By: bring_it_on
- 4th October 2006 at 06:42Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
that proves what !! Absolutely nothing!! Zip , NADA !! All i said that you or i cannot predict what will happen for the future as we dont have access to top secret work going on for the next generation technology !! how does this prove that??
New
Posts: 85
By: Northax
- 4th October 2006 at 06:42Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Heh. There's a huge difference between the YF-12 that actually did fly at mach 3.2 in the mid 1960's; that successfully fired AIM-47's in tests cruising at mach 3.2 at 74k ft. vs. the Russian (wannabe XB-70) Sukhoi T-4 of the early 1970's.
First off, the T-4 never even made it past mach 1.5 speeds! Let alone breaking mach 2, and not even close to mach 3; THEN you'd have to get to mach 3.2 WHILE cruising there like the SR-71 and XB-70 easily did around a decade before.
Secondly, the T-4 had constant problems with it's (primitive) fly-by-wire systems.
No comparison, sorry. Come up with something that had similar actual performance, not just paper-wishes they said they'd achieve, yet never did. :D
New
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD
- 4th October 2006 at 06:44Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Performance: MiG-31 - Max speed Mach 2.83 or 3000km/h (1,620kt), max speed at sea level 1500km/h (810kt) max cruising speed at altitude Mach 2.35, economical cruising speed Mach 0.85. Time to 32,800ft 7mm 54sec. Service ceiling 67,600ft. Combat radius with four R-33 AAMs and max internal fuel at Mach 2.35 720km (388nm), radius with four R-33s and external fuel at Mach 0.85 1400km (755nm). Ferry range with external fuel 3300km (1780nm). Endurance with external fuel 3hr 35mm.
economical ie not in the gas guzzling afterburner mode the mig-31 could do mach 0.85 just like other legacy fighters.
The combat radius is hald the way the range is correctly 1400km, the radius is also correct 7200km the MiG-31 will fly slightly more than 30 minutes at mach 2.35 as i told you
New
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD
- 4th October 2006 at 06:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Heh. There's a huge difference between the YF-12 that actually did fly at mach 3.2 in the mid 1960's; that successfully fired AIM-47's in tests cruising at mach 3.2 at 74k ft. vs. the Russian (wannabe XB-70) Sukhoi T-4 of the early 1970's.
First off, the T-4 never even made it past mach 1.5 speeds! Let alone breaking mach 2, and not even close to mach 3; THEN you'd have to get to mach 3.2 WHILE cruising there like the SR-71 and XB-70 easily did around a decade before.
Secondly, the T-4 had constant problems with it's (primitive) fly-by-wire systems.
No comparison, sorry. Come up with something that had similar actual performance, not just paper-wishes they said they'd achieve, yet never did. :D
hehehe please the first aircraft with Fly by wire was the T-4, second the T-4 was cancelled before it could reach mach 2.8 but Russia had an aircraft program that called for a mach 3 bomber, The US intelligence services must have known it, all the western intelligence agencies spying in Russia very likely know it, even the Tu-22M was chosen because it offered something more practical at less price and risk, same was the US next bomber the B-1, that proved better than the B-70
New
Posts: 85
By: Northax
- 4th October 2006 at 06:53Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A program that called for a mach 3 bomber... sure. Does that mean they did it? Or had the capability? I am doubting they did, and KNOW they didn't actually do it. So this is a bad example, sorry. ;)
By: bring_it_on
- 4th October 2006 at 07:03Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The combat radius is hald the way the range is correctly 1400km, the radius is also correct 7200km the MiG-31 will fly slightly more than 30 minutes at mach 2.35 as i told you
I got this info from venick's site !!
And BTW any luck finding the T2W ratio of the D30??
