Author Topic: The Concord (Read 4156 times)

NUKE · « **Reply #75 on:** May 13, 2003, 09:10:17 PM »

Quote

USSR was (and still is) ahead of the West in airplane design. Too hard to admit it, I understand. Soviet designs are traditionaly more progressive and are supposed to use technological processes inferior to the West. .

That's a good one Boroda!

HAhahahhahahaha!

NUKE · « **Reply #76 on:** May 13, 2003, 10:12:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Boroda
Did you know that we had a programm on XXX TV channel about CIA stealing MiG-25 blueprints to build F-15? (it's a joke, Russians are not dumb enough to believe such fairy-tales).

It's ridiculous.

We had supersonic bombers in early-60s. In mid-60s there was a competition for a second-generation supersonic-bomber capable of M2+, mostly between Sukhoi and Tupolev. Sukhoi made "Sotka", Tupolev worked on what became a 144. Tupolev was famous for "under-carpet" intrigues. He always lobbied his designs, and they usually were adopted by VVS and GVF, even when better ones were availible. Look at Myasishchev's 3M and M-4 bombers. They were decades ahead of their time. Look at "Sotka", it looks almost like 144, but had some design innovations and was abandoned mostly because of cost and development of rocket anti-aircraft artillery.

USSR was (and still is) ahead of the West in airplane design. Too hard to admit it, I understand. Soviet designs are traditionaly more progressive and are supposed to use technological processes inferior to the West. We simply have better engineers who can make a nessesary thing using cheaper and simplier technology.

Boroda you are so full of watermelon it isn't even funny anymore.

The M3 and M4 were in no way ahead of their time, let alone decades! Are you serious? Decades? At that time , The US had B-58 ( first flew in '56) super-sonic bombers plus the B-52. The M4 couldn't even reach North America and return due to the fuel consumption and is in no way close to what a B-52 is and was.

The Su-T4 was a rip-off ( and an ugly one) of the XB70, only the XB-70 was flying 8 years earlier. Just a cheap, ugly copy.

The TU-160 is pretty much a B-1 ripoff that flew 8 years later as well.

The Tu-144, as EVERYONE knows , and was known in the press as the "Koncordski" was a TOTAL ripoff of the Concorde's design and actual blueprints

Then we have the shockingly original, one flight wonder, Space Shuttle rip-off, the Buran.

Borada, That's some pretty progressive design work there. It's laughable.

Then we could throw in the SR-71. What are you gonna put up against that? The Mig-25.....which doesn't compare anyway, plus flew after the Sr-71.

Throw in f-14, f-15, f-16, f-22, F-117, and B-2 of which for their time had no Soviet equal .

Then of course you might want to look into the new American space planes and bombers that Russia seems to have no anwser for.

blue1 · « **Reply #77 on:** May 13, 2003, 11:48:38 PM »

Nuke I think the MiG25 was designed to intercept the SR-71 not compete with it.

Boroda is at least partially right, you didn't mention the MiG29 or the Su27. Aerodynamically they are as good as if not superior to western aircraft. Which are largely fly by wire these days and inherently unstable. Without access to this level of technology the Russians had to use good aerodynamics.
The Su 25 ground attack aircraft is easily better than the comparable A10, being supersonic when clean and can carry a heavy load.

The biggest flaw with Russian aircraft was their engines which had a very short life span. The Mig 29 has a very short range too.

The big advantage Russian aircraft have is their ruggedness. Western aircraft are delicate flowers in comparision.

These day though with money scarce they are but a shadow of their formers selves.

You mention the F117 which truly was a breakthrough, irony of ironies the key to the radar deflection qualities of the F117 was found in a paper written by a Russian scientist. His work was ignored by the Russian designers but taken on board by Lockheed's Skunk works with the result seen today. So Boroda can take some consolation.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #78 on:** May 13, 2003, 11:54:09 PM »

The Su25 is an intersting plane but it is not as rugged as the A-10 and does not have as as good an internal gun - so thesr is a trade off. The A-10s competitor design for the USAF contract was closer in layout to the Su25, being much more conventianal and it lost.

