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

Blackbird v. Mig-25



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 16th 04, 09:19 PM
Vello Kala
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Blackbird v. Mig-25

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?


  #2  
Old August 16th 04, 09:47 PM
Stop SPAM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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?


Most reports I've read said the Mig-25 could only do over Mach 3 for a
very short period of time, and it destroyed the engines in doing so.

With no comments on its veracity, see, for example:

Mig-25
PERFORMANCE:
Max permitted Mach No. at height: Mach 2.83
Max level speed at 13000 m (42,650 ft): 1,620 knots 3,000 km/h 1,865 mph
at S/L: 647 knots (1200 km/h; 745 mph)
Max cruising speed at height: Mach 2.35
Econ cruising speed: Mach 0.85
Service ceiling: 21,000 m (68,900 ft)

The MiG-25 that was clocked at Mach 3.2 by the Israelis achieved this
speed while running from an intercepting F-4 (which can barely manage
Mach 2 on a good day--before running out of fuel). Upon landing, both
engines in the MiG had to be replaced.

Victor Belenko, the Foxbat pilot who defected in 1976, stated that the
top speed of the MiG-25 was Mach 2.8, but flight above Mach 2.6 was
difficult because of a tendency of the engines to overspeed. Victor
related that MiG-25 pilots were in fact restricted to flying below Mach
2.5 except with special permission.
- http://www.espacetickets.com/foxbat.htm

  #3  
Old August 16th 04, 10:06 PM
Ragnar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Vello Kala" wrote in message
...
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?


You only think the engine performance is similar. The SR-71 could maintain
Mach 3-plus for several hours at a time, but the MiG-25 could do mach 3.2
for only about 5 minutes before burning the engines up.


  #4  
Old August 17th 04, 12:31 AM
Krztalizer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

You are comparing one performance parameter on two entirely different types of
aircraft. It doesn't matter what the SR's speed is at 40,000' -- it doesn't
fly there. How good of imagery coverage can the MiG 25 provide, from 90,000'?
Apples and oranges. A better question would be, how many times did a MiG 25
manage to catch the SR?

v/r
Gordon
====(A+C====
USN SAR

Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.

  #5  
Old August 17th 04, 01:52 AM
Peter Stickney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"Vello Kala" writes:
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


Standard Admonition - beware of the data. Context is everything, and
there's not enough there.



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?


SR-71's don;t fool around at a mere 40,000'. The purpose of the SR-71
is to carry a set of reconnaisance sensors at Mach 3+ at 80,000+ ft
(Mostly plus) for several hours. (Acturally, take off, top up from a
tanker, cruise out a Mach 3+/80K+ for a couple hours, hit another
tanker, Mach 3+ for another couple hours, all the way to wherever and
back. (Oh, yeah, all while having a radar signature equivalent to a
glider) Prepping an SR-71 for flight takes hours. It has a lot of
exotic materials and systems, and is more akin to a spaceship than a
normal airplane. I requires special fuels special lubricants and
hydraulic fluids, and weird stuff like TriEthyl Borane to keep the
fires lit. It flies in a delicate balance of shockwaves, all expertly
positioned to provide balanced flight and peak performance.

A MiG-25 is a bomber interceptor (Although it did find secondary roles
as a recon airplane and a bomber). It's intended to sit at the end of
a runway, make a scramble takeoff, and roar straight at an incoming
B-58, guided by a data link from its GCI (Ground Control Intercept)
site, and shooting the bomber in the face with large Air-to-Air
missiles, and return directly to its base.

(Many accounts claim that the MiG-25 was intended to intercept B-70s,
the Mach 3 Bomber that North American built in the late 1950s adn
early 1960s, and which never went into service. I, quite frankly,
doubt it, Even with the B-70's huge radar signature, its closing
speeds would be so fast that a minor course change by the bomber
wouldn't be able to be countered by the MiG, (Or if the B-70 wasn't
kind enough to fly straight at the MiG's base) and the MiG didn't
have any speed advantage in the almost inevitable tail chase that
would result. It does, however, have the perfect performance envelope
for taking on a Mach 2, 60,000' airplane like a B-58.)
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.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster
  #6  
Old August 17th 04, 01:59 AM
John Carrier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The advertised max speed of the Mig 25 is 2.83, The SR-71 design limit was
3.2, but 3.3 was attainable. The 3.2 number attributed to the Mig was based
on radar tracking data (not exactly precise and subject to wind errors).
The Mig dashed to that speed, the SR lived there. Big difference.

R / John


  #7  
Old August 17th 04, 02:54 AM
Nele VII
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Here MiG-25 goes again... mixture of old 70-80'es data.

The story about burning engines is from that date. The published story is
that test-pilot Bezevec on the pre-production MiG-25R went beyond M3 because
he was painted by Hawk missile radar. In that time '25 was still in
test-phase with limited max speed endurance and when arrived to Egypt it was
just cleared from 3min flight to 8min. While in Egypt, it was cleared
further to 40 min up to unlimited when necessary. MiG-25 engines have
Chekunov's electronical system for fuel and engine RPM management-the FADEC
forerunner. There was a MiG-25 version that could "normally" travel up to
M3.2 known as MiG-25M, but was abandoned late in development in favour of
MiG-25MP (known as MiG-31 today). However, it was this MiG25M prototype that
under a "official" name tangled with F-15 Streak Eagle in speed, height and
speed to height records.

Cruising speed (in terms of best range/perfomance/economics) is around 2.500
km/h, NOT M 0.85-it is another blunder or a mix-up with MiG-31 (MiG-25
RB-15-300 engines are awfully inefficient subsonically). Another mix-up or
disinformation is that MiG-25 cannot travel more than M 2.3 with four R-40
missiles-actually, it can carry them up to the placarded (M 2.83) limit
(MiG-25P/PD/PDS interceptors) or even four 500kg bombs (RB/RBS/RBT
recce/strike versions) up to that speed. The speed of the MiG-25 at
low-level is limited by a pressure that is simply too high at such low
altitudes, so the temperature at the inlet (as well as in the engine) raises
above limits.

Although MiG-25 looks ordinary and extremely "boxy", its shape is very
efficient for high-mach regime. It is a different approach than one in
SR-71. While SR-71 had fuel tanks that got sealed by the airfame stretching,
MiG-25 has inboard tanks separated from the airfame-just like a car fuel
reservoirs (with a difference that it's tanks are pressured, filled with
inert gas and cooled).

MiG-25 can produce up to 5g (or 5.5) in supersonic regime. Sustained
altitude is around 20,000 m. SR-71 can manage around 2g (which is no
discredit, because it was not necessary for SR-71 to turn better).

Now, comparing MiG-25 and SR-71 is comparing apples and oranges. MiG-25
project was initialized to -counter- a Blackbird (not Valkirye as many
sources described!). Later (but early in develoment), it was "split" to
produce both inteceptor and recce variant . SR-71 is strategic recce
aircraft (although it evolved from A-12 that further produced a basis for
both SR-71 recce aircraft and YF-12 interceptor). MiG-25 is quite limited in
range, SR-71 is not. SR-71 had much wider and sophisticated recce equipment
than MiG-25R and could travel at M3+ until ran out of gas. MiG-25 was
produced massively (in order of around 600 aircraft), SR-71 just a handful.

Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA


Ragnar wrote in message ...

"Vello Kala" wrote in message
...
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?


You only think the engine performance is similar. The SR-71 could maintain
Mach 3-plus for several hours at a time, but the MiG-25 could do mach 3.2
for only about 5 minutes before burning the engines up.




  #8  
Old August 17th 04, 11:36 AM
Vello
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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?

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



  #9  
Old August 17th 04, 07:00 PM
w.a. manning
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

$$$

despite it's relative abundance, titanium is very difficult (and thus
costly) to manufacture and machine.


"Vello" wrote in message ...

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?

  #10  
Old August 17th 04, 07:47 PM
John S. Shinal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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.


 




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
Blackbird books (was: hi-speed ejections) Paul A. Suhler Military Aviation 0 February 5th 04 04:39 PM
Victor Belenko's Narrative of Blackbird Activity in Soviet Far East frank wight Military Aviation 3 January 8th 04 01:07 AM
Refuting blackbird folklore frank wight Military Aviation 42 December 3rd 03 10:24 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.