New
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD
- 4th October 2006 at 07:06Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A program that called for a mach 3 bomber... sure. Does that mean they did it? Or had the capability? I am doubting they did, and KNOW they didn't actually do it. So this is a bad example, sorry. ;)
No bad example buddy because the US did not have any mach 3 bomber too, the 1960s and 1970 main US bomber was the B-52, Russia was much practical designed the fastest mass produced aircraft in the world in the 1970s, the US built an expensive aircraft that the only practical niche it had was as a recce platform, that is the reality and what did happen, no SR-71 was able to fight back the only solution they had is speed, Russia built also fast MiG-25s able even to drop bombs in fact the fasted operational bomber was also the MiG-25s ;)
New
Posts: 85
By: Northax
- 4th October 2006 at 07:26Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The T-4 was intended to be an interceptor / recce platform, as well, actually. They failed at getting it nearly as successful as the SR-71, XB-70 or YF-12 flight demonstrations. If it had the capability of being built and meeting expectations, it'd have replaced the Mig-25/31. For obvious reasons, they cancelled it, because they couldn't do what the U.S. did 8-10 years before.
Sorry, next? ;)
New
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD
- 4th October 2006 at 11:47Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The T-4 was intended to be an interceptor / recce platform, as well, actually. They failed at getting it nearly as successful as the SR-71, XB-70 or YF-12 flight demonstrations. If it had the capability of being built and meeting expectations, it'd have replaced the Mig-25/31. For obvious reasons, they cancelled it, because they couldn't do what the U.S. did 8-10 years before.
Sorry, next? ;)
сверхзвуковой бомбардировщик-ракетоносец
this in Russian means supersonic bomber armed with ASMs weapons, that is the designation for the T-4 see the link http://www.airwar.ru/enc/bomber/t4.html Тип: Бомбардировщик-ракетоносец this means classification as bomber armed with Rockets (ASMs)
the real role of the T-4 was of a bomber not a recce aircraft or an interceptor MiG developed the interceptor
Модификация Т-4
Размах крыльев, м 22.0
Длина, м 44.0
Высота, м 11.2
Площадь крыла, м2 295.7
Масса, кг
пустого самолета 55600
нормальная взлетная, кг 114000
максимальная взлетная, кг 135000
Тип двигателя 4 ТРД РД36-41
Тяга, кгс 4 х 16000
Максимальная скорость, км/ч 3200
Крейсерская скорость, км/ч 3000
Дальность полета, км 7000
Разбег, м 950-1050
Пробег, м 800-900
Практический потолок, м 18000
Экипаж, чел 2
Вооружение: 2 стратегические ракеты воздух-поверхность this means weaponry:2 strategic air to ground missiles, so as you see it was not an fighter niether an interceptor
By: daliborsky
- 4th October 2006 at 13:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I would like to see all those pro-america guys, bashing flanker's cobra as being useless manouvre. :dev2:
New
Posts: 85
By: Northax
- 4th October 2006 at 13:52Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Despite design similarities the Sukhoi T-4 was not intended as a Soviet equivalent of the North American XB-70 Valkyrie supersonic bomber, but was rather intended to take advantage of many of the XB-70's aeronatical innovations to develop a smaller reconnaissance and interceptor aircraft capable of reaching MACH 3. In this respect the T-4 is more closely a Soviet attempt to develop an aircraft comparable to the Lockheed SR-71.
The T-4 was made largely from titanium and stainless steel, and featured a primitive fly-by-wire control systems but also employed a mechanical system as a backup.
Recce / interceptor. And no, it says mach 3, but it never actually reached mach 3; that was their goal, not their achievement.
And dalibsky, we still bash the Cobra, and all other SLOW maneuvers, if someone would be dumb enough to boast of them as if they're good for actual COMBAT! I always ALWAYS loved watching the Russian Sukhoi maneuvers at air shows, very entertaining. It's just, again, those that try to say these are useful in actual combat, is when we get up in arms about it. See the difference? ;)
By: Scorpion82
- 4th October 2006 at 14:01Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The topic is becoming off-topic...
Let's sum up the facts. The Raptor can fly the cobra and the videos I have seen demonstrated cobras not more worse than any Su-27 derivate, but no specials like that of the TVC Flankers, but some similar things as well.