The Mig29 is nice but has the worst combat history of any modern fighter - something like a KD ratio if 1/30.

The Su27 is a great airshow demonstrator.

The K-36 is prolly the best ejection seat in the world though and the Russians are trying their best to prove that at every airshow.

NUKE · « **Reply #79 on:** May 14, 2003, 12:18:33 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by blue1
Nuke I think the MiG25 was designed to intercept the SR-71 not compete with it.

Boroda is at least partially right, you didn't mention the MiG29 or the Su27. Aerodynamically they are as good as if not superior to western aircraft. Which are largely fly by wire these days and inherently unstable. Without access to this level of technology the Russians had to use good aerodynamics.
The Su 25 ground attack aircraft is easily better than the comparable A10, being supersonic when clean and can carry a heavy load.

The biggest flaw with Russian aircraft was their engines which had a very short life span. The Mig 29 has a very short range too.

The big advantage Russian aircraft have is their ruggedness. Western aircraft are delicate flowers in comparision.

These day though with money scarce they are but a shadow of their formers selves.

You mention the F117 which truly was a breakthrough, irony of ironies the key to the radar deflection qualities of the F117 was found in a paper written by a Russian scientist. His work was ignored by the Russian designers but taken on board by Lockheed's Skunk works with the result seen today. So Boroda can take some consolation.

The Mig-25 could never hope to intercept an Sr-71.

The Russians had fly by wire in the 60's.

The Mig-29 and SU 27 are not "progressive" designs ahead of their time.

Boroda is full of it. Name some Russian aircraft that are actually "ahead" of their time.

Ack-Ack · « **Reply #80 on:** May 14, 2003, 12:23:01 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by NUKE

The fact remains that the Concorde was a failure economically and in it's safety record.

Only for Air France. British Airways that has flown the Concorde as long as the French never had a major mishap and their safety record for flying the Concorde is amongst the best for any major airline. And technically, since the crash of the Air France Concorde wasn't due to any malfunction with the plane but rather from a piece of debris on the runway that got kicked up that would have had fatal consequences for any plane, you really can't say the safety rate was a failure. Especially when you consider the life time of the plane and how many flights it took without a mishap in that period.

Ack-Ack

Ack-Ack · « **Reply #81 on:** May 14, 2003, 12:27:58 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Furball

Having seen it flying, and hearing/see it taking off. Theres nothing like it

I got really lucky back in 1988 when I got to take a ride in the Concord at an air show here in San Diego. It was a three hour flight from Brown Field (near the US-Mexico border south of San Diego) to Hawaii and back. Only thing that sucked since I was only 17 at the time is that I couldn't have a glass of champagne at sunset over Hawaii. One thing that really surprised me is the noise, I didn't think it would be that noisy inside the cabin like it was.

Ack-Ack

NUKE · « **Reply #82 on:** May 14, 2003, 12:28:21 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Only for Air France. British Airways that has flown the Concorde as long as the French never had a major mishap and their safety record for flying the Concorde is amongst the best for any major airline. And technically, since the crash of the Air France Concorde wasn't due to any malfunction with the plane but rather from a piece of debris on the runway that got kicked up that would have had fatal consequences for any plane, you really can't say the safety rate was a failure. Especially when you consider the life time of the plane and how many flights it took without a mishap in that period.

Ack-Ack

Then why not continue flying Concordes? I'm all for it.

Ack-Ack · « **Reply #83 on:** May 14, 2003, 12:30:16 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by NUKE
Then why not continue flying Concordes? I'm all for it.

Because it's no longer economically viable and coupled with an old airframe that is starting to show its age which then further increases the cost of operation is the major reason why the Concord is being retired.

Ack-Ack

NUKE · « **Reply #84 on:** May 14, 2003, 12:31:51 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Because it's no longer economically viable and coupled with an old airframe that is starting to show its age which then further increases the cost of operation is the major reason why the Concord is being retired.

