firebarThe orginal manual is a wrong old book? 😀
There is no mention of water injection not only in Manual, but in all newer books about Mig-25.
Even in MIG PILOT of John Barron, there is not mention of Water injection. Why ?
A another counter measure against the R40 is the use of Boron based
fuel addetives. Anytime you see colour photos of SR-71s showing a green
hue/colouring of the engines exhaust it is likely burning Boron based
fuel addtives. A another option are flurine.
Be serious.
The Boron or Fluorine are additives for rocket fuels.
The ionisation occurs as a result of the carbon atoms present in the
exaust gas.
No.
The carbon atoms are always present is all exhaust gases after combustion.
In fact, carbon atoms are product of any fuel combustion.
The Ionisation is something else. A temperatures of about 5000 degrees C are needed for such event.
You can fly Mach 2,83 only at a straight line.
Not true. Remember that the MiG-25 has demonstrated about 3000 km/h speed with 2 T payload in a closed circuit, turning flight.
firebarExternal stores are incompatible with sustained Mach 3.3 flight!!!!
Blacbird can not sustain 3,3 Mach. That speed has been achieved only in record flight on very limited course length.
Internal stores were planned for the YF-12 derivatives, but the separation of the AIM-47 into a Mach 3 airstream remains an impressive technical accomplishent.
I agree with that, but americans had not fully solved that problem.
I should also point out that the MiG-25 was not intended for low level operations. Due to its profound structural weakness, it is easy to surmise that the MiG-25 would have had a very short fatigue life if operated at low altitudes.
Its 1200 km/h, later 1300 km/h, IAS, speaks for itself.
Note that Blackbird is limited to 400 KT IAS.
The difference is enormous.
The MiG-25 “maneuverability” is poor compared to even an early model F-4 Phantom. The MiG-25 isn’t even stressed for a modest 7g turn.
That is true only for subsonic speeds. At transsonic and supersonic speeds, the MiG-25 is far better than F-4 in maneuverability.
As for allowed G, note that F-14A and D were 6,5 G limited, and many people think that the F-14 was a good dogfighter.
Regarding MiG-25 allowed G load, there was a case when Mig-25 has been subjected to 12 G, and the aircraft landed safely.
That is called a strong airframe.
Look at allowed indicated airspeed of SR-71 and of MiG-25. The Blackbird had a flimsy airframe compared to MiG.
Well, the Soviets never produced a “Mach 3 multi role aircraft,” either. The MiG-25 fighter is incapabable of Mach 3 with external stores.
But it is capable of 2,8 Mach with 4 missiles or 4 bombs.
Compare that with 1,8 Mach allowed for F-15C with underwing stores and you will get the picture.
Both aircraft have similar static thrust. The Mig-25 is 60% heavier but is also 60% faster !!!
The reason for that is that the MiG-25 has far higher thrust at high speeds and altitudes.
firebarDoesn’t matter. That’s a function of the engines being designed and optimized for high-Mach cruise.
It is almost unbelievable how many constraints Blackbird had.
Its climb and even descent rates were limited and had to be preprogramed before each flight , and no deviation was allowed even in emergency !!!
The MiG-25 is no more multi mission than the Blackbird. There are different variants of the FOXBAT for a reason.
How is so ?
The Mig-25RB is capable of strategic high altitude recce, tactical low altitude recce like RF-4C, high altitude bombing, low altitude bombing, and anti radar missions with long range antiradiation missiles.
Mig-25PD is capable of high altitude anti SR-71 interception, and also low and medium altitude interception, like F-18 dropping in IRAQ.
That is called multi mission, by any standard.
On the other hand, the Blackbird is capable only for strategic high altitude recce. It is completely incapable of even tactical recce mission.
firebarIt should be pointed out that the A-12/SR-71/YF-12 was never a conventional “combat aircraft.” A manned aircraft flying at as sustained speed Mach 3.0+ will never maneuver like a fighter!
