Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: NUKE on May 11, 2003, 01:38:20 PM
-
If it was so viable, why have no more than 12 been in operation?
Why are they being retired....why not build more?
Of the 12 that have been in service, one crashed killing all aboard, resulting in the worst safety record of any major aircraft.
The French insisted on the "e" in Concorde. Why?
Low hours per plane, safety record and small fleet combined with no profits equate to the Concorde being a complete failure.
-
crash was caused by debris on the runway, and it was piloted by frenchmen so do dont hold that against BA concorde's
there was huge interest in the project until it was banned from flying supersonic over land.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Why are they being retired....why not build more?
USSR stopped it's supersonic passenger jet program in 1978...
One of my friends still can't forgive himself... In 1977 they were coming back to Moscow after mountain-hiking in Asia. He decided it's smart to save 15 rubles (IIRC about 1/3 of the plane ticket price) and fly ordinary Tu-154 instead of supersonic Tu-144 :( He didn't know they will be out of duty in less then one year...
-
Originally posted by Furball
crash was caused by debris on the runway, and it was piloted by frenchmen so do dont hold that against BA concorde's
there was huge interest in the project until it was banned from flying supersonic over land.
LOL :)
Dosn't matter what caused the crash, saftey record is worse on record.
From the early 60's, when America planned an SST, we tested the results of an SST over America and it resulted in 8000 noise complaints and 5000 damage claims ( due to booms) in a 6 month period.
The fact remains that the Concorde was a failure economically and in it's safety record.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
They can't have been that bad since NASA just bought one.
(http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Newsroom/FactSheets/Popups/Images/TU-144.2_popup.jpg)
The US A/C designers just couldn't make a competitive design. They made such a fuzz about the Concorde that they almost got it banned from US airports. The "can't beat it then ban it" routine.
Americans stopped or own SST because of environmental and noise restrictions......
Plus, we could have easily built the American SST.... economics played the smart role and we didn't build it, even though it would have flown more than 2 x's the the people at mach 2.7
I remember the Concorde not being able to land at most US fields.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
They can't have been that bad since NASA just bought one.
(http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Newsroom/FactSheets/Popups/Images/TU-144.2_popup.jpg)
The US A/C designers just couldn't make a competitive design. They made such a fuzz about the Concorde that they almost got it banned from US airports. The "can't beat it then ban it" routine.
Hmm. It's a picture of a Tu-144LL, used by NASA and LII..
-
it had the best safety record/miles covered, until that crash.
Economic failure? maybe, but the concorde was paid for by the british taxpayer (not sure how french paid for theirs) so all Ba had to cover were the running costs, which are sky high. But the prestige of flying the worlds only supersonic airliner brings a lot of customers in.
That is why Sir Richard Branson is trying to buy british airways concorde's for Virgin Atlantic.
Having seen it flying, and hearing/see it taking off. Theres nothing like it
(http://www.concordesst.com/pictures/flypast/flypast4.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Hmm. It's a picture of a Tu-144LL, used by NASA and LII..
Hmmm, never questione what you pic was of....
-
Originally posted by Furball
it had the best safety record/miles covered, until that crash.
Economic failure? maybe, but the concorde was paid for by the british taxpayer (not sure how french paid for theirs) so all Ba had to cover were the running costs, which are sky high. But the prestige of flying the worlds only supersonic airliner brings a lot of customers in.
That is why Sir Richard Branson is trying to buy british airways concorde's for Virgin Atlantic.
Having seen it flying, and hearing/see it taking off. Theres nothing like it
12 planes flying low hours and one of them crashing killing all aboard is an overall safety disaster. Departures per accident is the worst on record by far
-
thats why i said "until that crash"
-
The concorde was never more than a pretty toy, it was largely irrelevant to world economic affairs unlike the 747 - unless of course you Euro types just had see that freak Micheal Jackson "sing" in very short order... And if you want to talk speed from the 1960s lets talk about the moon landoing where glorious AMERICAN citizen scientists put a man on the moon - or according to some euro disbelivers and tinfoil hat club members faked it very poorly but convinced everyone else. :p
-
the only reason why the concords saftey record is poor is because they made so few of them...and considering its crash had nothing to do with the plane really...theres no reason why they should stop making them...
and usually everyone on board dies when a plane crashes...
-
lol American scientists? Some of them had a very convincing German accent, eh? And comparing a 747 to a Concord is a apples and oranges argument if ever I saw one.
The Americans couldn't do it - and it wasn't just about environmental and economic concerns. Money counts for nothing in terms of international prestige - Americans should realise that just by watching the pictures of golf being played on the moon. The US design was too ambitious to be realised, it was too probablematic to be solved and it was easier/less costly to give up and pretend it didn't matter. :p
'Viable' is a relative term.
-
Nuke -
1) what do you think the definition of 'concord' is?
2) What do you think the French translation of the word is?
And there is your answer to the name thing. Hardly a mystery.
-
Of course they were German in descent, but they were americans and became american citizens. Remember that neat little thing about america we welcome immugrants and they are drawn to the USA because of americas superiority in many fields. :p
-
Yeah, it also attracts people with superiority complexes but don't have the nationality and history to back it up. Or they do have a history, but would rather forget it.
I'm sure it's a very comfortable band-wagon, as it was back then.
;)
-
Originally posted by Dowding
And comparing a 747 to a Concord is a apples and oranges argument if ever I saw one.
No its not, they two approaches to the same problem - increasing passenger demand for air travel. Boeing chose the right way and you guys chose wrong way - there are hundreds of 747 all around the world there are nor only a dozen or so concordes - why is that? Or are you telling me it was always the britis and french master plan to ever only build and operate only 12 of the damn things after investinbg countless billions into their development. I know you are prolly a bigtime socialist dowding but even you cant be that finiancialy inpet and ignortant - the concorde was a giant failiure plain and simple the only reason it was kept was for mnatinal prestige. :)
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Yeah, it also attracts people with superiority complexes but don't have the nationality and history to back it up. Or they do have a history, but would rather forget it.
I'm sure it's a very comfortable band-wagon, as it was back then.
;)
So thats why the USA speaks english.. :D
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Dammit Dowding! When will you British start controlling that miserable colony of yours, huh? They even have guns now, WTF?!? :D
They have guns?...MY GOD!!:eek:
-
No its not, they two approaches to the same problem - increasing passenger demand for air travel. Boeing chose the right way and you guys chose wrong way - there are hundreds of 747 all around the world there are nor only a dozen or so concordes - why is that? Or are you telling me it was always the britis and french master plan to ever only build and operate only 12 of the damn things after investinbg countless billions into their development. I know you are prolly a bigtime socialist dowding but even you cant be that finiancialy inpet and ignortant - the concorde was a giant failiure plain and simple the only reason it was kept was for mnatinal prestige.
Come off it. The 747 and Concorde had two completely different design briefs - even you must see that. The central concept of one was capacity, the other was speed. Even Boeing recognised the difference by entering the SST competition in the first place - and failing.
Concorde was not the success it was meant to be, true. But it succeeded in other areas and the cost was justified. One of those was national pride.
-
it was a political project too, Because britain was entering the EU at the time.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
12 planes flying low hours and one of them crashing killing all aboard is an overall safety disaster. Departures per accident is the worst on record by far
Add speed to your equation and all of a sudden it's sound stupid.
Of the Mach 2 capable commercial planes Concorde hold the best safety record.
Seriouly you don't thing you forgave something in your reasonning ?
@GRUN : Concorde is also pretiest than any fat/obese Amerucann 747 :p
-
Originally posted by straffo
Add speed to your equation and all of a sudden it's sound stupid.
Of the Mach 2 capable commercial planes Concorde hold the best safety record.
Seriouly you don't thing you forgave something in your reasonning ?
@GRUN : Concorde is also pretiest than any fat/obese Amerucann 747 :p
Dunno if that beats the Russians, they have mach 2+ planes and spacecraft for hire (makes them commercial right?) without 100+ fatalities.
-
I disagree with your definition of a commercial plane mine is : in exploitation/used by a aerial company with your definition the space shuttle is almost a comercial plane :)
-
They were different approachres to the same foreseen problem - increased passenger demand. One team thought they could do it with speed and the other thought they could do it with capacity. Of cousre the designs are different, they were going at the same problem from different perspectives.
I am asking you if you really belive that the Concorde was always intended to be just a luxury $10,000 a hop plaything for millionaires , if you do then it was a glorious sucess. If you dont then it was a misreable business failiure and was only kept afloat for reasons you allude to - national pride..
Straffo the Concorde sure is pretty - I look forward to vising one in a museum later this year.. :p
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I am asking you if you really belive that the Concorde was always intended to be just a luxury $10,000 a hop plaything for millionaires , if you do then it was a glorious sucess. If you dont then it was a misreable business failiure and was only kept afloat for reasons you allude to - national pride..
Straffo the Concorde sure is pretty - I look forward to vising one in a museum later this year.. :p
Yep ,you are concorde was kept in operation only for prestige economicaly it a catastrophe.
I've visited one in the Bourget I think it's number 001 (not sure)
-
I love what happened the 17 June 1974 :)
Concorde 02 décolle de Boston à l'instant où un Boeing 747 décolle de Paris C-D-G_CONCORDE ravitaille à Paris escale de 50 min et repart pour Boston où il se pose 5 min avant le Jumbo
it's bed time here so if you've trouble translating this text I'll do it tomorrow
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Dunno if that beats the Russians, they have mach 2+ planes and spacecraft for hire (makes them commercial right?) without 100+ fatalities.
Hehe, definetly the Tu-144 ticket price was affordable for an ordinary engineer on 120 rubles monthly, not only for millionaires.
Tu-144 was abandoned mostly because it was impossible to keep the prices low enough so SOMEONE could fly it without being arrested on arrival for illegal income.
Another problem was that it was supposed to be Moscow-Khabarovsk non-stop, and the existing engines were too fuel-hungry. So the only "commercial" route was Moscow - Alma-Ata.
I made a brief search, so Tu-144 was on cargo (!!!) routes since 1975, and on passenger flights in 1977-78. The It was removed from service because another crash on test flight with new economical engines. So we have only 2 machines lost out of 16 produced, and casualities count incomparable with Concorde...
Hmmm... Interesting. I didn't know that the 1978 crash was not fatal, the crew managed to land it but 2 crew members died. The investigation showed that it was a crew's fault...
-
Originally posted by Dowding
lol American scientists? Some of them had a very convincing German accent, eh? And comparing a 747 to a Concord is a apples and oranges argument if ever I saw one.
The Americans couldn't do it - and it wasn't just about environmental and economic concerns. Money counts for nothing in terms of international prestige - Americans should realise that just by watching the pictures of golf being played on the moon. The US design was too ambitious to be realised, it was too probablematic to be solved and it was easier/less costly to give up and pretend it didn't matter. :p
'Viable' is a relative term.
He-he "The Americans couldn't do it", if you mean make a profit then you are right, as it seems no one can, if you mean the US could not build one, then you must really get out more. If the US needed to build one I think we may have struggled our way through the complexity’s and somehow made it work.
The Concorde is a beautiful aircraft and the world is a better place that it was built and that we have experienced it, to bad it is being pulled from duty. I have seen them in flight and really enjoyed the experience, I understand the flight inside is really a non-event, just that you get somewhere faster. This is from a client that lived in Germany and has flown round trip three times on business.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Hmmm... Interesting. I didn't know that the 1978 crash was not fatal, the crew managed to land it but 2 crew members died. The investigation showed that it was a crew's fault...
that the paris airshow crash?
if so - it was fatal for all crew, saw a program on it not so long ago. Crew pulled too many neg g's and the plane fell apart.
Theres a thoery that it had to pull away like that because a french mirage was spying on it!
-
Originally posted by Furball
that the paris airshow crash?
if so - it was fatal for all crew, saw a program on it not so long ago. Crew pulled too many neg g's and the plane fell apart.
Theres a thoery that it had to pull away like that because a french mirage was spying on it!
I meant the second crash, after which the commercial flights were stopped.
I heard several opinions about Paris crash. The one that I value most is from a guy who worked in Tupolev DB, and is based on his Father's story. He said it was a bug in a test version of a control software in on-board digital computer. The program "went crazy" after the pilot had to pull up too hard to avoid collision, and it resulted in fatal control surfaces movement. Another version was that some journalist dropped a camera and it locked some controls.
Here is a link to a detailed article about 1973 Paris crash (http://www.translate.ru/url/tran_url.asp?lang=ru&direction=65538&template=Default&autotranslate=&transliterate=true&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Etestpilot%2Eru%2Freview%2Fsst%2F3%2Fcrash%2Ehtm)
Sorry for using a translation robot...
-
Bottom line:
America was and is fully capable of building an SST. We had a mach 3 bomber flying in 1964.
Concorde was a waste of money and owns the worst saftey record of any major aircraft flown today by far. Crashes per departure the worst of any airliner by a VERY large margin
Britain and France are not making any more Concordes because it's a waste of money, pure and simple...... unless they forgot how to make them.
-
A Brit merely has to look at the terminals at Heathrow to see which is superior... the 747 or the Concord.
It may be a source of national pride, but as a passenger jet it really just made for a good source of national pride.
Would have loved to have flown in one... and only saw one fly once (BA trying to find Pacific landing sites that would allow them)... but always thought they looked cool.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by NUKE
America was and is fully capable of building an SST.
Go on then. We're waiting......
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Swoop
Go on then. We're waiting......
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg)
Are you implying that America is not capable of building a sst?
-
Are you capable of crapping a 16lb terd?
If so....well I'll believe it when you call the plumber and not before.
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Swoop
Are you capable of crapping a 16lb terd?
If so....well I'll believe it when you call the plumber and not before.
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg)
So you believe that building an SST is beyond are capabilities until you see it built? You are funny.
-
And you cant spell "our"
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg)
-
Originally posted by NUKE
So you believe that building an SST is beyond are capabilities until you see it built? You are funny.
Nuke, why do you argue with obvious things? :D
Even USSR that didn't have a market position for SST have built it, and you, hm, refused?! Just to buy a flying-lab SST from Russians?
:D :D :D
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Nuke, why do you argue with obvious things? :D
Even USSR that didn't have a market position for SST have built it, and you, hm, refused?! Just to buy a flying-lab SST from Russians?
:D :D :D
You are smart because you built something there was no market for.
We are stupid because we didn't build the SST, because there was and is no market for it.
-
LOL Nuke.
Sometime I am amazed by the discussions you put yourself in. :)
BTW, there are many projects about Hypersonic planes, this may mean that there's still some market for "fast planes".
I dont understand why it's so painfull for you and some other "pride-guy" the fact that the only 2 operative supersonic passengers planes were Russian and French/UK made.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
You are smart because you built something there was no market for.
We are stupid because we didn't build the SST, because there was and is no market for it.
Wrong affirmation, at the time the studies started there was a market.
The 1st oil shock increasing cost of operation of the plane killed the bird.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Wrong affirmation, at the time the studies started there was a market.
The 1st oil shock increasing cost of operation of the plane killed the bird.
America canceled it's SST program in 1971 due to noise ( sonic booms) and market.
It wasn't viable then, and isn't viable now.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
You are smart because you built something there was no market for.
We are stupid because we didn't build the SST, because there was and is no market for it.
Exactly the same thing was said about the 747 - it was after all a cancelled military project.
-
Environemental : yes.
Market : No
according to this page : http://www.the-sst.com/aircraft/b2707/
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Exactly the same thing was said about the 747 - it was after all a cancelled military project.
was speaking of comercial market, which the SST was designed for.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I know you are prolly a bigtime socialist dowding but even you cant be that finiancialy inpet and ignortant - the concorde was a giant failiure plain and simple the only reason it was kept was for mnatinal prestige. :)
So whats the issue? The USA continually props up any failing industries. What may be perceived on the outside as financial failures may internally have other successes internally. The Concorde kept the Euro Air industry alive for a bit longer. Looking a the bigger picture it may not have been a failure - long term for the Euro aviation industry.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Environemental : yes.
Market : No
according to this page : http://www.the-sst.com/aircraft/b2707/
Straffo, if an SST can't fly super-sonic over land, or land at major airports, then the economics of the plan seem to come into play.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
was speaking of comercial market, which the SST was designed for.
So was I. At the time it was a massive gamble to continue the project. But it paid off :)
Industry critics claimed the 747 would be a massive failure.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Straffo, if an SST can't fly super-sonic over land, or land at major airports, then the economics of the plan seem to come into play.
From http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/07/25/concorder.history/
In 1972, the plane's future looked bright. More than a dozen airlines had placed orders for the aircraft, and even at a staggering $3.5 billion development cost, France and Britain expected to recoup their investment.
But a year later, the Arab oil embargo hit the fuel-guzzling Concorde hard, as the price of fuel spiralled and prospective buyers dropped out.
Eventually, the British and French governments were forced to write off the cost of the plane's production.
Please read this : http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde
-
What really surprises me is that noone in this threads accused Soviets of stealing the Concorde design...
-
don't forget the soviet stealed the concorde design.
Happy now Boroda ? ;)
-
Originally posted by straffo
don't forget the soviet stealed the concorde design.
Happy now Boroda ? ;)
Tu-144 made a first flight 2 months before Concorde
:p
It's just funny to see Americans bashing someone else but not me ;)
-
Boroda, it was a stolen concorde design. Just because it flew 2 months before doesn't mean it wasn't. The soviets just changed the wing design (which lost stability to they had to install retractable canard foreplanes).
-
look familiar?
Russian Shuttle
(http://vsm.host.ru/burst.jpg)
B-29.... err i mean Tu-4
(http://de.geocities.com/tommittler/russ/tu-4.jpg)
-
Just wait a bit the american horde is just having the first coffee of the day ;)
Let them have 1 hour to warn-up as the night service is gone sleeping ...
-
WTG Furball!
:D :D :D
Classics.
"That bloody Russians always steal our designs! They already fly a plane that we wanted to build five years later!"
:D :D :D
-
Boroda, the KGB stole the blueprints for it. There was a BBC documentary on the issue. While the British/French were developing the Concorde, the Russian's rushed it into production to beat the Concorde into the air - with disastrous consequences.