Ack-Ack

Just build new Concordes.

Was it ever economically viable?

NUKE · « **Reply #85 on:** May 14, 2003, 12:38:30 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ack-Ack
I got really lucky back in 1988 when I got to take a ride in the Concord at an air show here in San Diego. It was a three hour flight from Brown Field (near the US-Mexico border south of San Diego) to Hawaii and back. Only thing that sucked since I was only 17 at the time is that I couldn't have a glass of champagne at sunset over Hawaii. One thing that really surprised me is the noise, I didn't think it would be that noisy inside the cabin like it was.

Ack-Ack

AKAK, that's pretty cool that you got to ride in the Concorde.........pretty nice!

Was it real loud?

Ack-Ack · « **Reply #86 on:** May 14, 2003, 01:28:46 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Vulcan
If you think the US runs on capitalism alone you are quite wrong. The US has a solid history of propping up non-profitable industries...

Yep, like AmTrak.

Ack-Ack

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #87 on:** May 14, 2003, 01:35:24 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
An oxymoron, but anyway.

Il-2. The mother of all ground support attack planes.

Mig-21. In a world where fighters were getting bigger, heavier and more missile dependant. Mikoyan designed a fighter that was inexpensive, small, fast, manuverable, missile armed but with a good gun as backup. The Mig-21 did in no small way influence the design philosophy of the F-5, F-16, and F-17/18.

An-225. First aircraft to have a max TO weight of more than a million pounds. An engineering marvel of immense proportions.

Il2? Nope, not by a long shot, the germans had dedicated ground support planes in WW1 - as in they were purpsley designed, armed, armored and built from the first moment as ground support aircraft. They were mother of all ground support planes.

Mig-21? Nope, there were many light weight fighter designs of the period, ever hear of the F104 - it came before the Mig21...

An225, its a achivement no doubt but nothing really ahead of its time. Its just a really big transport. It broke no new ground and wasn really a major risk or breakthrough in how transportation was done. Now compare that to lets the 747...

straffo · « **Reply #88 on:** May 14, 2003, 01:37:25 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by NUKE
Just build new Concordes.

Was it ever economically viable?

Building new concordes is a no go just because the industrial tool are no more ...

Boroda · « **Reply #89 on:** May 14, 2003, 06:20:52 AM »

NUKE, you are almost as brilliant as Grunherz sometimes!

Tu-160 a copy of B-1!? Beautiful! Exellent! The problem is that it's several times bigger. B-1 can be compared to a good old Tu-22M.

Tu-144 is certainly a copy of Concorde. Adding forward retractable (!!!) wing is just a "minor adjustment of airframe". LOL!

JFYI: Tu-144 is capable of operating from GROUND AIRFIELDS. I doubt that a broken tire can damage it and set it on fire.

M-4 was flying in 1960, and it's damn bigger then Hustler.

Buran a copy of a "space shuttle"?! Does Buran have main engines mounted on an orbiter? Does "space shuttle" have an ability to use up to 6 boosters, liquid fueled and capable of soft landing on hard surface, also being used as small launch vehicles separately? Does "space shuttle" have an automatic landing system? Can "space shuttle" be used as a launch vehicle capable of bringing up to 200-250 tons to orbit? Can "space shuttle" land on plowed field?

If we have stolen all your "progressive" dumb and expencive designs - it's very sad that FBI doesn't catch Soviet spys by dozens, or even hundreeds.

When you were building bombers - we were reaching space and developing ICBMs and SAMs that can tear your bombers into a British flag. B-52s proved to be very good as illumination fireworks in Dec. 1972.

EVERYONE knows that your helicopters fall down like leaves in autumn, your "invisible" planes can be shot from 40 years old SAMs and your spaceships... oh sorry.

All you can do during different conflicts is to present us with an undamaged samples of your "progressive designs", that usually make our engineers laugh their prettythang off, like that Muinuteman that felt down to Cuba after a test launch.

Hehe. This people wanted to fight a war with us. Hehe.