But it could have not maneuvered even as a bomber !!!
The B-58 could do a zoom climb and Blackbird is incapable to do it.
The Blackbird is aircraft with highest numbers of restrictions, by far.
People do not understand one thing. From engineering point of view, it is by far easier to built one role aircraft, designed only for streight , high altitude, unmaneuvering flight, than multi mission aircraft like MIG-25.
For example, MiG-25 had to be fast at sea level too. Blackbird had not.
MiG-25 had to carry underwing missiles and bombs. Blackbird had not. Etc,etc.
Not to mention maneuverability. The MIG-25 can do loops, rolls, imelmans, zoom climbs, etc.
To make a Mach 3 multi role aircraft was immense task, which americans could not have solved.
firebarYou can read the orginal Manual?
The vortex generators on the duct surface is placed behind the W/M nozzels.
The MIG-25 manual do not mention any water for compressor precooling. That was misinformation from old books.
For I-band is the SR-71 invesible, and what for smersh-a invesible
can your R-40 not shutdown.
The same is valid for the saphire.
But the russian sources state that the MIG-25 had SR-71 locked on radar sight many times. Remember that SR-71 is the main target for MIG-25.
It could not kill low flying cruise missile, but Blackbird was target type which the MIG-25P was built for.
There were a number of features in the SR-71 that were designed to
reduce its radar signature. The first studies in radar stealth seemed to
indicate that a shape with flattened, tapering sides would reflect most
radar away from the place where the radar beams originated. To this end
the radar engineers suggested adding chines to the design and canting
the vertical control surfaces inward. The plane also used special radar
absorbing materials which were incoporated into sawtooth shaped sections
of the skin of the aircraft, as well as fuel additives to reduce the
exhaust plumes VHF visibility on radar. The vertical control
surfaces,intake, the chimes was made of RAM.
There is no RAM which could endure Mach 3 speed, even today, not to speak for 60-s.
The canted vertical stabilisers are built in such way for stability reasons.
I said earlier, it had a corrugated uderwing surfaces, which was unacceptable for a stealth aircraft.
You know that the R40 is radarguided.
The radar receiver sits behind a plastic cap.
Therefore need the R-40 titan?
The exaust plume are very hot, therefor ionisation.
Ther R-40 has 2 versions, one radar guided, other IR.
It has a ceramic , not plastic cap.
It seems that you do not know that its airframe is made from titan and steel.
The exhaust plume is very hot indeed, but not to the point of ionisation.
The R15 has no transonic compressor.
The compressor is still subsonic.
It was discovered after Belenko defected.
All turbines are a impulstyp or use you a warp engine?
Actualy not.
All ordinary fighter turbines are of mixed impulse/reaction type.
The MiG-25 could go Mach 3, but there was no way to stop other then cutting the engines. The turbines would go in overdrive, completly wrecking your engines and they could not be throttled back, that would stall your engines, not a pleasant thing to do at such speeds.
Belykov, chief MIG engineer say that it is not true.
In Egypt, there was not even need for engine maintenace after Mach 3,2 flights. Sources: MIG-Belyakov, MIGS-Butowski, among others.
firebarin my personal opinion..the SR-71 blackbird and mig-25 foxbat rank as some of the greatest feats in avaition history. its true the blackbird and foxbat where not perfect, and they had there faults…but what aircaft dosent. both types had or still have long and succsesful careers. the blackbird wich sadley is no longer with us was only withdrawn on fiancial grounds. and the foxbat story will be with us for a long time to come as the mig-31 foxhound. the old term comes to mind; what is the only replacment for a exellent design…a improved version of the same thing of course…
That is true, but the MIG-25 is a multi role aircraft and as such is much more useful than Blackbirds.
Besides that,when you account maintenance ease and numbers built, the value of both designs emerges.
firebarThe AICS and associated issues were worked out on the A-12 over the course of the test program, and then the newer systems were applied to the YF-12 and SR-71. Just like how they kept modifying and increasing the thrust of the J-58.