They also said the Russians changed the wing design so it was not identical to Concorde. The wing was very carefully designed by British/French and the changes the russians made was largely due to its failure.
If you do not see the direct copy of the Tu-144 to Concorde you are either blind or just ignoring the facts.
-
In 1962, Soviet leader Nikita Khruschev learned France and Britain were going to build a supersonic airliner. He erupted in fury that these `petit-bourgeois capitalist' nations could steal a technological march of the mighty Soviet Union. Khruschev ordered a crash program to beat Concorde.
When the USSR's respected Tupelov design bureau ran into trouble designing its supersonic TU-144, KGB was ordered to steal Concorde's blueprints from the west.
KGB agents in Britain repeatedly sought to obtain data on Concorde's powerful Olympus engines which had been used in Britain's V-series heavy bombers. Other KGB agents targeted French plants manufacturing Concorde's fuselage and wings. The Soviets were not alone in stealing aircraft technology. Soon after, Israeli spies stole plans of France's Mirage-III/V, which became Israel's `Kfir' fighter.
The chief of Britain's RAF Bomber Command, the late Air Vice Marshall Stewart Menaul, revealed to me in the mid-1980's that British intelligence teamed up with French counterparts, DST and DGSE, to thwart KGB and teach the spying Russians a lesson. Menaul said the British doctored Concorde's drawings so that its center of gravity was too far to the rear. KGB agents were allowed to steal the corrupted blueprints.
The Soviet TU-144 was rushed into production. Its first flight came on 31 Dec, 1968, beating the Concorde's debut by three months. All foreign observers who saw the TU-144- immediately dubbed `Konkordski'- commented it was `nearly identical' to Concorde. So it was, except for the Soviet innovation of small canard wings near the cockpit. In fact, `Konkordski' was a Chinese copy of Concorde.
The Soviets proudly debued TU-144 to the world at the 1973 Paris Air Show. After performing a sharp turn at 1,500 ft, the aircraft broke up and crashed, killing 14 aboard and three children on the ground. This embarrassing public catastrophe brought worldwide ridicule on the Soviets and delivered a fatal blow to their supersonic program. After a second TU-144 crashed on the way from Moscow to Central Asia, the Soviets wisely mothballed `Konkordski.'
After the Paris fiasco, there were stories, probably spread by KGB disinformers, that a French Mirage fighter had burst from clouds on a collision course with the TU-144, forcing it into a sharp turn whose g-force proved lethal to the airframe. The Mirage, according to this version, was trying to photograph TU-144's canard winglets. Moscow whispered the French had provoked the accident so that TU-144 would not steal the limelight from la belle Concorde.
This sounds like something the French might cook up. The often out-of-control spooks of France's foreign intelligence - DGSE- were not above occasional sabotage - recall the case of the `Rainbow Warrior' - and knocking off irksome enemies of the Republic. But it was Her Majesty's Secret Service that apparently delivered this nasty, below-the-belt blow to the Soviets. Perfidious Albion had the last laugh on the spying Ruskis.
from http://www.foreigncorrespondent.com/archive/goddess.html
-
Originally posted by Boroda
What really surprises me is that noone in this threads accused Soviets of stealing the Concorde design...
You asked for it, Boroda.
ROTFLMAO!!!
:)
-
Originally posted by Swoop
Are you capable of crapping a 16lb terd?
If so....well I'll believe it when you call the plumber and not before.
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg)
LOL I say you britt's have a wicked sense of humor .
-
Nuke is our blitz, you guys should know that by now.
-
Originally posted by Fatty
Nuke is our blitz, you guys should know that by now.
Understood.
;)
-
Yeah GScholz. But I think it went nose down to avoid something above it - the French Mirage recon plane apparently. It's called 'bunting' when you push the nose forward like that? The engines did actually restart, but the alt was too low for a safe pullout and the pilot over-stressed the air-frame in attempting to avoid the ground.
-
I guess you are right there is no way the US could have built a SST we just don't have the technical know-how to do something like that.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Perhaps we didn’t need the boost in our national image (read pride) to continue with something that has no real market (read profits). But what do I know.
If anyone really thinks the US could not have built one, well there is no sense arguing with you, as you really are an idiot. Nothing personal here just a fact. (deference given to any real clinical idiots)
The beauty of capitalism is when profits are available then the motive for the research is a given and money is spent to realize that goal, look at this countrie's medical achievements. Most (over 72% see note) of the new discoveries in drugs are from the US, this is because companies are willing to spent millions on research hoping the new discoveries will meet the trials and approvals and someday return a profit. (Point: most drugs never reach the market and the costs are made up on the ones that do)
(note: PHARMA and ADA statistic’s from 2002 as well as US FDA statistic’s from 2001 averaged)
From what I understand the Concorde has never made a dime in profit, ever (if this is incorrect and if the airlines are making money with them please correct me). Considering the government in total paid for its development, so this cost was never born by its customers, this program would not be considered a success by any measure except as a source of national pride.
Nothing wrong with doing something just to say you did it and have no real cost benefits except for national pride, The US did that with the Apollo program, so we went to the moon, and you made a fast jet, we are even, sort of. Of course if we spent what we did on the moon program on fast jets most Americans would have them in their garages. :D
Given the financial condition our airlines are in today I for one am very glad we have no SST’s, but I am sorry to see them go.
Oh and as for the copying thing, I believe the mission requirements dictate the design more then anything, what, would you want the Russian STS to look like the Starship Enterprise? Human technology still has to agree with the laws of physics, and this requirement is why the physical similarity exists more then anything else. IMHO
-
You guys are great..... Dowding you got the right avatar...
When am I going to see you guys (Dowding and Boroda) on Saturday night live...... funny
-
Originally posted by Scootter
Perhaps we didn’t need the boost in our national image (read pride) to continue with something that has no real market (read profits). But what do I know.
From what I understand the Concorde has never made a dime in profit, ever (if this is incorrect and if the airlines are making money with them please correct me). Considering the government in total paid for its development, so this cost was never born by its customers, this program would not be considered a success by any measure except as a source of national pride.
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 to A) boost its national image B) keep someone in the whitehouse at the time.
Although sometimes its choice of protectionism is quite amusing (sheep for example). I mean - the Frogs and Pommies propping up the Concorde project is quite understandable. But ahh propping up your sheep farmers? Whats with that?
-
The Museum of Flight in Seattle is supposedly getting a Concorde for their collection.
:cool:
-
Vulcan,
I am well aware of this, which’s why I mentioned the Apollo project. The fact is that the SST project was not viable and we didn't need or want to spent government money on the project with no commercial value. And no company wanted to go broke paying the bills for a doomed endeavor, pure and simple. The US project tried to get the passenger count in the design but that was still a non starter as well due to the environmental concerns that were very political in the 70's. The last word is the US could have built any kind of SST it wanted to (see the XB-70, SR-71,B-1B, B-2 etc.) if that was the mandate but it was not. I take nothing away from the two SST designs as they are perhaps the prettiest commercial aircraft since the Constellation of the 50's, and may be for a very long time to come.
Regards
-
Haaaa Constellation. A desing stolen from the Caravel from Sud Aviation !
And, yes, Russian stole the blueprint of a prototype of the Concorde. They didn't change the wings, they were like that on the blueprint of the prototype they have stolen. But the English/French change the design after that.
Anecdote : a russian general at a presentation of the final prototype of the Concorde look at it and says 'Hoo, you've done it like that ? That's not what we had on the blueprint.'
It comes from memory so i don't sware it's 100% true... But seing the records of this forum it shouldn't bother anyone :D
-
Ja I guess we stole the Wright Flyer design from you guys also:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Ouaibe
Haaaa Constellation. A desing stolen from the Caravel from Sud Aviation !
I believe you are wrong on this one :)
the Connie was a 4 prop engine flying long before the caravelle
-
Caravelle (http://www.applicsoft.net/se210/CaravelleIIIpics/f-bhri.jpg)
Constellation(http://www.connie.com/images/fun/gate.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Furball
Boroda, the KGB stole the blueprints for it. There was a BBC documentary on the issue. While the British/French were developing the Concorde, the Russian's rushed it into production to beat the Concorde into the air - with disastrous consequences.
They also said the Russians changed the wing design so it was not identical to Concorde. The wing was very carefully designed by British/French and the changes the russians made was largely due to its failure.
If you do not see the direct copy of the Tu-144 to Concorde you are either blind or just ignoring the facts.
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.
-
Originally posted by Naso
You asked for it, Boroda.
ROTFLMAO!!!
:)
I was just bored and jealous that everyone pays too much attention to French and British :D
-
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!
-
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.
-
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 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. :)
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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?
-
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
-
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...
-
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 ...
-
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! :D
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. :D
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. :D
-
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 :)
-
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
-
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
-
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?
-
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...
-
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....
:rolleyes:
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Hehe. This people wanted to fight a war with us. Hehe. :D
Seems you've forgotten how we kicked yer bellybutton in the cold war.
-
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.
-
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... :D
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... :D
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... :D
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... :D But unable to make your own SST... :(
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :D
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.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
LOL!!!
Buran didn't have ceramic tiles!
You are beautifull! Grunherz must be jealous :D
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.
The US still has manned space program, with a much better safety and success record than Russia I must add. Just taking some time to figure what went wrong with the last shuttle flight and how to avoid it.
The shuttle has a pretty good safety record compared to other air/space craft. As of 2000 over 350 million miles flown with only one loss. Now, it's two lost, don't know the mileage but it's still a damn good record.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
LOL!!!
Buran didn't have ceramic tiles!
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.
If you're not just a flat-out liar, then you are just ignorant. The Buran did have ceramic tiles, as well as other carbon ones and the whole concept and design was a copy of the shuttle.
And in what way was the M-4 anything like the b-58?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Yes they are rather manuverable due to FBW system. Was it the four engined 124 or the six engined 225? (both are bigger than the C-5)
I'm pretty sure it was the 6 engine 225 because the show announcer called it the world's largest cargo plane.
Ack-Ack
-
The Mig21 is not particularly manuverable either - where on earth did you get that idea? And as for being cheap, well all the soviet crap was and still is cheap compared to western planes.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
LOL!!!
Buran didn't have ceramic tiles!
Are you so sure about that? I mean, really, really, really sure? 100% positive on that?
According to the Molniya Research and Industrial Corp. web site, the Buran used three different kinds of thermal protection.
1. Carbon-Carbon
2. Ceramic Tiles
3. Flexible Material
It used 40,000 ceramic tiles, each one of them unique.
And if you're still thinking that the Soviets came up with this as some original idea, here's something to look at.
(http://www.buran.ru/images/gif/mtkkman.gif)
While there are some differences between both shuttles, it's obvious that the Buran's design was based upon the US shuttle, which should be pretty obvious since the Soviets have admitted to 'borrowing' the blueprints of the US shuttle. But you are technically correct that it isn't a copy since the Soviets had made improvements to the US design and incorperated these improvements in their own shuttle.
Ack-Ack
-
I fail to see the similarity... :)
-
KM (Caspian Sea Monster)
Built in 1965, by JSC R.E. Alexeiev Central Hydrofoil Design Bureau, USSR.
Maiden flight was on 18 October 1966.
TO Weight 540 Tons (1,080,000 lbs/489,780 kg)
Cruise speed 300 mph @ 10ft AGL
Pretty much still ahead of its time.
-
Yep....Both are white.
:D
-
Originally posted by NUKE
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.
Decade is certainly exaggerated but it was clearly an very advanced design.
@AWMac : I hate you ... I was about to write this ;)
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So I think there also goes the idea that russians know mathematics better than americans....
:rolleyes:
Yeah, the Russians know thier math... the theory of radar reflectivity that was used for stealth was invented by a Soviet who now works for Northrop / Grumman.
The Russians thought his ideas worthless.
-
I have a book written by Isaac Asimov called the "Biographical Encyclopedia of Science". It lists the 1500 most influential scientists in history in chronological order. (Great book)
I think there is only ONE Russian in the first 1000 (Mendelev). Most great "Russian" scientists prior to the 20th century were actually Germans imported by the Russian royals.