New
Posts: 85
By: Northax
- 4th October 2006 at 14:02Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
True; sorry for going so far off topic; let's get back to it then. :)
New
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD
- 4th October 2006 at 14:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Recce / interceptor. And no, it says mach 3, but it never actually reached mach 3; that was their goal, not their achievement.
And dalibsky, we still bash the Cobra, and all other SLOW maneuvers, if someone would be dumb enough to boast of them as if they're good for actual COMBAT! I always ALWAYS loved watching the Russian Sukhoi maneuvers at air shows, very entertaining. It's just, again, those that try to say these are useful in actual combat, is when we get up in arms about it. See the difference? ;)
Now this is really funny the Russians do not know what kind of aircraft they developed, please NORTHAX, the T-4 is a Russian aircraft Wikipedia is a website that has mistakes because many people write there, all the Russian sources say it was a bomber not an interceptor, your source is wrong.
aaThe work on the T-4 project ("article 100") began in 1961. The military set the task of developing a new air arm capability for "reconnaissance, search-and-destroy missions on small-size, mobile and fixed offshore and onshore targets," with a flight range of 7,000 km. The USSR held a tender among the aircraft design bureaus, with the design submitted by the Sukhoi design bureau winning against the bids by the design bureaus of Yakovlev and Tupolev. The T-4 gained a competitive edge with its high cruise speed of 3,200 kph, which, according to expert estimates, promised to render it much less vulnerable to air defence threats. The development of the aircraft was authorised in the government's resolution of 3rd December 1963. The project was headed by Deputy Designer General N.S. Chernyakov.
The T-4's conceptual design passed preliminary design review in June 1964, with an Air Forces mock-up committee review held in February 1966. Detailed design was undertaken jointly with the MKB Burevestnik engineering design bureau, with the Tushino machine-building plant (TMZ) appointed manufacturer of prototype aeroplanes in November 1964.
The specification requirements provided for high-quality Mach 3 cruise performance. A joint programme with CAHI produced comprehensive fundamental research into the aerodynamic performance of aircraft models, which made it possible to select the required configuration. The design was based on a tailless, flying wing concept with a low margin of pitch stability and small-size canards used for the aircraft pitch trim. It featured a double-delta wing, with a sharp leading edge and middle surface deformation.
It took a massive research effort to develop the powerplant configuration, which was finalised as a version with underbelly air intakes and so called bath configuration of 4 engines. It featured the USSR's first supersonic mixed-compression variable air intake with auto start for design Mach 3.0. Under a special T-4 project, the Design Bureau of P.A. Kolesov developed a RD36-41 turbojet to support a Mach 3 extended flight capability.
Each of the T-4 systems, given their heavy-duty aircraft operation requirements, had to be extensively researched by the designers to come up with a required number of adequate new solutions. For example, the T-4 featured, for the first time in Soviet practice, a quadruple redundancy fly-by-wire system, an auto-throttle, a hydraulic system with operating pressure of 280 kg/cm 2, a trailblazing fuel system with turbine driven pumps, a liquid-nitrogen-based inert gas system, and othe innovations.
A major challenge was to develop a design and a combination of materials to enable operation at high process temperatures of 220 to 330˚C. The airframe was engineered using mostly titanium and steel, the development of technology to enable their application in the aeroplane design being the focal point of the effort of the Sukhoi designers and technologists working on the T-4 project. They had to develop a great number of pioneering engineering processes such as automatic through-penetration welding, automatic buried-arc welding using sheet add-on, chemical milling of titanium alloys, and others. The new technologies were tried out under a comprehensive programme to develop new types of materials and coatings, and test full-scale structural specimens. The powerplant, aircraft systems and equipment were tried out by the Design Bureau jointly with its subcontractors under a large-scale programme for R&D and testing of various models, stands and flying laboratories (FL). For example, the wing shape development was conducted using a special-purpose Su-9-based 100L FL built and operated jointly with FRI.
The aircraft's purpose-designed equipment included a NK-4 navigation system and an Okean avionics suite integrating a Vykhr fire control system, Rapira recon system, Otpor defence system and Stremnina radio communications system. The aircraft's principal armaments were specified as 3 Kh-45 aeroballistic missiles under development at the MKB Raduga engineering design bureau. The Kh-45 rocket had an estimated range of 550-600km and cruise speed of Mach 5 to 7.
In the T-4 project, nearly all the aircraft's main blocks, systems and assemblies could claim the merit of invention; a total of 208 inventions were implemented by the Sukhoi designers, and taking into account the inventions used in developing assembly components and units, the number was nearly as high as 600. Not a single aircraft built by that time in the USSR could boast such a great number of proprietary developments!
The building of the first flying prototype of the aircraft (art. "101") was completed in the autumn of 1971, and in December 1971 the aeroplane was moved to the FRI airfield. The maiden flight of the prototype took place on 22nd August 1972, its crew composed of pilot V.S. Ilyushin and navigator N.A. Alfyorov. The flight tests went on till 19th January 1974, with a total of 10 flights completed over that period and Mach 1.36 achieved at a height of 12,000 m.
In the period 1966-74, TMZ assembled 4 T-4 airframes: one for static (art. "100S") and three for flight tests (art. "101", "102" and "103"). The work-in-process inventory included a number of assemblies produced for 3 more machines. In 1974, MAI suspended the work on the T-4 project. Officially, the project was scrapped in accordance with the government's resolution of 19th December 1975.
T-4 was used as a platform in 1968-70 by Sukhoi bureau to develop a design for an upgraded missile carrier T-4M with a variable sweep wing, and in 1970-72, a further design, the T-4MS (art. "200"), was produced in competition with the design bureaus of Myasishchev and Tupolev for development of a strategic dual role strike aircraft.
By: sferrin
- 4th October 2006 at 14:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No bad example buddy because the US did not have any mach 3 bomber too, the 1960s and 1970 main US bomber was the B-52, Russia was much practical designed the fastest mass produced aircraft in the world in the 1970s, the US built an expensive aircraft that the only practical niche it had was as a recce platform, that is the reality and what did happen, no SR-71 was able to fight back the only solution they had is speed, Russia built also fast MiG-25s able even to drop bombs in fact the fasted operational bomber was also the MiG-25s ;)
The XB-70 actually FLEW at Mach 3 though. The T-4 didn't even make it to HALF that speed.
By: sferrin
- 4th October 2006 at 14:59Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I would like to see all those pro-america guys, bashing flanker's cobra as being useless manouvre. :dev2:
The Cobra is an airshow manuever. Surely you're not one of those idiots that think Flanker pilots are going to be setting themselves up to get shot down by doing Cobras all over the place are you?
By: firebar
- 4th October 2006 at 15:14Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Firebar, there are pictures from this airshow showing that it is a production aircraft. The only planes flying in the airshows around the US are production aircraft as the prototypes are still at Nellis and Edwards.
.
All right. I can agree with that, but are you sure that the pilot who has done Cobra in F-22 is not best of the best in USAF service.
We can not be sure yet that the F-22 is safe enough for regular average service pilots to perform Cobra.
On the other hand, note that the Cobra maneuver is so safe to perform in MiG-29 and SU-27 that the Russians organize Cobra maneuvers for civilian tourists !!!
You still have not proved why the Raptor isn't as aeroynamically efficient as the Flanker or Fulcrum. Vortex has already explained why the Raptor's airframe takes the performance of today's fighter to another level.
Again, the Raptor has a carefree envelope. It will not depart from flight in almost any condition as explained by Kilcoo. You are not voicing an opinion. You are saying that the inability of the Raptor to have a high-AoA envelope is fact.
The F-22 is not aerodynamicaly efficient at all, compared to modern fighters. It simply has a bad aerodynamics which is a consequence of compromise which had to be made in order to get a more stealthy design.
Remember that in aircraft design you can not have everything. To be more stealthy design, the F-22 have got some desigh features which are good for stealth but not so good for controllability at high AoA.
Design requirements for Stealth and for a good Lateral-Directional stability at high AoA are not the same.
