A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Russia's 'Blackjacks' fly again



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old January 21st 04, 05:57 PM
Jim Doyle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote in message
...
Not quite 'copied', not like the B-29/Tu-4.


Tried spot-the-difference with the Yak-100 -vs- the Sikorsky S-51?.

Nope, I'm sill looking.

Jim D


  #12  
Old January 21st 04, 05:59 PM
Paul J. Adam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In message , Krztalizer
writes
Where did they pirate
the design of the ZSU-23-4 from?


Flakvierling..?


Putting a quad gun on a tracked chassis wasn't original. The radar
control was: I'm not aware of preceding Western equivalents.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk
  #13  
Old January 22nd 04, 05:57 AM
Fred J. McCall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #14  
Old January 22nd 04, 02:53 PM
Andy Dingley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #16  
Old January 22nd 04, 06:21 PM
Andy Dingley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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 !

  #17  
Old January 23rd 04, 12:19 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

If one is going to bring up "copying", how about within only the US? The
Lockheed Electra (as in Amelia Earhart) & the Beech 18? DC-10 & L-1011?
B707 & DC-8? Luscombe 8 & Cessna 120/140? Piper Cherokee & Beech
Musketeer? And there are more examples. Who "copied" whom? These are as
much copies of each other as any of the USSR stuff is.

  #18  
Old January 23rd 04, 03:39 AM
Felger Carbon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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?


  #19  
Old January 23rd 04, 02:37 PM
Kristan Roberge
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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.


  #20  
Old January 23rd 04, 04:37 PM
Alistair Gunn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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 ...
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Russia's state defence orders for 2004 exceed $5 billion Ron Military Aviation 2 January 18th 04 12:56 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.