Because of stability constraints, the YF-12 was slower than SR, and had less ceiling.
Note its speed in 1000 km closed circuit compared to SR.
firebarFirebar,
The A-12 was both faster and higher flying than the SR, which with the additional crew position was both less aerodynamic and heavier…
Of course, but you have forgot the stability issue.
Theoreticaly, the A-12 and YF-12 could have achieved higher ceiling than SR-71 but in practice that was not possible.
At that heights, the positive stability control is the most important factor. And the SR-71 was far better in that respect.
The same aplies to max speed.
Beside that, its engines are thermaly limited to 3,2 Mach with 3,3 Mach burst in special conditions.
It was however far less ‘reliable’ in terms of number of unstarts and so forth…so it paid a price in those terms..
Regarding unstarts, the A-12 was awful.
That was price to pay for mixed compression engines.
And refrain from using words like ‘apthetic’ when discussing performance…it is tailored to its job and if that requires only a very limited AoA window then its all it needs.
But note that its max AoA is mere 8 degrees !!! That was far less than even B-58 bomber.
It was the main reason why the Blacbird, in any version, is totaly incapable of max height record.
Theoreticaly, it could have achieved higher ceiling that MIG-25, but that limit rendered it insuitable for that kind of flights.
For Blackbirds, the pitch-up occurs at over 8 degrees AoA.
pathetic could be applied to the MiG 25’s range when compared to the Sr-71…
The MIG-25 has less range, that is true, but note that SR has 38 T of fuel, and it was, actualy, a flying fuel tank.
The range of A-12 was 2800km which was not much more than that of MIG-25.
Neither of these aircraft is ‘pathetic’ in any way… they are designed for different missions and so do things differently..
They are designed for different missions, true, but, the MIG-25 is a multi mission, Mach 3 class aircraft, and that makes it an extraordinary engineering achievement.
Note that service Blackbirds were inflexible, one role aircraft.
The same implies for F-14, F-15A and C, etc, even they are mere 2 Mach aircraft.
Also you’ll find that search radars are far more able to ‘see’ low RCS aircraft, even the F-117, yet the hand over to a tracking and guidance radar is often unsuccessful as these find it far less easy to perform their job (radar-wise) than the tracker… so whilst you know its there you cannot ‘see’ it to shoot it down. Imagine a very dark room.. you ears tell you there is something there and ‘about’ where it is, yet your eyes cannot give you sufficient infotmation to actually ‘see’ them….
Yes , I know that, but Farnborough radar operators claimed that they have been able to track SR-71, not only detect it.
firebarThat’s very interesting, and one of the reasons you can regard the A-12 as one of the most influential military aircraft ever. Think about it:
A-12 to MiG-25 to F-15 to Su-27 to F-22A to PAK-FA to…
The F-15 design was influenced by MiG-25 and F-16 by MiG-21.
firebarThe SR-71 with a much smaller RCS than expected for a plane of its size, it was still easily detected, because the exhaust stream would return its own radar signature.
Therfor hit the R-40 the exhaust stream and not the SR-71.
You have mixed the things up.
The exhaust stream is a guidance source for IR guided R-40T, not for radar guided R-40R.
The exhaust gases are not visible on radar, and for ionisation Mach 5 speed is needed.
firebarPlease be nice with me… I don’t want to back anybody. I just want to know : what do you think about that. Is it a legend ?
Jack Layton said once that they took a YF-12 to Mach 3.6 for
>exactly 2 minutes, and very bad things started happening very
>quickly. When they landed they looked the airframe over and
>found they had melted most of the insulation off the wiring
>on the engines. As Ray Scalise would say, “That was bad.”
He could have said 4 Mach, just the same. Nobody can confirm that.