It has less than optimum wing aspect ratio, its fuselage volume is too high, it has no LERX, etc, etc. All that, on the other hand, is required for stealth characteristics.
New
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD
- 4th October 2006 at 15:28Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Cobra is an airshow manuever. Surely you're not one of those idiots that think Flanker pilots are going to be setting themselves up to get shot down by doing Cobras all over the place are you?
Do you remember the Guy? Pugachev, the Cobra is a demostration of how you can point your nose at the enemy independently of the aircraft flight path, it was very useful in the 1980 when the F-16 and F-15 were armed with AIM-9L while the MiG-29 and Su-27 were armed with R-73
Do you know the guy? Yevgeny Frolov creator of the Frolov Chakra http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaUxabw562s that manoeuvre shows how well designed is the Su-37, it was achieved with a 2D thrust vectoring nozzle and canards.
In Supermanoeuvrability Russia got it first that is the reason the MiG-29 has a 3D thrust vectoring nozzle http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWLYTAYG-9U
The F-22 has to do some of those maneuvres thanks to thrust vectoring
By: Scorpion82
- 4th October 2006 at 16:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Guys most of you seem to forget or not to know that a lot off such manoeuvers are simply useless in combat. Its not only the opinion of most experts, I tried this manoeuver in a simulator while dogfighting with F-16 anf F-15 and it never brought a real advantage. Sure with TVC you can do some more things but still more important are sustained turning rates while maintaining enough energy to make other manoeuvers. Hanging around in the air makes you a dead duck faster then you can count to 3.
Additionally the US studied and tested TVC long enough with F-15, F-16, F/A-18 and X-31. In mockup fights such designs proved to be superior, but in times of HOBS SRAAMs and HMS it becomes more questionable.
The aerodynamics of the Raptor are not perfect, but they aren't bad. No Flanker enjoys a significant advantage over the Raptor in terms of manoeuverability and when it comes to acceleration, speed and alititude the Raptor is a clear winner. And last but not least all the other stuff making the Raptor so expensive plays an important role as well.
You can run endless circles but is it that difficult to admit that the F-22 is currently the best fighter ever designed and produced?
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 4th October 2006 at 06:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
that proves what !! Absolutely nothing!! Zip , NADA !! All i said that you or i cannot predict what will happen for the future as we dont have access to top secret work going on for the next generation technology !! how does this prove that??
Posts: 85
By: Northax - 4th October 2006 at 06:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Heh. There's a huge difference between the YF-12 that actually did fly at mach 3.2 in the mid 1960's; that successfully fired AIM-47's in tests cruising at mach 3.2 at 74k ft. vs. the Russian (wannabe XB-70) Sukhoi T-4 of the early 1970's.
First off, the T-4 never even made it past mach 1.5 speeds! Let alone breaking mach 2, and not even close to mach 3; THEN you'd have to get to mach 3.2 WHILE cruising there like the SR-71 and XB-70 easily did around a decade before.
Secondly, the T-4 had constant problems with it's (primitive) fly-by-wire systems.
No comparison, sorry. Come up with something that had similar actual performance, not just paper-wishes they said they'd achieve, yet never did. :D
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 4th October 2006 at 06:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The combat radius is hald the way the range is correctly 1400km, the radius is also correct 7200km the MiG-31 will fly slightly more than 30 minutes at mach 2.35 as i told you
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 4th October 2006 at 06:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
hehehe please the first aircraft with Fly by wire was the T-4, second the T-4 was cancelled before it could reach mach 2.8 but Russia had an aircraft program that called for a mach 3 bomber, The US intelligence services must have known it, all the western intelligence agencies spying in Russia very likely know it, even the Tu-22M was chosen because it offered something more practical at less price and risk, same was the US next bomber the B-1, that proved better than the B-70
Posts: 85
By: Northax - 4th October 2006 at 06:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A program that called for a mach 3 bomber... sure. Does that mean they did it? Or had the capability? I am doubting they did, and KNOW they didn't actually do it. So this is a bad example, sorry. ;)
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 4th October 2006 at 07:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I got this info from venick's site !!
