![]() |
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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Ragnar" wrote in message ... "w.a. manning" wrote in message om... $$$ despite it's relative abundance, titanium is very difficult (and thus costly) to manufacture and machine. Exactly. The reason the Soviets used it is because the Ministry of Defense got everything it wanted in the 2 and 5-year plans. Money was literally no object for them. But the point was that they did NOT use it, at least in aircraft production, back when the US was already beginning to do so. And IIRC, that was largely because they had not yet developed the ability to work with it as we did (which is why stainless steel was instead used more by the USSR instead of titanium). Brooks |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Vello" wrote:
Thank you all for making things clear! One more strange thing: russians have a lot of titanium, they even built submarine hulls from that - strange airframe builders in SU find so little use for titanium. Do anybody know the reason? Yes, the earlier varieties of Ti were extremely difficult to handle and work. Minor contamination with Chlorinated solvents can lead to rapid and catastrophic corrosion, for example. Many specialized techniques had to be developed by Lockheed (and presumably were similarly developed later for the Alfa subs), before Titanium fabrication could be used for so much of the aircraft. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 13:36:54 +0300, "Vello" wrote:
"Peter Stickney" wrote in message ... The MiG was intended to be flown by normal service pilots, use normal fuels and systems, and be maintained by 20 year old conscripts in Siberia. Making an airplane that can do all those things wasn't a trivial acheivement. Another way to look at it is that the MiG-25 has pretty much the ultimate perforance that can be acheived with a normal shape, and fairly normal materials. (Stainless Steel, for the most part) If you're going to go faster and higher, you need to start making exotic airplanes like the SR-71. Thank you all for making things clear! One more strange thing: russians have a lot of titanium, they even built submarine hulls from that - strange airframe builders in SU find so little use for titanium. Do anybody know the reason? whats really funnny is that the Titanium that was used to build the SR-71 was exported from the then Soviet Union. -- Pete Stickney A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures. -- Daniel Webster |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
little use for titanium. Do anybody know the
reason? whats really funnny is that the Titanium that was used to build the SR-71 was exported from the then Soviet Union. Russia has 75% of the world's supply of titanuim ore. We have been buying processed TI "sponge" from them since the 60s in spite of the cold war. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Steve Mellenthin" wrote in message ... little use for titanium. Do anybody know the reason? whats really funnny is that the Titanium that was used to build the SR-71 was exported from the then Soviet Union. Russia has 75% of the world's supply of titanuim ore. We have been buying processed TI "sponge" from them since the 60s in spite of the cold war. One anecdotical memory from soviet time (i live in Estonia). Hard to belive, but it is true. There was a hughe soviet military plant in Tallinn, Dvigatel. Part of it was targeted on titanium structures. This times Kavor Works in Tallinn was the sole distributor of formula racing cars in Soviet Bloc. Cars went out of works with steel shafts etc parts, but teams taking racing seriously get the same stuff in titanium from Dvigatel for relatively small bribe. Best, Vello |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Vello" writes:
Thank you all for making things clear! One more strange thing: russians have a lot of titanium, they even built submarine hulls from that - strange airframe builders in SU find so little use for titanium. Do anybody know the reason? Trivia: where did Skunk Works get their titanium? From the USSR. The Agency set up a cover in some third country & bought it from them. -- A host is a host from coast to & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ed Majden wrote:
Weren't these aircraft designed for different purposes in mind so direct comparisons are meaningless. The SR-71 is a high altitude recon. platform as wasn't the Mig 25 a high speed interceptor which needed high speed dash capability and not long endurance? Ed Not quite. The Ye-155 (MiG-25's development designation) was from the very start produced in two versions: Ye-155P ("P" is for Perekhvatchik - interceptor) and the Ye-155R ("Razvedyvatel'niy", or Reconnaissance). The PVO needed and interceptor and the VVS needed a high-speed high-altitude recon plane. It was decided to combine the two requirements in a single design. I see nothing wrong in comparing MiG-25 to SR-71 because both were recon planes and one of them was also the primary target for the other. -- Regards, Venik Visit my site: http://www.aeronautics.ru If you need to e-mail me, please use the following subject line: ?Subject="Newsgr0ups resp0nse" |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Vello Kala wrote:
