Tu-160 just crashed near Saratov

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 13:23:36 GMT, Christians for Cheeseburgers. wrote:

It's amazing how Russian aircraft always end up looking like previously
designed US aircraft. The 160 bears a striking resemblance to the US B-1
bomber. Like the space shuttle and Buran, there is a long list of Russian
aircraft that look amazingly similar to US aircraft. I guess the Russians
just never come up with any original ideas.

"Form follows function."

-Jeff B. (and doesn't the F-15 look like a MiG-25?)
yeff at erols dot com

-Jeff B. (and doesn't the F-15 look like a MiG-25?

Which looks like an A-5


Ron
Tucson AZ
C-421 air ambulance

"Christians for Cheeseburgers." wrote in
. net:

"hlg" wrote in message
s.com...

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Christians for Cheeseburgers." wrote in

In the US we ground test engines after they are replaced. We find
it's much easier to shut down than from 30,000 feet.

A remarkably tasteless comment.

And that assumes the crash was even related to the engine change.
No guarantee that it was. And even if it was, there's no reason to
believe that they didn't ground test it first. Even in the US,
we'd do a maintenance check flight after major maintenance. Ground
test first,
but
flying the plane will find things that no ground test ever will.


Indeed. The RAF lost a Nimrod MR, in what sounds like a very similar
situation some six or seven years ago (engine fire on a test flight).
Thankfully on this occasion there were no lives lost or serious
injury.



It's amazing how Russian aircraft always end up looking like
previously designed US aircraft. The 160 bears a striking resemblance
to the US B-1 bomber. Like the space shuttle and Buran, there is a
long list of Russian aircraft that look amazingly similar to US
aircraft. I guess the Russians just never come up with any original
ideas.

Anyway, the Russians are well known for sloppy engine testing. On the
N-1 rocket, they only tested every fourth engine. Incidentally and
perhaps coincidentally, there were never any successful N-1 flights.
They did make outstanding fireworks displays though.



Hey, what's your nickname slick? 'Marblehead?'
Care to tell me who had the most spectacular fireworks display during
the infancy of the space program? Care to tell me who carried the
'heavy' launch burden of the U.S. after the loss of the Challenger?
Pull your head out of your ass. On second thought, leave it in.

"Chuck Johnson" wrote in message
. 165.241...
"Christians for Cheeseburgers." wrote in
. net:

"hlg" wrote in message
s.com...

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Christians for Cheeseburgers." wrote in

In the US we ground test engines after they are replaced. We find
it's much easier to shut down than from 30,000 feet.

A remarkably tasteless comment.

And that assumes the crash was even related to the engine change.
No guarantee that it was. And even if it was, there's no reason to
believe that they didn't ground test it first. Even in the US,
we'd do a maintenance check flight after major maintenance. Ground
test first,
but
flying the plane will find things that no ground test ever will.


Indeed. The RAF lost a Nimrod MR, in what sounds like a very similar
situation some six or seven years ago (engine fire on a test flight).
Thankfully on this occasion there were no lives lost or serious
injury.



It's amazing how Russian aircraft always end up looking like
previously designed US aircraft. The 160 bears a striking resemblance
to the US B-1 bomber. Like the space shuttle and Buran, there is a
long list of Russian aircraft that look amazingly similar to US
aircraft. I guess the Russians just never come up with any original
ideas.

Anyway, the Russians are well known for sloppy engine testing. On the
N-1 rocket, they only tested every fourth engine. Incidentally and
perhaps coincidentally, there were never any successful N-1 flights.
They did make outstanding fireworks displays though.



Hey, what's your nickname slick? 'Marblehead?'
Care to tell me who had the most spectacular fireworks display during
the infancy of the space program?

That would be the Russian R-4 rocket that blew up on the launch pad and
killed 167 people. It was just like an Arnold Schwarznegger movie...people
running out of blazing infernos with their clothes on fire.

Care to tell me who carried the
'heavy' launch burden of the U.S. after the loss of the Challenger?

That would be the Russians cuz NASA cheaped out and hired a second rate
contractor...the same one that failed to deliver modules for the ISS. The US
doesn't want to spend money to build more Saturn V's. NASA has been cutting
corners on the shuttle and has a Soviet style bureaucracy running the place.
Accidents are bound to happen. Congress always expects NASA to do more with
less. What you are also seeing are the results of constant meddling by
outsiders. It is why the F-22 program is in trouble too and why boondoggles
like the Osprey get built.

L-M just had a sat destroyed cuz somebody forgot to put screws in and it
simply fell over and was ruined. Those are the same kind of idiots that are
running NASA.

Pull your head out of your ass. On second thought, leave it in.