And BTW any luck finding the T2W ratio of the D30??
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 4th October 2006 at 07:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No bad example buddy because the US did not have any mach 3 bomber too, the 1960s and 1970 main US bomber was the B-52, Russia was much practical designed the fastest mass produced aircraft in the world in the 1970s, the US built an expensive aircraft that the only practical niche it had was as a recce platform, that is the reality and what did happen, no SR-71 was able to fight back the only solution they had is speed, Russia built also fast MiG-25s able even to drop bombs in fact the fasted operational bomber was also the MiG-25s ;)
Posts: 85
By: Northax - 4th October 2006 at 07:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The T-4 was intended to be an interceptor / recce platform, as well, actually. They failed at getting it nearly as successful as the SR-71, XB-70 or YF-12 flight demonstrations. If it had the capability of being built and meeting expectations, it'd have replaced the Mig-25/31. For obvious reasons, they cancelled it, because they couldn't do what the U.S. did 8-10 years before.
Sorry, next? ;)
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 4th October 2006 at 11:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
сверхзвуковой бомбардировщик-ракетоносец
this in Russian means supersonic bomber armed with ASMs weapons, that is the designation for the T-4 see the link
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/bomber/t4.html
Тип: Бомбардировщик-ракетоносец this means classification as bomber armed with Rockets (ASMs)
the real role of the T-4 was of a bomber not a recce aircraft or an interceptor MiG developed the interceptor
Модификация Т-4
Размах крыльев, м 22.0
Длина, м 44.0
Высота, м 11.2
Площадь крыла, м2 295.7
Масса, кг
пустого самолета 55600
нормальная взлетная, кг 114000
максимальная взлетная, кг 135000
Тип двигателя 4 ТРД РД36-41
Тяга, кгс 4 х 16000
Максимальная скорость, км/ч 3200
Крейсерская скорость, км/ч 3000
Дальность полета, км 7000
Разбег, м 950-1050
Пробег, м 800-900
Практический потолок, м 18000
Экипаж, чел 2
Вооружение: 2 стратегические ракеты воздух-поверхность this means weaponry:2 strategic air to ground missiles, so as you see it was not an fighter niether an interceptor
Максимальная скорость, км/ч 3200
Крейсерская скорость, км/ч 3000
this means max speed 3200km/h and cruise speed 3000km/h
Posts: 26
By: daliborsky - 4th October 2006 at 13:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I would like to see all those pro-america guys, bashing flanker's cobra as being useless manouvre. :dev2:
Posts: 85
By: Northax - 4th October 2006 at 13:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_T-4
Recce / interceptor. And no, it says mach 3, but it never actually reached mach 3; that was their goal, not their achievement.
And dalibsky, we still bash the Cobra, and all other SLOW maneuvers, if someone would be dumb enough to boast of them as if they're good for actual COMBAT! I always ALWAYS loved watching the Russian Sukhoi maneuvers at air shows, very entertaining. It's just, again, those that try to say these are useful in actual combat, is when we get up in arms about it. See the difference? ;)
Posts: 4,461
By: Scorpion82 - 4th October 2006 at 14:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The topic is becoming off-topic...
Let's sum up the facts. The Raptor can fly the cobra and the videos I have seen demonstrated cobras not more worse than any Su-27 derivate, but no specials like that of the TVC Flankers, but some similar things as well.
Posts: 85
By: Northax - 4th October 2006 at 14:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
True; sorry for going so far off topic; let's get back to it then. :)
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 4th October 2006 at 14:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Now this is really funny the Russians do not know what kind of aircraft they developed, please NORTHAX, the T-4 is a Russian aircraft Wikipedia is a website that has mistakes because many people write there, all the Russian sources say it was a bomber not an interceptor, your source is wrong.