Was he tracked by radar at that speed ?
firebarWere that the case, Blackbirds wouldn’t have flown higher than 85,000 feet, exceeding 90,000 feet.
Only in old propaganda sources. Note that SR-71 had best performance of all Blackbirds. That is because of better engine and stability control.
firebar@firebar
What better materials?
The better materials are used for turbine blades. At first the R-15 engines had about 100 hours MTBI and 5 min limit at max power, latter it was extended to 1000 hours and 40 min limit.
Upwards Mach 1,5 need the R15-300 WATER/METHANOL!
There is no W/M cooling for R-15 engines. That is a misinformation from old sources.
A vortex generator is only usefull to energize the boderlayer on the wing to avoid seperation.
In a duct acts your Vortex Generator like a Brake and don’t energize your airstream before compressor!
It’s sucks always power or you have invent the Perpetummobile!
No. That is from manual.
How should the R-40 track a SR-71 with a RCS= 0,012m2 with “re-entrant triangles”?
With the Smersh-A or the less powerfull safir-25?
Did you know that Farnborough radars tracked the SR-71 from several hundred of kilometers.
The SR-71 is not a stealth aircraft. It is made of highly visible titanium with corrugated lower wing surfaces, which enlarge its radar cross section area even more.
The guidance system cannot adjust to the high closure rate of the SR-71.
It is true for ordinary missiles, but remember that R-40 is especially built for Blackbird type targets. That missile is so fast that it had to be made of titanium and steel instead of aluminium.
The MiG-25 can carrying two missiles, 24000 meters (for maximum 2min); carrying four missiles 21000 meters is maximum.
The overd 90000feet is balistic and a MiG-25 RU or PU whitout R40, without radar (-293kg ), without cameras etc..!
At to 90.000 ft it flies at very small climb angle, about 5 degrees. It is an extraordinary feat.
No other aircraft in the world can do it.
What do you think, is there any other aircraft in the world which is so safe to fly to 90.000 ft that ordinary civilians can do it.!!!
The R15 is a turbojet and no turbo bypass jet like the J-58.
Therfor all the air must pass through the R-15.
Of course, but it has a transonic compressor and impulse type turbine, which is much better choice for combat aircraft.
Note that mixed compression type engine of SR-71 has unacceptable vices for a combat aircraft, like unstarts, limit to pathetic 8 degrees angle of attack and extreme sensitivity to throtle changes. Among other things.
The R-15 runs at 2,83 Mach at 120% of your rated RPM.
It is not true. Give source.
Valid Source for the Mach 3+ Myth?
There are many soviet and polish sources, but if you do not want them, see Indian Air Force site.
See western reports of MiG-25 over Israel. See “Arsenal of democracy” writen by Tom Gervasi, a former inteligence officer. He say that MiG-25 has been flying over western Europe at over 3 Mach.
firebarThe engines R-15BD-300 of MiG-25 have extraordinary capability to work in full afterburner at heights above 90.000 ft.
That is something not found on any other jet engine.
The J-58 engines of SR-71, for example, are limited to 85.000 ft.
That is why the MiG-25 was very dangerous threat to Blackbirds.
firebarSo basically, your argument is that the AIM-47 was unreliable and a failure simply because it wasn’t put into service.
Remember that it was zero return of enormous investment.
And entirely new, but similar in weight, AIM-54 had to be developed.
I guess you’d share the same opinion about the R-37, the MiG-31M, the Avro Arrow, the TSR.2…
These are different stories.
The MiG-31M has been canceled because of lack of money after dissolution of CCCP. But MiG-31BM has many features of M.
The Avro Arrow and TSR-2 have been written off by political pressures from USA.
True, combat is different. But one failed internal component causing one miss in seven launches from a YF-12A in no way implies that the missile was “unreliable”.
It was not the matter of one internal component.
Note that even AIM-54C of 80-s proved incapable of hitting anything in combat.
Imagine how effective the AIM-47 would have been !!!
Sign In