-
this is funny...
here is Nuke saying how wonderful the American SST would have been from specs on papers
and
here is Boroda saying how wonder the Russian Space Shuttle would have been from specs on papers
both had prototypes made, evaluations taking place for improvements.
-
Originally posted by FDutchmn
this is funny...
here is Nuke saying how wonderful the American SST would have been from specs on papers
and
here is Boroda saying how wonder the Russian Space Shuttle would have been from specs on papers
both had prototypes made, evaluations taking place for improvements.
I never said such a thing.
All I ever said about the American SST is that we could have built one in the 60's . I also said that America is and was capable of building one.
I never said how wonderful one would be, nor did I ever site one spec about it.
-
(http://www.buran.ru/images/gif/mtkkman.gif)
The Russian design is obvioulsy a completely different approach and the two are in no way similar.
The Russian design demonstrates progressive enginering and a certain boldness in it's extremely radical concept.
-
Nothing up my sleeve. Call it when she stops.
(http://www.inettek.com/stuff/shuttles.gif)
-
Originally posted by NUKE
All I ever said about the American SST is that we could have built one in the 60's . I also said that America is and was capable of building one.
Well, Nuke, is this what you need to feel better about yourself and your country? A canned project which produced nothing but a prototype? Listen, you really don't need to compare the Concorde with the SST to feel better about your country. The Americans have accomplished many many achievements which you should feel proud of. Just like the Concorde, the American Space Shuttle is one of the few achievements the USA has contributed to mankind as a whole. Would you like someone to say that your space shuttle program has suffered two major accidents resulting in the death of fourteen astronauts and continue to say that it has a bad safety record? I don't think so...
-
"Just like the Concorde, the American Space Shuttle is one of the few achievements the USA has contributed to mankind as a whole."
How has the Concorde, which is only accesible to a few of the ultra rich, contributed anything to manking in the sense you are talking about?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
How has the Concorde, which is only accesible to a few of the ultra rich, contributed anything to manking in the sense you are talking about?
A dream, my man. A dream that each one of us has and each one for his own. ;)
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
How has the Concorde, which is only accesible to a few of the ultra rich, contributed anything to manking in the sense you are talking about?
Maybe not a major contribution to mankind but it did prove that supersonic transcontinental flight is possible.
Ack-Ack
-
Well, Nuke, is this what you need to feel better about yourself and your country? A canned project which produced nothing but a prototype? Listen, you really don't need to compare the Concorde with the SST to feel better about your country.
Am I missing something? When have I compaired the American SST to the Concorde? I have not posted anything about the American SST project, other than that it was canceled because it was not economically viable.
And that is my point. The Concored is being canceled because it was not and is not economically viable.... otherwise more Concordes would be produced.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Am I missing something?
LOL!! Yes you are, about your own posts. Ok, let me back up a bit here and quote you...
Originally posted by NUKE
I never said how wonderful one would be, nor did I ever site one spec about it.
and...
Originally posted by NUKE
Plus, we could have easily built the American SST.... economics played the smart role and we didn't build it, even though it would have flown more than 2 x's the the people at mach 2.7
Well... you obviously are referring to specs here...
Originally posted by NUKE
And that is my point. The Concored is being canceled because it was not and is not economically viable.... otherwise more Concordes would be produced.
That's duly noted, thank you. So, what is your purpose to point out the less than obvious? Other than to belittle a European project that the French took part in, to feel better about your country's achievements?
-
That's duly noted, thank you. So, what is your purpose to point out the less than obvious? Other than to belittle a European project that the French took part in, to feel better about your country's achievements? [/B]
The purpose was to put into a new thread what was being said in another thread with an unrelated title. That the Concorde was never economically viable and that is the reason it is being canceled.
I have complimented the French and British on the Concorde. I have nothing against the Concorde. I have said, it's a beautiful plane and a remarkable acheivement.
Then when Boroda stepped in with his wild claims, the tread turned into a different discussion.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I have complimented the French and British on the Concorde. I have nothing against the Concorde. I have said, it's a beautiful plane and a remarkable acheivement.
Oh, come now, Nuke. Let me quote you again...
Originally posted by NUKE
Dosn't matter what caused the crash, saftey record is worse on record.
From the early 60's, when America planned an SST, we tested the results of an SST over America and it resulted in 8000 noise complaints and 5000 damage claims ( due to booms) in a 6 month period.
The fact remains that the Concorde was a failure economically and in it's safety record.
When Furball tried to clarify the safety record of the Concorde program, you insisted on saying this. So, how are we to interprete this? You do have something against the Concorde.
Listen, my friend, your country, the US of A, has acheived so much that you can feel proud of. Let Boroda be Boroda. You don't need to belittle the Concorde.
-
Originally posted by FDutchmn
Oh, come now, Nuke. Let me quote you again...
When Furball tried to clarify the safety record of the Concorde program, you insisted on saying this. So, how are we to interprete this? You do have something against the Concorde.
"The fact remains that the Concorde was a failure economically and in it's safety record."
I have nothing against the Concorde. I sighted facts about the Concorde. Of the 12 that operated, one crashed resulting in the worst safety record of any major aircraft.
I believe the 12 Concordes had averaged about 2.5 hours per day over their life-span. That is not a practicle plane to operate commercially
Saying all of this does not mean that I have something against the Concorde. It is an argument against it's ability to operate commercially.
And in the end, those are the reasons it is being canceled. You might as well say that the British and French are belittling the Concorde..... because they came to similar conclusions in their descision to end the program.
-
wait a minute.... isn't the worst aircraft safety record now the Shuttle? or is it in a different catagory?
-
Originally posted by Furball
wait a minute.... isn't the worst aircraft safety record now the Shuttle? or is it in a different catagory?
Probably a different catagory I would imagine....
The shuttle has the worst safety record of any shuttle.
-
Originally posted by Furball
wait a minute.... isn't the worst aircraft safety record now the Shuttle? or is it in a different catagory?
Name another transport vehicle with over 350 million miles logged with less than 20 deaths.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
If you're not just a flat-out liar, then you are just ignorant. The Buran did have ceramic tiles, as well as other carbon ones and the whole concept and design was a copy of the shuttle.
95% of modern airplanes use the concept of Mozhaysiy's airplane built in 1880s. They all have two wings and control surfaces. Wright brothers definetly stole it!
So what?!
Designs with similiar purposes always look similar.
If you think that Russians "stole" the "shuttle" design - then I think that your thinking ability and common sence doesn't let me continue this conversation.
Speaking of design concepts, "shuttle" uses the same coaxial stage configuration as R-7 rocket, designed in 1955 and still used as first two stages of Molniya/Soyuz launch vehicle.
AGAN, FOR THE THIRD TIME AND VERY SLOW:
B U R A N I S O N L Y A P A Y L O A D F O R A N E N E R G I Y A L A U N C H V E H I C L E.
This is the main difference in concepts. It makes them ABSOLUTELY different. Orbiter design is as similar as Gemini, Apollo, Soyuz and Almaz re-entry capsules. Chinese spaceship has the same design of the capsule.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
The US still has manned space program, with a much better safety and success record than Russia I must add. Just taking some time to figure what went wrong with the last shuttle flight and how to avoid it.
The shuttle has a pretty good safety record compared to other air/space craft. As of 2000 over 350 million miles flown with only one loss. Now, it's two lost, don't know the mileage but it's still a damn good record.
2 catastrophes with 14 victims in last 20 years is a very good safery record.
JFYI: last catastrophe in Soviet/Russian space programm happened in 1973, un-pressurising of the capsule on re-entry, Soyuz-11, 3 cosmonauts dead.
Before that only Vladimir Komarov died in 1966 when Soyuz-1 parachute system failed.
At the same time US lost 3 astronauts in a fire in Apollo oxygen atmosphere... :(
So far R-7/Soyuz is the safest launch vehicle ever made, technology perfectied after almost 50 years of production...
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Name another transport vehicle with over 350 million miles logged with less than 20 deaths.
Soyuz :)
Not even speaking about Salyut/Mir space stations. They are not "transprot vehicles".
-
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...
I agree with you on this, the counterpoint being if that the cold war had moved more agressively into the high frontier the same might have happened even earlier.
-
I hope I live long enough to see our Russian brothers and us get past the political bull **** and join together in a true and real push into space. With all the talent on both sides we will get to Mars. I am now 41 do you think this is possible?
When you get past our government’s (both sides) tainted rhetoric I have found we are not a very different people and really have the same desires and goals.
I would like to meet Borada and over a few drinks talk about our culture and country, I would not waste any time over our governments, as I have found this is not very important at an interpersonal level. Really how much time do any of you spend with your mates talking about religion or politicks?
Am I out in left field here or is anyone else getting tired of this bantering back and forth about who did what first or whose better? It is kind of like someone from the University of Florida arguing with someone from Florida State over who has the best football team or what’s the best collage. Who cares they are both good and you will never win the argument.
Can you Imagine someone from another planet reading these posts about who copied what or what nation is better, I think they would really have a laugh. I think it would be like listening to a school yard conversation between two 8 year olds arguing about who’s dad can beat up who’s dad.
I have gone back and without the emotion read some of the old posts, I am as guilty of the my dad is better syndrome as anyone else, but it really is a but humorous.
My two cents worth
Take care all,
-
Concorde's the best example of great engineering, a supersonic airline, probably one of the reasons why i became an engineer. i hope virgin buy it cause i want a fly in it someday.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Name another transport vehicle with over 350 million miles logged with less than 20 deaths.
But that contradicts the original claim that its based on departures/time in air?!
-
Originally posted by Furball
But that contradicts the original claim that its based on departures/time in air?!
Yeah. There have been about 112 shuttle launches ( I think) and two have been lost, killing everyone. That's a pretty scary average.
Overall the shuttle has been a failure IMO. It was intended to be a cost-saving way to get payloads into orbit and service existing equipment in space.
It has ended up being very expensive to operate and we have lost two of them to catastrophic failures.
But launching a reusable space transport like the shuttle ( or any space launch) has never been routine. Millions of things can go wrong that could result in a loss. The shuttle is enormously complex and any space launch is a risk.
Maybe the next generation shuttle ( or space-plane) will come closer to the original idea of providing a reusable, cost- effective platform.
I know one thing, and that's that we won't give up or give in when we run into setbacks along the way.
-
Oh...nevermind.
I lost track of what this was all about.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Oh...nevermind.
I lost track of what this was all about.
I'll help you, it's the usual noodle lenght contest. :D
Scootter.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
So far R-7/Soyuz is the safest launch vehicle ever made, technology perfectied after almost 50 years of production...
I heard that R-7 rockets by Korolev Design Beauro is also inexpensive to launch.
I predict that the Russian Space Agency will bounce back at "Soviet" levels (1960s and 80s) if USA's talented artist, actors, and entrepeneurs were to go for a 20 million dollar joy ride on a Soyuz (but i want the Buran :( ) every year:D
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Overall the shuttle has been a failure IMO. It was intended to be a cost-saving way to get payloads into orbit and service existing equipment in space.
It has ended up being very expensive to operate and we have lost two of them to catastrophic failures.
Exactly what I meant. Buran was a failure, but it's good we didn't abandon "disposable" spaceships and launchers.
OTOH, Buran was a quite different concept. If not the 1992 "separation" disaster, we could have a pretty cheap launcher capable of bringing 200-250 tons into orbit.
Buran was a 99% military project (just as space shuttle). But I think the whole concept was much better designed and didn't repeat some of the American mistakes. Well, you guys were the first to make a reusable vessel...
Originally posted by NUKE
But launching a reusable space transport like the shuttle ( or any space launch) has never been routine. Millions of things can go wrong that could result in a loss. The shuttle is enormously complex and any space launch is a risk.
Maybe the next generation shuttle ( or space-plane) will come closer to the original idea of providing a reusable, cost- effective platform.
I know one thing, and that's that we won't give up or give in when we run into setbacks along the way.
We already have a project of a reusable ship launched from an An-224 Mriya. It's already on the drawing board, if not in the production plans.
BTW, what about European "Hermes" project and Japanese shuttle?
-
Buran is a copy of the Shuttle no matter what you try to say Boroda.
