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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
From the list, Buran aero form was an exact copy of Space shuttle, thus they
stole it. But there propulsive design seems different to fit their launch vehicles. That part is there design. Going back to A-10, I will list the requirement and probable design. Requirement: 1) Able to house VW size gun. 2) Ability to loiter 3) Good visibility for ground attack 4) 2 power plant for reliability 5) Large Ordinance capacity 6) Ability to land / take off from damaged runway. Design to address requirements 1 and 3 may go like this: The gun is too large to be housed on the wings so it must be located in the fuselage. Where do you put the pilot; in front, on top or, in the back of the VW? Pilot needs to be on top or in front to satisfy visibility requirement. If you put him at the back he may be sitting right by the wing, which can blocks large area of his view. Design to address requirements 2 and 5: The ordinance installation is easiest if it is mounted on the wing. Large load requires large wing for the given airspeed. Loiter can be accomplished by attempt to lower drag. High aspect ratio wing can accommodate both requirements; long and skinny wing. Design to address requirements 4 and 6: We can mount the engine on the wing but that will take away ordinance space. The engine needs some separation so the ground fire can't take them out both at one time. Engine need to be some distance away from ground debris. Where do you mount it? What's you're A-10 design look like? Emilio. "Tamas Feher" wrote in message ... If you give set of requirements to number of different contractors, the end result comes up to be very similar. You mean: Space Shuttle --Buran Concorde -- Tu-144 F-15 -- MiG-25 Northrop A-9 -- Szu-25 etc. Spies 'r' us! |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 12:52:53 +0200, "Tamas Feher"
wrote: If you give set of requirements to number of different contractors, the end result comes up to be very similar. You mean: Space Shuttle --Buran Actually they admitted they copied the US Shuttle. Concorde -- Tu-144 ISTR there was a question of espionage there. F-15 -- MiG-25 About the only similarities there is they both have two vertical tails, two engines, and ramp intakes. So does the Tomcat, Flanker, Fulrum. And both the Vigilante and Rapier had ramp intakes and twin engines before that. Northrop A-9 -- Szu-25 And A-6 and F-89 and numerous others. I think it falls into the category of "there's only so many ways to make a plane". It actually resembles an F-4 more than it does the A-9 etc. Spies 'r' us! It seems to be rare that exact copies are ever done but copying generalities happens all the time. For example LERXs/strakes were in vogue for a while there. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 09:40:59 -0500, "Emilio"
wrote: From the list, Buran aero form was an exact copy of Space shuttle, thus they stole it. But there propulsive design seems different to fit their launch vehicles. That part is there design. Going back to A-10, I will list the requirement and probable design. Requirement: 1) Able to house VW size gun. 2) Ability to loiter 3) Good visibility for ground attack 4) 2 power plant for reliability 5) Large Ordinance capacity 6) Ability to land / take off from damaged runway. Design to address requirements 1 and 3 may go like this: The gun is too large to be housed on the wings so it must be located in the fuselage. Where do you put the pilot; in front, on top or, in the back of the VW? Pilot needs to be on top or in front to satisfy visibility requirement. If you put him at the back he may be sitting right by the wing, which can blocks large area of his view. Design to address requirements 2 and 5: The ordinance installation is easiest if it is mounted on the wing. Large load requires large wing for the given airspeed. Loiter can be accomplished by attempt to lower drag. High aspect ratio wing can accommodate both requirements; long and skinny wing. Design to address requirements 4 and 6: We can mount the engine on the wing but that will take away ordinance space. The engine needs some separation so the ground fire can't take them out both at one time. Engine need to be some distance away from ground debris. Where do you mount it? What's you're A-10 design look like? Emilio. Don't forget to add "your plane must be able to land gear-up and extend it's gear with no power". |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Actually they admitted they copied the US Shuttle.
More I think about Buran, it is clear that the politician who decided to "copy" the shuttle and not the engineers. Russian industry simply was not setup to produce space qualified $20 nuts and bolts like we do. If they made special run to make such nuts and bolts it would have cost them $100 a peace. Buran must have been reengineered to be able for them to build it there. That's a problem though. It's going to get heavier than a US shuttle. Reentry and flight parameters will no longer be the same do to added weight. It's amazing that they made it to work in the first place. Well, the Astronauts never flew it. That tells you something. Emilio. Scott Ferrin wrote in message ... On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 12:52:53 +0200, "Tamas Feher" wrote: If you give set of requirements to number of different contractors, the end result comes up to be very similar. You mean: Space Shuttle --Buran Actually they admitted they copied the US Shuttle. Concorde -- Tu-144 ISTR there was a question of espionage there. F-15 -- MiG-25 About the only similarities there is they both have two vertical tails, two engines, and ramp intakes. So does the Tomcat, Flanker, Fulrum. And both the Vigilante and Rapier had ramp intakes and twin engines before that. Northrop A-9 -- Szu-25 And A-6 and F-89 and numerous others. I think it falls into the category of "there's only so many ways to make a plane". It actually resembles an F-4 more than it does the A-9 etc. Spies 'r' us! It seems to be rare that exact copies are ever done but copying generalities happens all the time. For example LERXs/strakes were in vogue for a while there. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:23:25 -0500, "Emilio"
wrote: Actually they admitted they copied the US Shuttle. More I think about Buran, it is clear that the politician who decided to "copy" the shuttle and not the engineers. No, they actually did a lot of testing and came to the conclusion that they were duplicating all the studies NASA did so they decided to copy it. Russian industry simply was not setup to produce space qualified $20 nuts and bolts like we do. I don't know about that. I think it's more outright stupidity than anything nefarious when it comes to the dreaded $300 pliers etc. That and a lack of understanding of the problem by those quoting the numbers. The pliers make sense if you know what happened. It wasn't a SMART thing to do but it does make sense. While taking a Cost Estimating class in college the instructor related the pliers tale to us. He was working for Boeing at the time and apparently the contract said something to the effect of Boeing producing all the tooling for the project and hey pliers are tools. So Boeing made like twelve pairs of pliers or something. That and they weren't exactly the kind you'd find at Home Depot. So a production run of 12 made by an aerospace company. Is it any wonder they weren't eight bucks? That story about the rivets related here on r.a.m. a while back though. . . Makes you wonder how much the defense budget could buy if all of that inefficency and waste could be eliminated. Would take a hell of an audit to find it all though. If they made special run to make such nuts and bolts it would have cost them $100 a peace. Buran must have been reengineered to be able for them to build it there. That's a problem though. It's going to get heavier than a US shuttle. Reentry and flight parameters will no longer be the same do to added weight. It's amazing that they made it to work in the first place. Well, the Astronauts never flew it. That tells you something. Emilio. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Emilio" wrote in message
... Actually they admitted they copied the US Shuttle. More I think about Buran, it is clear that the politician who decided to "copy" the shuttle and not the engineers. Russian industry simply was not setup to produce space qualified $20 nuts and bolts like we do. If they made special run to make such nuts and bolts it would have cost them $100 a peace. Buran must have been reengineered to be able for them to build it there. That's a problem though. It's going to get heavier than a US shuttle. Reentry and flight parameters will no longer be the same do to added weight. It's amazing that they made it to work in the first place. Actually, it was a superior design to the STS it was copied from. Heavier payload, more crew space and less rinky-dink stuff to blow up like the ET and the SRBs. Well, the Astronauts never flew it. That tells you something. Buran: 1 unmanned flight, total success. STS ~100 manned flights, two total losses, 14 deaths. I'd say the Russians realised they had no need of a shuttle and quit while they were ahead. John |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Well, the $20 nuts and bolts come from all the paperwork that is attached to
it. Aerospace fastener and materials strength are carefully controlled; much tighter spec then the commercially available fasteners; smaller run. This certainty in the strength of material helps you to design light weight aircraft and rockets. Uncertainty means, "We need to beef it up just in case it fails!" Russian rockets were heavier because they used fastener and materials from there local hardware store! They just beefed it up to make sure it flew. Nothing is wrong with that approach, and their vehicles were properly designed to account for the uncertainty. It is not as simple as just copying the shuttle design. The design is based on American philosophical thinking in design and in infrastructure. Emilio. Scott Ferrin wrote in message ... On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:23:25 -0500, "Emilio" wrote: Actually they admitted they copied the US Shuttle. More I think about Buran, it is clear that the politician who decided to "copy" the shuttle and not the engineers. No, they actually did a lot of testing and came to the conclusion that they were duplicating all the studies NASA did so they decided to copy it. Russian industry simply was not