Check the official Sukhoi webpage it says it was a bomber with secondary recce capability
http://www.sukhoi.org/planes/museum/t4/
the cruise speed it had was mach 2.8
aaThe work on the T-4 project ("article 100") began in 1961. The military set the task of developing a new air arm capability for "reconnaissance, search-and-destroy missions on small-size, mobile and fixed offshore and onshore targets," with a flight range of 7,000 km. The USSR held a tender among the aircraft design bureaus, with the design submitted by the Sukhoi design bureau winning against the bids by the design bureaus of Yakovlev and Tupolev. The T-4 gained a competitive edge with its high cruise speed of 3,200 kph, which, according to expert estimates, promised to render it much less vulnerable to air defence threats. The development of the aircraft was authorised in the government's resolution of 3rd December 1963. The project was headed by Deputy Designer General N.S. Chernyakov.
The T-4's conceptual design passed preliminary design review in June 1964, with an Air Forces mock-up committee review held in February 1966. Detailed design was undertaken jointly with the MKB Burevestnik engineering design bureau, with the Tushino machine-building plant (TMZ) appointed manufacturer of prototype aeroplanes in November 1964.
The specification requirements provided for high-quality Mach 3 cruise performance. A joint programme with CAHI produced comprehensive fundamental research into the aerodynamic performance of aircraft models, which made it possible to select the required configuration. The design was based on a tailless, flying wing concept with a low margin of pitch stability and small-size canards used for the aircraft pitch trim. It featured a double-delta wing, with a sharp leading edge and middle surface deformation.
It took a massive research effort to develop the powerplant configuration, which was finalised as a version with underbelly air intakes and so called bath configuration of 4 engines. It featured the USSR's first supersonic mixed-compression variable air intake with auto start for design Mach 3.0. Under a special T-4 project, the Design Bureau of P.A. Kolesov developed a RD36-41 turbojet to support a Mach 3 extended flight capability.
Each of the T-4 systems, given their heavy-duty aircraft operation requirements, had to be extensively researched by the designers to come up with a required number of adequate new solutions. For example, the T-4 featured, for the first time in Soviet practice, a quadruple redundancy fly-by-wire system, an auto-throttle, a hydraulic system with operating pressure of 280 kg/cm 2, a trailblazing fuel system with turbine driven pumps, a liquid-nitrogen-based inert gas system, and othe innovations.
A major challenge was to develop a design and a combination of materials to enable operation at high process temperatures of 220 to 330˚C. The airframe was engineered using mostly titanium and steel, the development of technology to enable their application in the aeroplane design being the focal point of the effort of the Sukhoi designers and technologists working on the T-4 project. They had to develop a great number of pioneering engineering processes such as automatic through-penetration welding, automatic buried-arc welding using sheet add-on, chemical milling of titanium alloys, and others. The new technologies were tried out under a comprehensive programme to develop new types of materials and coatings, and test full-scale structural specimens. The powerplant, aircraft systems and equipment were tried out by the Design Bureau jointly with its subcontractors under a large-scale programme for R&D and testing of various models, stands and flying laboratories (FL). For example, the wing shape development was conducted using a special-purpose Su-9-based 100L FL built and operated jointly with FRI.
The aircraft's purpose-designed equipment included a NK-4 navigation system and an Okean avionics suite integrating a Vykhr fire control system, Rapira recon system, Otpor defence system and Stremnina radio communications system. The aircraft's principal armaments were specified as 3 Kh-45 aeroballistic missiles under development at the MKB Raduga engineering design bureau. The Kh-45 rocket had an estimated range of 550-600km and cruise speed of Mach 5 to 7.
In the T-4 project, nearly all the aircraft's main blocks, systems and assemblies could claim the merit of invention; a total of 208 inventions were implemented by the Sukhoi designers, and taking into account the inventions used in developing assembly components and units, the number was nearly as high as 600. Not a single aircraft built by that time in the USSR could boast such a great number of proprietary developments!
The building of the first flying prototype of the aircraft (art. "101") was completed in the autumn of 1971, and in December 1971 the aeroplane was moved to the FRI airfield. The maiden flight of the prototype took place on 22nd August 1972, its crew composed of pilot V.S. Ilyushin and navigator N.A. Alfyorov. The flight tests went on till 19th January 1974, with a total of 10 flights completed over that period and Mach 1.36 achieved at a height of 12,000 m.
