Author Topic: The Concord (Read 4153 times)

Dingbat · « **Reply #90 on:** May 14, 2003, 06:34:44 AM »

Quote

and usually everyone on board dies when a plane crashes... [/B]

Bravo, that's the most ignorant generalization I've ever seen. There are a lot of GA survivors who would disagree with you. Now Large Commercial airliners is another story

akak · « **Reply #91 on:** May 14, 2003, 06:48:57 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by NUKE
Just build new Concordes.

Was it ever economically viable?

I don't think it was. The cost to maintain the aircraft (even when it first came out) pretty much meant it was for the upper class and ticket prices out of reach for the 'common man'. Adding in the restrictions imposed on it for flying over-land over most countries and limiting it to only a few airports where it can operate out of and it's limited passenger space (I think BA's Concorde only carries 100 passengers, AF's slightly less), pretty much dashed any distant hopes or thoughts of economic viability.

The Concorde is basically built as a symbol of national pride and there's nothing wrong about that, we've done it ourselves.

Ack-Ack

akak · « **Reply #92 on:** May 14, 2003, 06:54:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz

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

Is that the cargo/transport plane that is bigger than the C-5 Galaxy? If it is, that is another plane I saw at the same airshow I went to where I got to take a ride on the Concorde. I was amazed by the maneuverability on the plane as big as that. While I'm sure that plane didn't break any new ground engineering wise, it's still a feet to get a plane that big in the air.

Ack-Ack

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #93 on:** May 14, 2003, 07:32:48 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Boroda
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.

TO wt of B-1 is 216,000 kg... Tu-160 is 275,000 kg

(Tu-22m TO wt 122,000 kg)

20% is several times?

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #94 on:** May 14, 2003, 07:34:56 AM »

Boroda if you think the M-4 Bison was decades ahed of its time how can you account for the B-47 and B-52 both of which were as fast and faster, carried simmilar and larger bombloads, had much longer range and were from the same time period. I think you are quite ignorant.... I guess in the case of the B52 one could say it was a century ahead of its time because they are sometimes projected to keep flying into 2050...

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #95 on:** May 14, 2003, 07:48:48 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
TO wt of B-1 is 216,000 kg... Tu-160 is 275,000 kg

(Tu-22m TO wt 122,000 kg)

20% is several times?

Yea I was gonna bring that up to him too - The Tu160 is simply a 20% bigger B-1A the flight performances are largely identical...

But when a guy thinks that some crappy M-4 Bison is was decades ahead of its time then we call all imagine what stories he can conjure up about a more modern plane like the Tu160.

And him saying B1B is comporable to the Tu22M Backfirse is another wonderous delusion. I this case the B1B is actualy close to being almost twice as large..

B1B Max TO weight: 477,000 pounds (216,600 kg)
TU22M Max TO weight: 272,800 pounds (124,000kg)

So I think there also goes the idea that russians know mathematics better than americans....

NUKE · « **Reply #96 on:** May 14, 2003, 08:47:40 AM »

Quote

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?

Of all the ignorant claims you are making, I would like to focus on this one.

You think the Buran was an original design, completely progressive? It's design, concept, configuration and shape is an amazing coincidence, but even beyond the obvious TO EVERYONE but you, here are some observations:

The Buran made one un-manned flight. It was unmanned because there was no life-support system and no software to run it's instruments and displays. The flight was limited to TWO orbits due to COMPUTER memory limitations. That's some progressive work. What a capable bird.

The piece of garbage was NEVER completed and proved capable of nothing but one flight, so how is it capable of launching 250 tons into space? It's more suited to rotting in some field along side a lot of other Soviet junk.

Can the Buran land on a plowed field? Lets see it do that. Maybe you meant that it's parked in a plowed field.... rotting.

p.s. An interesting and ironic side note: The plant that produced the Buran is being converted to produce something more suitable......... buses, syringes, and diapers.

AKIron · « **Reply #97 on:** May 14, 2003, 08:53:29 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Boroda
Hehe. This people wanted to fight a war with us. Hehe.

Seems you've forgotten how we kicked yer bellybutton in the cold war.

Furball · « **Reply #98 on:** May 14, 2003, 09:51:58 AM »

hmm... anyone get the impression that growing up in a non-free society has tainted Boroda's opinions?

And Boroda, i agree Russian/USSR aircraft were, and are under-estimated.

But to say that Russian aircraft designers are far ahead of their western counterparts must be a joke.

Boroda · « **Reply #99 on:** May 14, 2003, 12:48:55 PM »

Of all the ignorant claims you are making, I would like to focus on this one.

NUKE, you are a wonderfull opponent in a discussion. Of all my arguments you choose what is obviously the weakest, and fell into a primitive trap.

You, Americans, are like kids in online discussions. The only problem with you is that you don't understand even the most primitive discussion tactics and ignore simple logics, that makes it absolutely frustrating beating your arguments.

So, you swallowed what I said about Concorde/144, and tried to beat me again in the other field, using your favourite "everyone knows" argument, so popular among all propaganda-brainwashed righteous followers of the party-line. There is no room for doubt, THEY, who KNOW BETTER told it on the TV.

You think the Buran was an original design, completely progressive? It's design, concept, configuration and shape is an amazing coincidence, but even beyond the obvious TO EVERYONE but you, here are some observations:

I doubt that re-usable spaceships are (or were) "progressive". They have only one reasonable purpose: to return sattelites from orbit, read: steal them.

Now let's see what is obvious to "everyone" who never bothered reading something on the subject, except for cheerfull reports from cape Kennedy and propaganda issues about Kling... er, Russians:

The Buran made one un-manned flight. It was unmanned because there was no life-support system and no software to run it's instruments and displays. The flight was limited to TWO orbits due to COMPUTER memory limitations. That's some progressive work. What a capable bird.

1) Buran is only an orbiter, one of the possible payloads for Energiya launch vehicle. Energiya made two flights, both successfull. Unfordunately, my Father retired from the Army 4 months before the first launch and didn't recieve any awards as a scientific director of ground construction...

2) Software was not an issue. Volk and his team made dozens of manual and automated landings of the orbiter. Computer memory limitations!? What did you smoke!? Our electronic industry made 48 megabit memory chips, immune to radiaton and reliable for use on Soyuz and Mir vessels, so you think in 1988 this was not enough? Compare it to your "shuttle" TRS-80s.

3) Life-support was completely working, otherwise how could the crew test the ship? You are 30 years behind us in building life-support systems. Cosmonauts who flew "shuttle" missions said that it stinks. You are still not capable of staying in orbit more then 16 days. Skylab's 85 days was a matter of heroism of the crew. After the sad story with Skylab launch - they were extremely brave to ever enter that canister. My hat off for them...

OTOH you guys invented Coca-Cola and bubble-gum...

The piece of garbage was NEVER completed and proved capable of nothing but one flight, so how is it capable of launching 250 tons into space? It's more suited to rotting in some field along side a lot of other Soviet junk.

Again, for the second time, and slowly now: Buran is no more then a payload for Energiya. Energiya was capable of launching up to 200-250 tons into orbit.

OTOH you guys invented Coca-Cola and bubble-gum...

Can the Buran land on a plowed field? Lets see it do that. Maybe you meant that it's parked in a plowed field.... rotting.

Believe me, it DID land on plowed field. We can land a spaceship on a plowed field, while your combat fighter planes are unable to operate from dusty/dirty concrete runways ;D You can't even make a rifle that isn't afraid of dust and dirt!

OTOH you guys invented Coca-Cola and bubble-gum...

p.s. An interesting and ironic side note: The plant that produced the Buran is being converted to produce something more suitable......... buses, syringes, and diapers.

What plant? The plant that made what? Launcher, boosters, orbiter? Maybe cryogenic equipment for Energiya? Half of the Union was working for Energiya/Buran project, so I think some factories still make buses, syringes, and diapers.

Conclusion: we have to advise patient to try educating himself on the subjects he tries to discuss. Patient can find it amusing, how many interesting information can be found in books.

OTOH you guys invented Coca-Cola and bubble-gum...

But unable to make your own SST...

Boroda · « **Reply #100 on:** May 14, 2003, 12:56:38 PM »

hmm... anyone get the impression that growing up in a non-free society has tainted Boroda's opinions?

Looking at people like NUKE I doubt that USSR was a non-free society. At least I could easily find detailed descriptions of Apollo and Shuttle missions in Grand Soviet Encyclopedia yearbooks, availible in any public library across the country, from Brest to Vladivostok.

And Boroda, i agree Russian/USSR aircraft were, and are under-estimated.

But to say that Russian aircraft designers are far ahead of their western counterparts must be a joke.

Sorry, I said that only to piss off some people

All major aviation countries were (and still are) running at the same pace. US had better fast experimental atmospheric planes, but we had great advantage in rocket technology, and so on.

Americans have great technological culture and have a lot of money, but Russians had to keep up with them having the industry they were given, and use smart designs and scientific research... Combibing American technology and Russian/European engineering art - we could walk on Mars 10 years ago...

AKIron · « **Reply #101 on:** May 14, 2003, 01:12:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Boroda
Americans have great technological culture and have a lot of money, but Russians had to keep up with them having the industry they were given, and use smart designs and scientific research... Combibing American technology and Russian/European engineering art - we could walk on Mars 10 years ago...

Having the industry they were given? Who gave it to ya? In the US we built our own industry.

Little doubt that combined efforts in space programs would have yielded greater results. Guess we'll see if that turns out to be true with the International Space Station.

Boroda · « **Reply #102 on:** May 14, 2003, 01:40:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
Having the industry they were given? Who gave it to ya? In the US we built our own industry.

Sorry, I had to think more about this phrase. I simply copied Russian expression. I meant - engineers had to understand technological limitations, and design things in a way that they can't be spoiled in production, and as primitive (simple) technologically as possible.

By saying "technology" I mean production process, again as this word is used in Russian.

Edit: the true significance of copying B-29 was not the design Soviet engineers couldn't reproduce, but re-inventing and testing all the modern (at that time) technological processes, used by Americans. It really gave Soviet aviation industry a great leap forward.

NUKE · « **Reply #103 on:** May 14, 2003, 01:41:06 PM »

Boroda , The Buran was a copy of the Shuttle concept, down to the ceramic tiles.

What a strange looking craft the Buran was when it was revealed to the world. The world had never seen a craft quite like it. Such a unique launch configuration, such radical shapes. Incredible how it was ferried around on the top of an airplane...... completely creative idea!

You claimed that the m-3 and m-4 were "decades" ahead of their time. You make some remarkabley ignorant claims, but saying that the Buran was not a shuttle copy tops them I think.

Boroda · « **Reply #104 on:** May 14, 2003, 01:52:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by NUKE
Boroda , The Buran was a copy of the Shuttle concept, down to the ceramic tiles.

LOL!!!

Buran didn't have ceramic tiles!

You are beautifull! Grunherz must be jealous

Buran was made according to one purpose, the same a "shuttle" - to be capable of returning sattelites from orbit. The concept proved to be pretty ineffective. Now we still have manned space flight. And what about US?...

About Myasishchev's bombers - i beg your pardon and ask you to kindly forgive me little exaggeraton

But they could compete with US bombers, and the fate of M-4 is very much like B-58. It's hard to judge, we are lucky both planes were never tested in combat.