setup to produce space qualified $20 nuts and bolts like we do. I don't know about that. I think it's more outright stupidity than anything nefarious when it comes to the dreaded $300 pliers etc. That and a lack of understanding of the problem by those quoting the numbers. The pliers make sense if you know what happened. It wasn't a SMART thing to do but it does make sense. While taking a Cost Estimating class in college the instructor related the pliers tale to us. He was working for Boeing at the time and apparently the contract said something to the effect of Boeing producing all the tooling for the project and hey pliers are tools. So Boeing made like twelve pairs of pliers or something. That and they weren't exactly the kind you'd find at Home Depot. So a production run of 12 made by an aerospace company. Is it any wonder they weren't eight bucks? That story about the rivets related here on r.a.m. a while back though. . . Makes you wonder how much the defense budget could buy if all of that inefficency and waste could be eliminated. Would take a hell of an audit to find it all though. If they made special run to make such nuts and bolts it would have cost them $100 a peace. Buran must have been reengineered to be able for them to build it there. That's a problem though. It's going to get heavier than a US shuttle. Reentry and flight parameters will no longer be the same do to added weight. It's amazing that they made it to work in the first place. Well, the Astronauts never flew it. That tells you something. Emilio. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"John Mullen" writes: "Emilio" wrote in message ... Actually they admitted they copied the US Shuttle. More I think about Buran, it is clear that the politician who decided to "copy" the shuttle and not the engineers. Russian industry simply was not setup to produce space qualified $20 nuts and bolts like we do. If they made special run to make such nuts and bolts it would have cost them $100 a peace. Buran must have been reengineered to be able for them to build it there. That's a problem though. It's going to get heavier than a US shuttle. Reentry and flight parameters will no longer be the same do to added weight. It's amazing that they made it to work in the first place. Actually, it was a superior design to the STS it was copied from. Heavier payload, more crew space and less rinky-dink stuff to blow up like the ET and the SRBs. Just teh Big Honkin' booster it was hooked to. Both configurations have their advantages, and their risks. Well, the Astronauts never flew it. That tells you something. Buran: 1 unmanned flight, total success. Not a total success - teh flight article was structurally damaged on re-entry. I don't know if repair was possible. STS ~100 manned flights, two total losses, 14 deaths. A hair over a 98% success rate, a bit better than Soyuz (Which also had 2 fatal flights, with 100% crew loss on each, (But smaller crews), and several launch aborts. And a number of nasty landing incidents. There's no objective indication that the expendable Soyuz capsule is any safer than the STS. I'd say the Russians realised they had no need of a shuttle and quit while they were ahead. More like they couldn't afford it. Both Buran and Energia (The booster) -- Pete Stickney A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures. -- Daniel Webster |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Emilio" wrote in message ... From the list, Buran aero form was an exact copy of Space shuttle, thus they stole it. But there propulsive design seems different to fit their launch vehicles. That part is there design. Going back to A-10, I will list the requirement and probable design. Requirement: 1) Able to house VW size gun. 2) Ability to loiter 3) Good visibility for ground attack 4) 2 power plant for reliability 5) Large Ordinance capacity 6) Ability to land / take off from damaged runway. Design to address requirements 1 and 3 may go like this: The gun is too large to be housed on the wings so it must be located in the fuselage. Where do you put the pilot; in front, on top or, in the back of the VW? Pilot needs to be on top or in front to satisfy visibility requirement. If you put him at the back he may be sitting right by the wing, which can blocks large area of his view. Design to address requirements 2 and 5: The ordinance installation is easiest if it is mounted on the wing. Large load requires large wing for the given airspeed. Loiter can be accomplished by attempt to lower drag. High aspect ratio wing can accommodate both requirements; long and skinny wing. Design to address requirements 4 and 6: We can mount the engine on the wing but that will take away ordinance space. The engine needs some separation so the ground fire can't take them out both at one time. Engine need to be some distance away from ground debris. Where do you mount it? What's you're A-10 design look like? Something like a BV-141? -- Zamboni |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Actually, I recall hearing that when they designed the A-10, they had one of
the top German WW2 Stuka pilots as a consultant, he had specialised in attacking (Mostly Soviet) tanks and held the record for tanks killed in the war. Apparently they ran the design by him and asked him what a pilot with such a mission would want in an airplane, as far as weapons, characteristics in flight, etc. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
WWII Aircraft still useful | Charles Talleyrand | Military Aviation | 14 | January 12th 04 01:40 AM |
FA: WWII B-3jacket, B-1 pants, Class A uniform | N329DF | Military Aviation | 1 | August 16th 03 03:41 PM |
Vitre d'avion de la WWII ? WWII planes panes ? | Dessocea | Military Aviation | 0 | August 15th 03 07:07 PM |
"Target for Today" & "Thunderbolt" WWII Double Feature at Zeno'sDrive-In | Zeno | Aerobatics | 0 | August 2nd 03 07:31 PM |
"Target for Today" & "Thunderbolt": An Awesome WWII DoubleFeature at Zeno's Drive-In | zeno | Military Aviation | 0 | July 14th 03 07:31 PM |