Russia's 'Blackjacks' fly again

In article , "Gunnar"
wrote:


:Isn't that plane just a copy of the US B-1 bomber?

No, it isn't.


Uh-huh, uh-huh. So why is it then that everytime a Russian (Soviet)
aircraft comes out, it bears a striking resemblance to a
pre-existing aircraft of somebody else's?

Tupolev Tu-4, Buran, the list goes on and on.

Physics is universal ! Similar need gives similar result !

In the case of the Tu-4, painstaking measurement of a B-29 gave an
identical result, because they measured a B-29 and copied it.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Uh-huh, uh-huh. So why is it then that everytime a Russian (Soviet)
aircraft
comes out, it bears a striking resemblance to a pre-existing aircraft
of
somebody else's?


And the Mig 25 resembles which plane? ;-)

DM wrote:

And the Mig 25 resembles which plane? ;-)



Some people feel that it was derived from the A-5 Vigilante, but I don't
really see it, except for a few general layout points.

My impression is that the Soviets were very good engineers, given the
economic system that they had to deal with, but were very conservative
with determining what things to build, and tended to copy configurations
quite a bit. With the exception of the TU-4 "Bull", which was a nearly
identical B-29 reverse-engineering job, the Soviets generally designed
from scratch, but to created a vehicle that was similar in role and
outward appearance to western vehicles. They tend to copy western
design parameters and vehicle roles, but then do the detailed design on
their own. I think that one of the reasons is that, in a centrally
planned system, you don't want to be seen as lacking a capability that
your competitor/enemy has, so the easiest way to avoid this mistake is
to design and build a vehicle that is generally similar in layout and
function to your competitor's, even if you don't copy every engineering
detail.

An interesting case study is the Buran. According to the
astronautix.com entry on it, the Soviets actually tried a number of
configurations that were different from the US Space Shuttle, but since
they wanted a vehicle with similar crossrange on entry, along with
similar payload, they ended up using the American vehicle layout and
aerodynamic configuration. Additionally, the simple requirement for a
Shuttle-type vehicle was copied from the Americans, under the belief
that, so as not to be at a disadvantage, they needed a vehicle with the
same capabilities. Having said that, the launch mode and detail design
are completely different, as the Buran launches on a much different
booster. The Buran also had enough differences that the Russians were
not simply "blueprint-copying", but independently designing a vehicle
that had the same aerodynamic configuration, size, and payload bay.

From that article:
"The final analysis of the problems indicated that the rational solution
was an orbiter of the aircraft type. There was severe criticism of the
decision to copy the space shuttle configuration. But earlier studies
had considered numerous types of aircraft layouts, vertical takeoff
designs, and ground- and sea- launched variants. The NPO Energia
engineers could not find any configuration that was objectively better.
This only validated the tremendous amount of work done in the US in
refining the design. There was no point in picking a different inferior
solution just because it was original. "

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/buran.htm

Good post!

--
Jim McLaughlin

Please don't just hit the reply key.
Remove the obvious from the address to reply.

************************************************** *************************
"Michael Zaharis" wrote in message
...
DM wrote:

And the Mig 25 resembles which plane? ;-)



Some people feel that it was derived from the A-5 Vigilante, but I don't
really see it, except for a few general layout points.

My impression is that the Soviets were very good engineers, given the
economic system that they had to deal with, but were very conservative
with determining what things to build, and tended to copy configurations
quite a bit. With the exception of the TU-4 "Bull", which was a nearly
identical B-29 reverse-engineering job, the Soviets generally designed
from scratch, but to created a vehicle that was similar in role and
outward appearance to western vehicles. They tend to copy western
design parameters and vehicle roles, but then do the detailed design on
their own. I think that one of the reasons is that, in a centrally
planned system, you don't want to be seen as lacking a capability that
your competitor/enemy has, so the easiest way to avoid this mistake is
to design and build a vehicle that is generally similar in layout and
function to your competitor's, even if you don't copy every engineering
detail.

An interesting case study is the Buran. According to the
astronautix.com entry on it, the Soviets actually tried a number of
configurations that were different from the US Space Shuttle, but since
they wanted a vehicle with similar crossrange on entry, along with
similar payload, they ended up using the American vehicle layout and
aerodynamic configuration. Additionally, the simple requirement for a
Shuttle-type vehicle was copied from the Americans, under the belief
that, so as not to be at a disadvantage, they needed a vehicle with the
same capabilities. Having said that, the launch mode and detail design
are completely different, as the Buran launches on a much different
booster. The Buran also had enough differences that the Russians were
not simply "blueprint-copying", but independently designing a vehicle
that had the same aerodynamic configuration, size, and payload bay.

From that article:
"The final analysis of the problems indicated that the rational solution
was an orbiter of the aircraft type. There was severe criticism of the
decision to copy the space shuttle configuration. But earlier studies
had considered numerous types of aircraft layouts, vertical takeoff
designs, and ground- and sea- launched variants. The NPO Energia
engineers could not find any configuration that was objectively better.
This only validated the tremendous amount of work done in the US in
refining the design. There was no point in picking a different inferior
solution just because it was original. "

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/buran.htm

Jim McLaughlin wrote:
Good post!

--
Jim McLaughlin


Thanks!

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:31:10 -0500, Michael Zaharis
wrote:

DM wrote:

And the Mig 25 resembles which plane? ;-)



Some people feel that it was derived from the A-5 Vigilante, but I don't
really see it, except for a few general layout points.

Actually IIRC Mikoyan himself is said to have requested the A-5 be
used as a starting point when designing the Mig-25. IMO I'd think
they'd have taken a look at the F-108 too.

Where did they pirate
the design of the ZSU-23-4 from?

Flakvierling..?

Not quite 'copied', not like the B-29/Tu-4.

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 18:31:24 +0000 (UTC), "DM"
wrote:

And the Mig 25 resembles which plane? ;-)

Saunders-Roe SR53

Need an interceptor with ridiculous climb performance and top speed ?
- that's what you end up with. The British just chose to do it with
a HTP rocket, the Soviets stuck with gas turbines.

The the British (and Americans) realised that it wasn't really a role
that needed filling and cancelled.
--
Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods

"Andy Dingley" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 18:31:24 +0000 (UTC), "DM"
wrote:

And the Mig 25 resembles which plane? ;-)

Saunders-Roe SR53

Need an interceptor with ridiculous climb performance and top speed ?
- that's what you end up with. The British just chose to do it with
a HTP rocket, the Soviets stuck with gas turbines.

The the British (and Americans) realised that it wasn't really a role
that needed filling and cancelled.

Not really , the English Electric Lightning filled the role instead.


Keith