Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: cav58d on April 22, 2007, 09:56:29 PM
-
How much is the former Buran Space Shuttle like out current shuttle fleet? Looks wise they are nearly identical.
-
(http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/spacecraft/buran/comparison.jpg)
comparison (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A2815526)
looks like a copied design?
-
Originally posted by cav58d
How much is the former Buran Space Shuttle like out current shuttle fleet? Looks wise they are nearly identical.
Nothing identical. Buran was a payload carried by an Energiya launch vehicle, while SS lifts itself on it's own engines.
Buran will never fly again - all the cryogenic infrastructure was destroyed in 1992 when Kazakhstan declared that Turatam/Baykonur belongs to them.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Nothing identical. Buran was a payload carried by an Energiya launch vehicle, while SS lifts itself on it's own engines.
Buran will never fly again - all the cryogenic infrastructure was destroyed in 1992 when Kazakhstan declared that Turatam/Baykonur belongs to them.
How about the Energia boosters? That booster is as good and reliable as the Saturn Vs.
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
looks like a copied design?
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.
-
What good is Mach 3 when the slightest tug in any direction of the flight controls causes the airplane to fall apart?
-
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.
MiG-25 was a copy of the A-5 Vigilante.
US over-estimated MiG-25's capabilities
The Americans feared the MiG-25 to death so much that they started a crash-programme to build one of the greatest fighter aircraft in the history of the world:aok
-
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.
The big differance though is the F-15 is a superior design in all respects with the one exception of overall top speed. When the US got our hands on the Mig-25 that flew to Japan we soon found out it was a POS. The F-15 wasn't designed to directly compete with the Mig-25 because it didn't need too. With well over 200 kills and NO losses in air to air combat the F-15 has proven itself. Can't really say that about the Mig-25 considering some of the kills made by the F-15 were Mig-25's. So much for being a "lame" copy huh?
Actualy design of the Concord started before the Tu-144. The Soviets rushed the Tu-144 program to beat the west and ended up with an aircraft with so many problem they shelved it, while the Concord went on to be a production aircraft that flew for over 20 years in international service with the best safety record of any comercial aircraft in history. Millions of miles flown and thousands of hours on the airframes and only 1 crash.
Oh and before you call the Concord a copy of the 144 you might want to look at some interesting facts concerning arrests that were made.
Although the Tu-144 flew before Concorde, its development was connected with industrial espionage against the French company Aérospatiale, which was developing Concorde. When Sergei Pavlov —officially acting as Aeroflot’s representative in Paris—was arrested in 1965, he was in possession of detailed plans of the braking system, the landing gear and the airframe of Concorde. Another agent named Sergei Fabiew, who was arrested in 1977, was believed to have obtained the entire plans of the prototype Concorde back in the mid-1960s. However, these were early development plans and would not have permitted the USSR engineers to come up with their own aircraft; the plans could only serve as a general indication of the work of the Concorde design team.
So who copied who???
-
I thought the Mig25 was in direct response to the B70. My understanding of the B70 program was that it was a lead program intended to trick the soviets into investing in making an expensive new fighter to combat it, once the soviets bit into the B70 it was allowed to fade gloriously having achieved its purpose.
I always thought the Mig25 was a strategic failure and a technological disappointment? At least Viktor Belenko felt that way. His defection cost the soviets billions of roubles if I recall......
Speaking of good old Viktor, I wonder whats he up to these days?
Did any western pilots ever defect to the east? Any that we know of?
-
They are all copies of the Me 262.
-
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.
:rofl :rofl
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!
-
Originally posted by Yeager
My understanding of the B70 program was that it was a lead program intended to trick the soviets into investing in making an expensive new fighter to combat it, once the soviets bit into the B70 it was allowed to fade gloriously having achieved its purpose.
I don't think so, USAAF was serius about the B-70 project. The project costs more than $1.5 billion (1960's dollar). XB-70 was cancelled because this over-engineered bomber can't be mass-produce, USAF favored ICBMs, and Soviets had SAM missiles that can shoot this expensive bomber with ease.
-
Originally posted by Furball
:rofl :rofl
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!
"Concordski":rofl
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Nothing identical.
Yeah, they don't look alike or anything.
Glad you guys invented the B-29 though, it came in handy.:aok
http://aeroweb.lucia.it/rap/RAFAQ/Tu-4.html
-
And 18 years after the cold war ended east and west keep posting their propaganda on the internet. :lol
-
LOL Boroda. I guess fish is on discount today?
-
Mora you should know already that Boroda really believes in this stuff.
-
sour
-
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?
-
Originally posted by Furball
:rofl :rofl
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.
(http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/TU-144LL/Small/EC97-44203-4.jpg)
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Viking
I don't want to rain on your parade, but "Concordski" is still flying ... unlike Concorde.
(http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/TU-144LL/Small/EC97-44203-4.jpg)
Nice pic from 1997.
Where does it fly now?
-
The Concordski project completed, and I don't believe the Tu-144 is still flying, but I may be wrong.
-
Originally posted by Viking
I don't want to rain on your parade, but "Concordski" is still flying ... unlike Concorde.
(http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/TU-144LL/Small/EC97-44203-4.jpg)
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
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
And 18 years after the cold war ended east and west keep posting their propaganda on the internet. :lol
If Norway had produced a significant spacecraft, or military aircraft in the past 50 years, you'd probably post it too.
-
Originally posted by Furball
:rofl :rofl
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :aok
-
Here's the Buran orbiter as of 5/12/02. Unfortunately it looks like there's no fully completed, surviving examples.
(http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/bbur89.jpg)
-
The Buran orbiter was damaged during its test flight because of an issue with the heat management system, and I think the engineers had decided that it wouldn't fly again. The one that was supposed to take Cosmonauts up be fully complete and whatnot was named Ptitchkya, or 'Little bird'. Keep in mind that 'Buran' was just the name of that specific flying shuttle, kind of like 'Columbia', 'Challenger', 'Discovery', etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptichka_(spacecraft)
None of these shuttle will fly again, but if all the heavens came together and the grand vision of the soviet republics reborn was to Make It Happen, Ptitchka would be the one. It's still intact and owned by Kazakhstan, sitting in the MIK building at Baikonor.