-
Since Molyina Design Beauro can't come up with a solution to improve their original design, they selected a straight aerodynamic copy of the US space shuttle for the Buran configuration (maybe to save time and money).
Buran Timeline
http://k26.com/buran/Info/Timeline/_72-82/_72-82.html
On the bright side though, the Buran/Energya configuration is way different to the US SSO. The "Energya" rocket is powered by liquid propellant (which is safer than the US's S.B.R.) and it's designed to carry the prototype shuttle orbiter by Molyina. The Buran orbitter is also different to the US SSO. The main engine is not present to the Buran orbiter and she has an on-board computer that can be use to land the Buran by herself without a pilot on board:)
I think the Buran project would be revived if USA's brightest and talented artists, actors, and multi billionare entrepeneurs were to go for a 20 million dollar joy ride on a Soyuz "throw-away" capsule every year for 10 years:D
-
The important thing to remember is that the Buran is a shuttle copy, despite Borada's claims that it is a totally unique concept.
-
Energya would be used someday by NASA for Mars manned mission (if the Russians let them). Energya is the only rocket out there that meets NASA's requirement to have a lifting power of at least 100 tons (the Energya had 55 more tons of lifting power with 8 boosters + Energia-M upper stage) for a proposed Mars manned mission. NASA proposed to develop their own heavy lift rocket of their own but technically inferior to the Energya called "Magnum". The cost of developing such a rocket will run into billions of dollars for the American taxpayer. Worse still, Magnum will only be half as powerful as Energia and take years to develop and test. The whole Mars manned mission program has to wait on Magnum (or permision from Russia to use the Energya) being built.
Energya
(http://www.buran.ru/images/gif/disc7.gif)
Buran + Energya
(http://space.nasda.go.jp/db/kaihatu/rocket/rocket_g/enerugia.jpg)
-
Nuke, the concept is the same, I mean the main purpose: ability to steal sattelites from the orbit. Completely "cold-war"-type 100% military thing. The implementation is absolutely different. Ike posted a picture of Energiya launcher above, with four booster rockets. Is it possible to use Shuttle with 4 boosters?...
Ike, unfortunately, Buran will never fly again. In 1992, when "independant" Kazakhstan tried to seize Baikonur, Russian military destroyed all ground fueling structures. Square kilometers of kryogenic equipment were simply cut off and brought to Russia on cargo planes... :( I told you that my Father was a scientific director of ground capital construction (concrete stuff, launch facility and runways), and retired from the Army in Dec. 1987, four months before the first launch. But he has dozens of friends and students (some of them leading military scientific instituts and other research organisations now) who worked there, so he had first-hand accounts on what happened there.
Buran was a great effort for the whole Union. Millions of people worked on it... It costed us maybe almost like WWII, and definetly more then a Bomb. It's very sad that all this heroic (sorry for this word, but IMHO it's right) effort went down the drain when the great Empire felt apart :(
BTW, most of the pilots trained for Buran flights are dead now :( Only the few of them left, like Magomed Tolboyev. They were probably the most professional flight team in history of mankind, ready and able to fly and safely land anything lifted into the air. Their typical excercise was landing MiG-25 without engines, or IL-62 airliner as a glider too...
If you are interesten in it - please visit http://www.buran.ru
-
is Buran's exit doors at the rear?
-
"when the great Empire felt apart"
Barely lasted 70 years, murdering tens of millions of its own citizens in the process, being unable to feed countless millions of others, having to build walls to keep her own citizens in - instead of barbarians out and so on and so on.... Great riiight, but hell this is coming from a fella who thinks Stalin is the greatest leader to his people of all time.... :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Buran was a great effort for the whole Union. Millions of people worked on it... It costed us maybe almost like WWII, and definetly more then a Bomb. It's very sad that all this heroic (sorry for this word, but IMHO it's right) effort went down the drain when the great Empire felt apart
It's Gorby's fault for making things worse during "The period of stagnation". He didnt stick with the principles of communisim. He "Americanized" the USSR by replacing the "old" system with the "new" system. He unleashed forces that cant be put back in the genie bottle.
-
Originally posted by Ike 2K#
It's Gorby's fault for making things worse during "The period of stagnation". He didnt stick with the principles of communisim. He "Americanized" the USSR by replacing the "old" system with the "new" system. He unleashed forces that cant be put back in the genie bottle.
Ha? You mean he should have stuck with the glorious sucess of communism? Are you nutz or are you a college student who just took his first sociology class with a communist professor?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Ike 2K, you say you live in LA. I'll buy that, but where in Russia are you from?
WTF, why do you people assume that knowing Russia too much means you live in russia??? I just summarized their demise by saying that they didnt stick with the teachings of Lenin/Stalin. By the way, I dont live there
-
Originally posted by Ike 2K#
I just summarized their demise by saying that they didnt stick with the teachings of Lenin/Stalin.
Oh lord... :rolleyes:
-
thats true, they're tired and bored in living in a system that has no direction in life at that time (80s).
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
"when the great Empire felt apart"
Barely lasted 70 years, murdering tens of millions of its own citizens in the process, being unable to feed countless millions of others, having to build walls to keep her own citizens in - instead of barbarians out and so on and so on.... Great riiight, but hell this is coming from a fella who thinks Stalin is the greatest leader to his people of all time.... :rolleyes:
Depends on where to start counting. If we'll start from Ivan IV - it will be almost 500 years, and still "tens of millions" probably isn't true.
-
Originally posted by Ike 2K#
It's Gorby's fault for making things worse during "The period of stagnation". He didnt stick with the principles of communisim. He "Americanized" the USSR by replacing the "old" system with the "new" system. He unleashed forces that cant be put back in the genie bottle.
This things are very complicated, but it's obvious that Gorby was a traitor...
I posted my opinions on that in other threads.
The only thing I want to repeat is that competing with the country that didn't take part in devastating wars every 20-50 years and didn't have to "start from the very beginning" twice in last 80 years was extremely difficult. It's a miracle that we could oppose them until early 90s.
Unfortunately, looks like we must start this again. :( I hope we'll not have a "hot war", but the new "cold war" is quite probable. :(