In the period 1966-74, TMZ assembled 4 T-4 airframes: one for static (art. "100S") and three for flight tests (art. "101", "102" and "103"). The work-in-process inventory included a number of assemblies produced for 3 more machines. In 1974, MAI suspended the work on the T-4 project. Officially, the project was scrapped in accordance with the government's resolution of 19th December 1975.
T-4 was used as a platform in 1968-70 by Sukhoi bureau to develop a design for an upgraded missile carrier T-4M with a variable sweep wing, and in 1970-72, a further design, the T-4MS (art. "200"), was produced in competition with the design bureaus of Myasishchev and Tupolev for development of a strategic dual role strike aircraft.
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 4th October 2006 at 14:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It "proved" nothing of the sort. They're varients of the same design.
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 4th October 2006 at 14:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The XB-70 actually FLEW at Mach 3 though. The T-4 didn't even make it to HALF that speed.
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 4th October 2006 at 14:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Cobra is an airshow manuever. Surely you're not one of those idiots that think Flanker pilots are going to be setting themselves up to get shot down by doing Cobras all over the place are you?
Posts: 875
By: firebar - 4th October 2006 at 15:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
.All right. I can agree with that, but are you sure that the pilot who has done Cobra in F-22 is not best of the best in USAF service.
We can not be sure yet that the F-22 is safe enough for regular average service pilots to perform Cobra.
On the other hand, note that the Cobra maneuver is so safe to perform in MiG-29 and SU-27 that the Russians organize Cobra maneuvers for civilian tourists !!!
The F-22 is not aerodynamicaly efficient at all, compared to modern fighters. It simply has a bad aerodynamics which is a consequence of compromise which had to be made in order to get a more stealthy design.
Remember that in aircraft design you can not have everything. To be more stealthy design, the F-22 have got some desigh features which are good for stealth but not so good for controllability at high AoA.
Design requirements for Stealth and for a good Lateral-Directional stability at high AoA are not the same.
It has less than optimum wing aspect ratio, its fuselage volume is too high, it has no LERX, etc, etc. All that, on the other hand, is required for stealth characteristics.
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 4th October 2006 at 15:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Do you remember the Guy?
Pugachev, the Cobra is a demostration of how you can point your nose at the enemy independently of the aircraft flight path, it was very useful in the 1980 when the F-16 and F-15 were armed with AIM-9L while the MiG-29 and Su-27 were armed with R-73
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaUxabw562s that manoeuvre shows how well designed is the Su-37, it was achieved with a 2D thrust vectoring nozzle and canards.
In Supermanoeuvrability Russia got it first that is the reason the MiG-29 has a 3D thrust vectoring nozzle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWLYTAYG-9U
The F-22 has to do some of those maneuvres thanks to thrust vectoring
Posts: 4,461
By: Scorpion82 - 4th October 2006 at 16:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Guys most of you seem to forget or not to know that a lot off such manoeuvers are simply useless in combat. Its not only the opinion of most experts, I tried this manoeuver in a simulator while dogfighting with F-16 anf F-15 and it never brought a real advantage. Sure with TVC you can do some more things but still more important are sustained turning rates while maintaining enough energy to make other manoeuvers. Hanging around in the air makes you a dead duck faster then you can count to 3.
Additionally the US studied and tested TVC long enough with F-15, F-16, F/A-18 and X-31. In mockup fights such designs proved to be superior, but in times of HOBS SRAAMs and HMS it becomes more questionable.
The aerodynamics of the Raptor are not perfect, but they aren't bad. No Flanker enjoys a significant advantage over the Raptor in terms of manoeuverability and when it comes to acceleration, speed and alititude the Raptor is a clear winner. And last but not least all the other stuff making the Raptor so expensive plays an important role as well.
You can run endless circles but is it that difficult to admit that the F-22 is currently the best fighter ever designed and produced?