designed to do the same missions. The SR-71 was an all-expenses-paid reece plane.

Nah, it was a high altitude, high speed interceptor.  Unfortunately (fortunately?) it wasn't that good at the job it was designed for, so they turned it in to a spy plane.