Blackbird v. Mig-25

"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

"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.

In article ,
(John S. Shinal) wrote:

"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.

Not to mention Cadmium...

The specific strength of Aluminum still makes it a better choice for
aircraft except where high temperatures are involved, or intimate
contact with carbon composites is necessary.

You will notice that despite the dropping in price of Titanium,
and the now-well-understood manufacturing methods, Ti has not
supplanted Al in the aircraft industry.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

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

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.

"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

"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

in article , Vello Kala at wrote
on 8/16/04 13:19:

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?


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

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"

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"