Aircraft Speed Altitude Mach Number SR-71 Blackbird 2,275 mph (3,660 km/h) 80,000 ft (24,385 m) Mach 3.35 MiG-25 2,110 mph (3,390 km/h) 42,650 ft (13,000 m) Mach 3.2 This data is from Aerospaceweb. Question: SR-71 looks like alien plane, have very special design (incl tanks what start to keep fuel on flight only)etc etc. Mig-25 looks as pretty usual plane. But difference in speeds is relative minor, expecially if to look at what altitude it is reached. How it is possible? Do anybody have more data? Say, about SR-71 performance at 40 000 feet? I don't think that comparing MiG-25 to SR-71 is entirely inappropriate, considering that the Blackbird was one of MiG-25's primary targets and both aircraft were designed for high-speed, high-altitude recon roles. MiG-25 was designed as an interceptor and in this role it has outstanding performance. MiG-25 can be compared to SR-71 in terms of performance needed to intercept the Blackbird. MiG-25 certainly had the right performance for that. MiG-25 was also designed as a recon plane and in this role it can also be directly compared to the SR-71. And some comments about the comments in this thread. MiG-25 is not made of stainless steel but of nickel steel alloy similar in composition to the nickel alloy used for X-15. The Valkyrie, on the other hand, was made of predominantly stainless steel. Operational requirements for MiG-25 differed drastically from those of SR-71. MiG-25 was designed to operate as any other Soviet fighter aircraft without any specialized facilities. This was also a factor in the choice of airframe design and construction materials. Nickel steel alloy used in MiG-25 construction does not carry a strength penalty when compared to titanium. MiG-25 was build to have an exceptionally strong airframe. One must not forget that MiG-25 had to meet a substantially higher level of airframe stress requirements than SR-71. MiG-25 was a mass-produced combat aircraft (a total of 1,186 were manufactured), while the total production run of the entire A-12/YF-12/SR-71 line was only 49 aircraft or so. Design of the MiG-25 started in 1959 as the Ye-155P (http://www.aeronautics.ru/mikoyan/mig25_31/page_10.htm) multi role interceptor. The Ye-155P was not being developed specifically to counter the A-11/A-12, although the Soviets knew about this project and about its performance requirements. Intercepting low-flying cruise missiles, for example, was one of the roles for the Ye-155P from the very beginning. At the time the Soviets were concerned with the US and British advances in cruise missile development - Regulus, Rascal, Blue Steel, all of which had Mach 2++ capability. The late 1950s and the early 1960s was a time of particular Soviet obsession with heavy interceptors. During this period USSR produced several aircraft of this type, including La-250, I-75, Ye-150/152, Tu-128. Various Russian publications indicate that the Soviets learned about the A-11 project sometime in the summer of 1960. The Ye-155 project got its official Central Committee go-ahead in 1961, so it seems like there is a clear link between the two aircraft but there isn't one. Soviets learned about the A-11 in 1960, while the work on the Ye-155 concept begun in 1959. In any case, even in 1960 Soviets had only a rough idea of the expected performance of A-11/12, which, at best, was one of the reasons for the Ye-155's expeditious approval by the Central Committee in 1961 but not for the aircraft's concept. The B-58 became operational, the XB-70 was in development, the A-5 flew in 1958 and it is believed that Mikoyan was particularly impressed by this aircraft. In other words, there were plenty of real threats justifying the development of the Ye-155 other than the A-12, which in 1959 existed only in the form of a diverse collection of wind tunnel models. I read Belyakov's book, where he mentions Soviet knowledge of the A-11 program. However, the immediate question in my mind was: why would it appear so critical of a threat to the Soviets to prompt a massive development effort of an advanced interceptor as Ye-155? The Soviets became aware of the Suntan project prior to the A-11. They were aware of the Valkyrie. The Ye-155 itself seems closer in design to the A-5 than to A-11. At that time the PVO wanted an interceptor, while the VVS desired a new recon plane. The very fact that a decision was made to combine these two requirements in a single aircraft clearly shows that the Ye-155 could not have been created to counter specifically the A-11. -- Regards, Venik Visit my site: http://www.aeronautics.ru If you need to e-mail me, please use the following subject line: ?Subject="Newsgr0ups resp0nse" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Blackbird books (was: hi-speed ejections) | Paul A. Suhler | Military Aviation | 0 | February 5th 04 03:39 PM |
Victor Belenko's Narrative of Blackbird Activity in Soviet Far East | frank wight | Military Aviation | 3 | January 8th 04 12:07 AM |
Refuting blackbird folklore | frank wight | Military Aviation | 42 | December 3rd 03 09:24 AM |
SR- 71/ Blackbird lore | Larry Dighera | Military Aviation | 28 | July 31st 03 02:20 PM |
Blackbird lore | Air Force Jayhawk | Military Aviation | 3 | July 26th 03 02:03 AM |