Russia's 'Blackjacks' fly again

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 18:31:24 +0000 (UTC), "DM"
wrote:

And the Mig 25 resembles which plane? ;-)

Saunders-Roe SR53

Need an interceptor with ridiculous climb performance and top speed ?
- that's what you end up with. The British just chose to do it with
a HTP rocket, the Soviets stuck with gas turbines.

The the British (and Americans) realised that it wasn't really a role
that needed filling and cancelled.
--
Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods

"Andy Dingley" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 18:31:24 +0000 (UTC), "DM"
wrote:

And the Mig 25 resembles which plane? ;-)

Saunders-Roe SR53

Need an interceptor with ridiculous climb performance and top speed ?
- that's what you end up with. The British just chose to do it with
a HTP rocket, the Soviets stuck with gas turbines.

The the British (and Americans) realised that it wasn't really a role
that needed filling and cancelled.

Not really , the English Electric Lightning filled the role instead.


Keith

Andy Dingley wrote:

:On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 18:31:24 +0000 (UTC), "DM"
wrote:
:
:And the Mig 25 resembles which plane? ;-)
:
:Saunders-Roe SR53

They don't look ANYTHING alike.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 05:57:21 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

:And the Mig 25 resembles which plane? ;-)
:
:Saunders-Roe SR53

They don't look ANYTHING alike.

I'm not claiming they look alike. With the totally different wing
geometry, they don't even have similar handling (the SR-53 has more in
common with the (N)F-104)

What they do have in common is a design requirement from high command.
Get up there quick, kill something fast, then return to base.

Keith's right - the Lightning is an even closer match. Similar engine
technology to the Foxbat, even if the wings and inlets are barely
related. The surprising thing about the Mig-25 is its long range. Yes,
_long_. Can you imagine a reconaissance version of the even-thirstier
Lightning ?

There's a visual resemblance between the Mig-25, the F-15, the Tornado
and even Concorde :- 2-D ramped inlets. If you design a Mach 2
aircraft in the '60s, using Fortran running on punch-cards, then
movable flat ramps are what you end up with. They'll work at a higher
speed and AoA than something like an F-4 or F-5's side-mounted pitot
and splitter plate inlets, or even the F-104's or Mirage's half-cones.
A "simpler" high-performance inlet like Eurofighter needs a great deal
more gas-flow modelling to make it work, and it just wasn't possible
back then.

--
Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods

In article ,
says...

There's a visual resemblance between the Mig-25, the F-15, the Tornado
and even Concorde :- 2-D ramped inlets.

Hmmm... all copied from the Arrow, then.....

Cheers,
dba

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 16:17:45 GMT, (Brian
Allardice) wrote:

Hmmm... all copied from the Arrow, then.....

Oh no ! He mentioned the Arrow ! Abandon thread !

"Andy Dingley" wrote in message
...

What they do have in common is a design requirement from high
command.
Get up there quick, kill something fast, then return to base.

The surprising thing about the Mig-25 is its long range. Yes,
_long_.

Interceptors are designed for defensive, not offensive, work. The
Mig-25 was designed to defend the Soviet Union from mach 3 atomic
bombers. The Soviet Union was _big_, really big. Hence the long
range of the Mig-25.

The WWII Spitfire/Hurricanes were also interceptors, but Great Britain
is a tiny country. Hence their short legs.

Form follows function. Have you ever noticed that despite the
superficial similarity of the Mig-25 to the later F-15, that the
Mig-25 is a much larger aircraft?

Felger Carbon wrote:

"Andy Dingley" wrote in message
...

What they do have in common is a design requirement from high
command.
Get up there quick, kill something fast, then return to base.

The surprising thing about the Mig-25 is its long range. Yes,
_long_.

Interceptors are designed for defensive, not offensive, work. The
Mig-25 was designed to defend the Soviet Union from mach 3 atomic
bombers. The Soviet Union was _big_, really big. Hence the long
range of the Mig-25.

The WWII Spitfire/Hurricanes were also interceptors, but Great Britain
is a tiny country. Hence their short legs.

Form follows function. Have you ever noticed that despite the
superficial similarity of the Mig-25 to the later F-15, that the
Mig-25 is a much larger aircraft?

Needed it to stuff in the fuel and engines for the performance.

In sci.military.naval Andy Dingley twisted the electrons to say:
Can you imagine a reconaissance version of the even-thirstier
Lightning ?

I'm sure there was a reconaissance pod available for the Lightning
(replacing the guns in the ventral tank), however this was probably a
creation for Saudi Arabia / Kuwait (if indeed, it existed at all?).
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

In article ,
Alistair Gunn writes:
In sci.military.naval Andy Dingley twisted the electrons to say:
Can you imagine a reconaissance version of the even-thirstier
Lightning ?

I'm sure there was a reconaissance pod available for the Lightning
(replacing the guns in the ventral tank), however this was probably a
creation for Saudi Arabia / Kuwait (if indeed, it existed at all?).

I'm sure somebody thought to propose one. But how useful would it be?
The volume's pretty limited, and there are cheaper an easier ways to
take picures of you're own airfields.


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster