![]() |
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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |