![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Denis, I hope you're just trying to make fun of the limited views some
people express here. If you refer to the need to transfer fuel to stay in balance, the Concorde was neither the first, nor the last airplane with that need. Fuel management is an issue with most large airplanes, weather of not they are Delta wings or even Supersonic. Boing was working on a similar design (although a few years behind) at the time the Concorde was launched, and it too would have the exact same challenge to stay in balance, as a large delta-wing supersonic aircraft. Or is it just that most people could never overcome the fact that the europeans beat everyone else into the SST commercial world, and 40 years later nobody could repeat that ? Denis" wrote in message ... Paul Repacholi wrote: Concorde, when it was acelaring through transonic speeds had to do a large fuel xfer to the aft tanks to conpensate for the strong nose down trim shift. It was rumoured to be certified ![]() Surprisingly... but I'm confident that, had the soaring price of oil in the 70's not succeeded in killing commercially this beautiful bird, the FAA would not have been so kind to let it fly over the USA with such a dangerous feature ;-) -- Denis R. Parce que ça rompt le cours normal de la conversation !!! Q. Pourquoi ne faut-il pas répondre au-dessus de la question ? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Or is it just that most people could never overcome the fact that the
europeans beat everyone else into the SST commercial world, and 40 years later nobody could repeat that ? It more like nobody is stupid enough to do it... They predicted they would sell several hundred of em....they built about 12 and sold none.... Yep, anothe Euro victory...... With victories like that who needs failures? blll |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
BllFs6 wrote:
Or is it just that most people could never overcome the fact that the europeans beat everyone else into the SST commercial world, and 40 years later nobody could repeat that ? It more like nobody is stupid enough to do it... They predicted they would sell several hundred of em....they built about 12 and sold none.... Yep, anothe Euro victory...... With victories like that who needs failures? The Soviets? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The Soviets?
Thats more funny than you think... Because if I recall correctly....they outright stole design info on the Concorde....and the French/Brits let them do it and put a few "flaws" in there to boot... After a few test flights, the Russian "me too SST" broke up in flight... Thats IIRC and am not confusing this with something else... Not to say the Russians cant be damn good engineers.....its just that this was not one of their finer moments.... take care Blll |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
BllFs6 wrote:
The Soviets? Thats more funny than you think... ....not than me... Because if I recall correctly....they outright stole design info on the Concorde....and the French/Brits let them do it and put a few "flaws" in there to boot... I knew that :-) After a few test flights, the Russian "me too SST" broke up in flight... Apparently several Tu-144s crashed. Of course the most spectacular was at the Paris Air show some time in the early 70s IIRC. The story is that the French were flying a Mirage up in the clouds to get info on the Tu-144 during a demonstration flight. The airliner pilot didn't know about it, spotted him, and in the maneuvering to avoid stalled his engines. In the ensuing dive to restart he was running out of altitude, pulled up, and ripped the wings off. NOVA did a show on it a few years ago. Shawn |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Afaik, this is the pretty wide-spread misconcept about the development of
TU-144 / Concorde. The fact that the end-result was very similar and many concepts were the same doesn't nesessarily mean that one was copy of another. The ways both design teams traveled (making concept-proving aircrafts based on fighters for example) were very similar and their design choices were so limited that it would be wonder if the aircrafts would have been more different than they really were. One has to remember also that at this time russians were on very top of the supersonic aircraft engineering. Good example of that was Mig-21. They also knew the theory of tailless aircrafts and had some experience with them. Putting those things together results pretty much in the same concept that they eventually flew. Regards, Kaido "BllFs6" wrote in message ... The Soviets? Thats more funny than you think... Because if I recall correctly....they outright stole design info on the Concorde....and the French/Brits let them do it and put a few "flaws" in there to boot... After a few test flights, the Russian "me too SST" broke up in flight... Thats IIRC and am not confusing this with something else... Not to say the Russians cant be damn good engineers.....its just that this was not one of their finer moments.... take care Blll |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
iPilot wrote:
Afaik, this is the pretty wide-spread misconcept about the development of TU-144 / Concorde. The fact that the end-result was very similar and many concepts were the same doesn't nesessarily mean that one was copy of another. The ways both design teams traveled (making concept-proving aircrafts based on fighters for example) were very similar and their design choices were so limited that it would be wonder if the aircrafts would have been more different than they really were. One has to remember also that at this time russians were on very top of the supersonic aircraft engineering. Good example of that was Mig-21. They also knew the theory of tailless aircrafts and had some experience with them. Putting those things together results pretty much in the same concept that they eventually flew. Yes, but there is this: http://www.super70s.com/Super70s/Tec...aft/Tu-144.asp and this http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcr...upersonic.html As for Soviet engineering, the Su 27 and Mig 29 are pretty cool. Shawn. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 00:46:39 GMT, Shawn Curry
wrote: Yes, but there is this: http://www.super70s.com/Super70s/Tec...aft/Tu-144.asp and this http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcr...upersonic.html As for Soviet engineering, the Su 27 and Mig 29 are pretty cool. Well... the aerodynamics of a delta wing are not that difficult... and the Tupolev design team was not made of rookies, quite the contrary - Tupolev had one of the best design bureaus of its time worldwide. Maybe they got some inspiration of the Concorde (first drafts that were very similar to the final concorde design, showing a slightly smaller aircraft, were already published in 1959), but Concorde and Tu-144 do not share many similarities. Wing design as well as engine placement (especially on the first prototype) are not even similar - the 144 is definitely an independent design. And the famous Mirage story... well... LOL. At an airshow you have 100.000 spectators, and dozens of hightech cameras pointing at an aircraft that is trying to perform as close to the ground (and the spectators and cameras) as possible. If I want to see some details, I'd use a camera or take a closer look at the aircraft in question while it's being parked at the static display... but I'm not going to do a close formation flight in order to take some aerial photographs (and hope that none of the 100.000 spectators, half of them equipped with high-focal length cameras, is going to notice the 60 ft long and really loud Mirage that is shadowing the airliner). Maybe there was some near-miss... but I strongly doubt that it was intentional by the Mirage pilot. Bye Andreas |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Boeing's design was a moveable wing, akin to the F-111 and F-14. This would
have reduced the need to move fuel, at least as much, as it would shift along with the wing. One thing about the old Boeing, they never bid or offered an airframe that they didn't have the technology to build in hand. Frank Whiteley "Arnie" wrote in message . com... Denis, I hope you're just trying to make fun of the limited views some people express here. If you refer to the need to transfer fuel to stay in balance, the Concorde was neither the first, nor the last airplane with that need. Fuel management is an issue with most large airplanes, weather of not they are Delta wings or even Supersonic. Boing was working on a similar design (although a few years behind) at the time the Concorde was launched, and it too would have the exact same challenge to stay in balance, as a large delta-wing supersonic aircraft. Or is it just that most people could never overcome the fact that the europeans beat everyone else into the SST commercial world, and 40 years later nobody could repeat that ? Denis" wrote in message ... Paul Repacholi wrote: Concorde, when it was acelaring through transonic speeds had to do a large fuel xfer to the aft tanks to conpensate for the strong nose down trim shift. It was rumoured to be certified ![]() Surprisingly... but I'm confident that, had the soaring price of oil in the 70's not succeeded in killing commercially this beautiful bird, the FAA would not have been so kind to let it fly over the USA with such a dangerous feature ;-) -- Denis R. Parce que ça rompt le cours normal de la conversation !!! Q. Pourquoi ne faut-il pas répondre au-dessus de la question ? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Moveable wings ?
No it wasn't. Not the model shown on the old magazines I have. It was a nice, beautiful sexy delta not unlike it's competitors. Actually, look at what I just found on the web: http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/sst.html "F.L. Whiteley" wrote in message ... Boeing's design was a moveable wing, akin to the F-111 and F-14. This would have reduced the need to move fuel, at least as much, as it would shift along with the wing. One thing about the old Boeing, they never bid or offered an airframe that they didn't have the technology to build in hand. Frank Whiteley "Arnie" wrote in message . com... Denis, I hope you're just trying to make fun of the limited views some people express here. If you refer to the need to transfer fuel to stay in balance, the Concorde was neither the first, nor the last airplane with that need. Fuel management is an issue with most large airplanes, weather of not they are Delta wings or even Supersonic. Boing was working on a similar design (although a few years behind) at the time the Concorde was launched, and it too would have the exact same challenge to stay in balance, as a large delta-wing supersonic aircraft. Or is it just that most people could never overcome the fact that the europeans beat everyone else into the SST commercial world, and 40 years later nobody could repeat that ? Denis" wrote in message ... Paul Repacholi wrote: Concorde, when it was acelaring through transonic speeds had to do a large fuel xfer to the aft tanks to conpensate for the strong nose down trim shift. It was rumoured to be certified ![]() Surprisingly... but I'm confident that, had the soaring price of oil in the 70's not succeeded in killing commercially this beautiful bird, the FAA would not have been so kind to let it fly over the USA with such a dangerous feature ;-) -- Denis R. Parce que ça rompt le cours normal de la conversation !!! Q. Pourquoi ne faut-il pas répondre au-dessus de la question ? |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Aircraft Deceleration Devices | SteveM8597 | Military Aviation | 10 | April 13th 04 10:01 AM |
GPS and Night Vision Devices | Steve | Products | 0 | February 12th 04 11:34 AM |
WinPilot-compatible GPS devices | Ted Wagner | Soaring | 21 | January 12th 04 10:27 AM |
PC flight simulators | Bjørnar Bolsøy | Military Aviation | 178 | December 14th 03 12:14 PM |
Airdropped Fusion Devices | Blinky the Shark | Military Aviation | 4 | September 17th 03 05:34 PM |