Devices for avoiding VNE?

iPilot wrote:

Afaik, this is the pretty wide-spread misconcept about the development of
TU-144 / Concorde. The fact that the end-result was very similar and many
concepts were the same doesn't nesessarily mean that one was copy of
another. The ways both design teams traveled (making concept-proving
aircrafts based on fighters for example) were very similar and their design
choices were so limited that it would be wonder if the aircrafts would have
been more different than they really were. One has to remember also that at
this time russians were on very top of the supersonic aircraft engineering.
Good example of that was Mig-21. They also knew the theory of tailless
aircrafts and had some experience with them. Putting those things together
results pretty much in the same concept that they eventually flew.

Yes, but there is this:
http://www.super70s.com/Super70s/Tec...aft/Tu-144.asp
and this
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcr...upersonic.html
As for Soviet engineering, the Su 27 and Mig 29 are pretty cool.

Shawn.

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 00:46:39 GMT, Shawn Curry
wrote:


Yes, but there is this:
http://www.super70s.com/Super70s/Tec...aft/Tu-144.asp
and this
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcr...upersonic.html
As for Soviet engineering, the Su 27 and Mig 29 are pretty cool.

Well... the aerodynamics of a delta wing are not that difficult... and
the Tupolev design team was not made of rookies, quite the contrary -
Tupolev had one of the best design bureaus of its time worldwide.
Maybe they got some inspiration of the Concorde (first drafts that
were very similar to the final concorde design, showing a slightly
smaller aircraft, were already published in 1959), but Concorde and
Tu-144 do not share many similarities. Wing design as well as engine
placement (especially on the first prototype) are not even similar -
the 144 is definitely an independent design.

And the famous Mirage story... well... LOL.

At an airshow you have 100.000 spectators, and dozens of hightech
cameras pointing at an aircraft that is trying to perform as close to
the ground (and the spectators and cameras) as possible.

If I want to see some details, I'd use a camera or take a closer look
at the aircraft in question while it's being parked at the static
display... but I'm not going to do a close formation flight in order
to take some aerial photographs (and hope that none of the 100.000
spectators, half of them equipped with high-focal length cameras, is
going to notice the 60 ft long and really loud Mirage that is
shadowing the airliner).

Maybe there was some near-miss... but I strongly doubt that it was
intentional by the Mirage pilot.




Bye
Andreas