Conkordski Crash
Discussion
Gandahar said:
I think an interesting thought here is that in 2016 can the Chinese just copy a US stealth fighter and sort of looks the same, but does it work?
We know Russia from this sad episode tried the same and it didn't. Supersonic transport in the 70's was really really pushing the boundaries. It's pretty amazing Concorde did so well, it was almost like France and Britains Apollo landings tech wise. So it worked well for so long, but not surprised the Russian one hit turbulence.
So the Chinese stealth fighters. I bet if you put them up against the F22 raptor and all the modern ground to air missiles we might find history repeating.
Looks good for the hawks in China. Build another airfield in the south china seas. Etc etc.
lolWe know Russia from this sad episode tried the same and it didn't. Supersonic transport in the 70's was really really pushing the boundaries. It's pretty amazing Concorde did so well, it was almost like France and Britains Apollo landings tech wise. So it worked well for so long, but not surprised the Russian one hit turbulence.
So the Chinese stealth fighters. I bet if you put them up against the F22 raptor and all the modern ground to air missiles we might find history repeating.
Looks good for the hawks in China. Build another airfield in the south china seas. Etc etc.
Yep they look exactly the same... http://i1.wp.com/su-27flanker.com/wp-content/uploa...
I'm a critical person, but couldn't find fault with the place, everything was 10/10, the staff, the food, the layout; everything, you'll do it in one long day.
We went in and paid and then realised we had a discount voucher we'd forgot to use so went back to the entry point to tell them. If this was the UK you'd have got "Sorry, we've already put it though, we can't do anything now" Instead we were told 'No problem, here is some money back!'
The OH lost me in there so she went to reception, they handed her the microphone and she put a call out over the tannoy for me
Have a few more
We went in and paid and then realised we had a discount voucher we'd forgot to use so went back to the entry point to tell them. If this was the UK you'd have got "Sorry, we've already put it though, we can't do anything now" Instead we were told 'No problem, here is some money back!'
The OH lost me in there so she went to reception, they handed her the microphone and she put a call out over the tannoy for me
Have a few more
Evoluzione said:
I'm a critical person, but couldn't find fault with the place, everything was 10/10, the staff, the food, the layout; everything,
Totally agree, having not been to the famous museums in the US, this is easily the best one I've ever been to. I loved it.Had hoped to visit the sister museum (which has the 'Space Shuttle' Buran) a few years ago but was just a bit too far away to be practical in a day.
williamp said:
Oh, regarding the engine. The DB engine used in the Me109 and others was inverted, so the crank would be at the top, the tappets at the bottom of the engine. I'm sure there is a good reason why. Dont know myself..
Not just the DB, the Junkers Jumo V12 was an inverted vee design as well.There's lots of theories about crank height above ground, and low nose for visibility (in the case of the 109) but a significant advantage of the design was actually maintainance as the the ground crews could get to a lot of the engine systems while standing on the ground.
Just look at the period photos of RAF and USAAF engine fitters sitting high on the cowlings trying to work on the top ends of Merlins etc., or having to work on ladders and scaffolding compared to Luftwaffe ground crew just standing under the nose of a 109 with all the systems readily accessible at head height.
williamp said:
Oh, regarding the engine. The DB engine used in the Me109 and others was inverted, so the crank would be at the top, the tappets at the bottom of the engine. I'm sure there is a good reason why. Dont know myself..
I suspect it was due to the type of prop reduction gear used (or the lack of one?) ie prop centre must be certain height from ground (to fit big enough prop without hitting ground) and if you are using an inline planetary type reduction drive (or driving the prop 1:1) you want the engine crank centreline at that height, which means making an upsidedown engine to keep the total nose height low enough!Evoluzione said:
Was it true the Russians had a spy in the Concorde design team? Sorry haven't had time to listen to the doc, but have a few pics taken at Sinsheim if interested.
Eric Mc said:
It is thought that they did - but they didn't get any useful information. Indeed, they were fed duff data on occasion just in case.
There was a TV spy drama many years ago called 'Cold Warrior' - in one episode someone made a throwaway comment about giving the Russians fake documents, which then led to the Tu-144 crash.There was a documentary on CH4 years ago about the Tu 144 that mentioned the industrial espionage.
Apparently the French knew it was taking place and knowing the Russians were having trouble with tyre compounds allowed the spy to steal the latest formula.
The French were curious as to how the Tu 144 would take off with tyres resembling chewing gum...
Apparently the French knew it was taking place and knowing the Russians were having trouble with tyre compounds allowed the spy to steal the latest formula.
The French were curious as to how the Tu 144 would take off with tyres resembling chewing gum...
Evoluzione said:
Have a few more
OMG, the It Bike really exists!http://www.southparkstudios.co.uk/clips/153051/fle...
Halmyre said:
There was a TV spy drama many years ago called 'Cold Warrior' - in one episode someone made a throwaway comment about giving the Russians fake documents, which then led to the Tu-144 crash.
I don't think there has ever been a claim that the crash was anything to do with false information "leaked" to the Tupolev design bureau. The shortcomings of the 144 were mostly down to the fact that Tupolev just hadn't got sufficient knowledge to build a working SST.
Eric Mc said:
Halmyre said:
There was a TV spy drama many years ago called 'Cold Warrior' - in one episode someone made a throwaway comment about giving the Russians fake documents, which then led to the Tu-144 crash.
I don't think there has ever been a claim that the crash was anything to do with false information "leaked" to the Tupolev design bureau. The shortcomings of the 144 were mostly down to the fact that Tupolev just hadn't got sufficient knowledge to build a working SST.Eric Mc said:
Just because the "man in the street" couldn't tell them apart does not mean they were the same - or even similar.
The wing used on Concorde is WAY more sophisticated than the double cranked delta used on the Tu-144. In fact, the Russians knew very little about how Concorde used the ogival wing to generate a vortex at slow speed to aid landing and take of.
The original Tu-144 design was so lacking they had to install small retractable foreplanes just behind the cockpit to try and get some control at slow speeds.
They were very, very different aeroplanes.
Wasn't one just a sThe wing used on Concorde is WAY more sophisticated than the double cranked delta used on the Tu-144. In fact, the Russians knew very little about how Concorde used the ogival wing to generate a vortex at slow speed to aid landing and take of.
The original Tu-144 design was so lacking they had to install small retractable foreplanes just behind the cockpit to try and get some control at slow speeds.
They were very, very different aeroplanes.
t Russian Knock off of the other though ?Or is it just two completely separate development efforts just ended up with two pretty similar looking planes as that is what supersonic flight requires ?
its like those hits tapes from the 80s that you bought as it had loads of the latest songs on, then you spot, in tiny writing "Not original artists", it is the RCZ to Concordes TT.
Eric Mc said:
Halmyre said:
There was a TV spy drama many years ago called 'Cold Warrior' - in one episode someone made a throwaway comment about giving the Russians fake documents, which then led to the Tu-144 crash.
I don't think there has ever been a claim that the crash was anything to do with false information "leaked" to the Tupolev design bureau. The shortcomings of the 144 were mostly down to the fact that Tupolev just hadn't got sufficient knowledge to build a working SST.
The documentary I remember said the engines went out when it ducked to avoid the Mirage, then went into a dive to relight them, managed it but in trying to pull out exceeded g for the plane etc
How much is true who knows
That is the best and most likely explanation. The French never acknowledged it because they didn't want to admit that they had an aeroplane in the air at the same time.
It's completely believeable because in 1988, the year the first MiG 29s came to Farnborough, the day they arrived, I spotted a Canberra flying high above Farnborough circling the airfield. I found out later that it was taking infra red images of the MiGs as they landed and taxied to their parking spots.
It's completely believeable because in 1988, the year the first MiG 29s came to Farnborough, the day they arrived, I spotted a Canberra flying high above Farnborough circling the airfield. I found out later that it was taking infra red images of the MiGs as they landed and taxied to their parking spots.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff