Bager1968MIG-29K flew in 2006 and delivered to IN in 2009. very normal time for export fighter. PAK-FA has alot more funding behind it. it will take less than a year to fly from aircraft carrier. see this experiance. All this data from MIG-29K flight trials will be input into any new fighter.
I think you need to do some more research………
The MiG-29K being sold to India is a modernization of the MiG-29K initially developed in the 1980s-early 1990s for the Soviet/Russian Admiral Kuznetsov* (and Varyag, which ended up sold to China).
The MiG-29K project was initiated in the late 1970s when the Soviet Navy developed a requirement for a supersonic carrier-based fighter. As a first step to meet this requirement, the Mikoyan design bureau designed a “proof of concept” version of the MiG-29 fitted with a stronger undercarriage and a reinforced tail section with an arrestor hook, the MiG-29KVP (Korotkii Vzlet i Posadka, or “short take off and landing”). The KVP first flew on 21 August 1982, and was subject to extensive trials which demonstrated it could safely operate from a ski-jump, but ideally a production aircraft needed more power and greater wing area.
It was decided to base the definitive naval version on the advanced MiG-29M (Product 9.15) that was already under development, further modified with new undercarriage and folding wings of greater area, with the new model designated the MiG-29K (Korabelniy – “ship based”) or Project 9-31. The MiG-29K differed considerably from the MiG-29 production model, featuring a new multi-function radar, dubbed Zhuk; a cockpit with monochrome display and use of the HOTAS (hands-on-throttle-and-stick) principle; the RVV-AE air-to-air active homing missiles; antiship and antiradar missiles; as well as air-to-ground precision-guided weapons. To protect the engine from FOD, the engine inlets were fitted with retractable grills instead of the LERX louvres used by land-based MiG-29s.
The MiG-29Ks first flight was performed on 23 July 1988 at Saky by test pilot Toktar Aubakirov. On 1 November 1989, on the same day as the Sukhoi Su-27K, Aubakirov executed the first carrier landing of MiG-29K on the aircraft-carrying cruiser Tbilisi (now known as Admiral Kuznetsov), the first take-off from the carrier’s deck was successfully performed the same day.
During 1989–1991, the MiG-29K underwent further tests aboard the Admiral Kuznetsov. The project was put on hold with the collapse of the Soviet Union, while the Russian Navy only pursued the rival Su-33. While official funding stopped in 1992 (2 prototypes built), MiG continued development with their own resources. The MiG-29K program was revived in response to the decision of the Indian Navy to acquire the former Soviet Navy aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov in 2004.
* Laid down as Riga, launched as Leonid Brezhnev, conducted sea trials as Tbilisi, and commissioned under its current name.
Bager19681943 USAAF Serial Numbers (43-5109 to 43-52437)
43-22350/22399 Douglas A-26B-15-DT Invader
22366 delivered to USAAF Oct 11, 1944. Dropped from inventory as surplus Mar 1951
The A-26B in your photo has 6 nose .50mgs, not 8.
A new all-purpose nose was installed beginning with the A-26B-10-DL. Initially, the USAAF was undecided about exactly what armament this version should carry. As originally planned, it was expected that the A-26B would be fitted with a variety of alternate solid nose sections, and that one deemed to the best would be selected. Options that were tested on early A-26Bs included one 75-mm cannon to starboard and two 0.50-inch machine guns to port, one 75-mm cannon to starboard and one 37-mm cannon to port, 2 37-mm cannon with one on each side of the nose, or one 37 mm cannon to starboard and two 0.50-inch machine guns to port; four 0.50-inch guns starboard and one 37-mm cannon to port; or four 0.50-inch guns to starboard and two 0.50-in guns to port. Eventually at the end of 1944, the USAAF finally made up its mind and decided that the solid-nosed A-26B would have six machine guns. with 400 rounds per gun. The guns in the two turrets had 500 rounds each.
Beginning with the A-26B-15, the forward-firing armament could be supplemented by eight 0.50-inch guns mounted in four twin packages underneath the outer wing panels.
Note that the presence of the under-wing guns confirms that this is a 6-gun nose.
The forward-firing armament of the early A-26B was found to be insufficient, especially in the Pacific theatre. Beginning with the A-26B-50-DL production block, a new eight-gun nose was fitted, and six internally-mounted 0.50-inch guns were mounted in the outer wing panels so that bombs or rockets could be carried underneath the wings. However, the eight-gun nose and the internal wing guns were often retrofitted to earlier A-26B versions, so the mere presence of these features cannot be used as a positive identification feature.
In June of 1948, the A-26B was redesignated B-26B. There was no danger of confusion with the Martin B-26 Marauder, since that aircraft was by that time out of service.
Bager19681. It seemed to me that Newforest, if he already had the info and wanted to spread it to more people, could (and should) have posted at least the basic info in his originating-post, so as to provide a foundation for the discussion. His not having done so seemed to indicate that he didn’t know, and wanted someone else to provide the information.
2. Since the info was so easily available, asking for someone else to look it up appeared to be laziness.
As I misunderstood what he was doing, I responded a bit sharply, and I apologize for that.
For many years the French denied the presence of a Mirage anywhere in the area at the time of the crash.
The French have since admitted that there was a Mirage near the Tu-144, but stated that that “they were not in danger of colliding, but the Tu-144 pilot ‘may have been startled’, which led to his over-reaction”.
Whether the Mirage was attempting to photograph the Tu-144’s canards in flight, or was simply there due to confusion caused by the recent changes in the airshow schedule remains subject to debate.
Bager1968As for the inaccurate “Concordski”* bit you seem to believe, the USSR would have needed a time machine in order to have stolen data from the Concord program to design the Tu-144.
Development of both aircraft was initiated at the same time… the late 1950s.
Concorde originated as two separate designs by the Bristol Aircraft Company of the UK (Type 223) and Sud-Aviation of France (Super-Caravelle). By 1962 the UK and France had agreed to merge their programs, and jointly develop a new design based mostly on the BAC-223.
The basic designs for both the BAC 223 and Super-Caravelle were ready for prototype construction by then, but the merging of the programs and subsequent re-design meant that actual construction didn’t start until February 1965.
First flight was 2 March 1969.
Tu-144 was under development as one of several “theoretical” designs from the late 1950s as well, and the design was publicly announced on January 1962. Construction of the prototype was authorized in July 1963, and began soon thereafter.
First flight was on 31 December 1968.
Development and construction of the Tu-144 prototype was actually ahead of Concorde, and the aerodynamic design is considered superior – mainly due to the use of canards to alleviate low-speed handling issues common to all highly-swept delta-winged aircraft – something Concorde did not have, due to its superior flight-control system.
Concorde possessed a superior braking system and engine controls, and the USSR did attempt to steal the designs of these, but the main flaws with the Tu-144 – poor metallurgy of structural components and low manufacturing quality of other aircraft systems – could not have been aided in any way by any amount of “theft of plans of Concorde”.
The actual airframe structures had significant differences as well, most of which were poorer on the Tu-144 and better on Concord. This is contrary to the “conspiracy-theory” claims of the USSR having the entire Concorde blueprints by 1965 and incorporating the Concorde design into the Tu-144.
There is no way the Tu-144 is a copy of Concorde, or even incorporates significant parts of that design, as it would have been a better aircraft if it had!
* This name indicates that the aircraft is supposed to be a copy of another, the name of the aircraft copied is used with a “ski” suffix.
Bager1968I see… using an internet search engine is too difficult for you, so you want us to do it for you.
I used Google, and used “TU-144 NASA” as the search terms.
This was the first result: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-062-DFRC.html
The Tu-144LL: A Supersonic Flying Laboratory
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) teamed with American and Russian aerospace industries over a five-year period in a joint international research program to develop technologies for a proposed future second-generation supersonic airliner to be developed in the 21st century. The centerpiece of the project was the Tu-144LL, a former first-generation Russian supersonic jetliner that was modified by its developer, Tupolev ANTK, into a flying laboratory for supersonic research.
Using the Tu-144LL to conduct flight experiments allowed researchers to compare full-scale supersonic aircraft flight data with results from models in wind tunnels, computer-aided techniques and other flight tests. The flight experiments provided unique aerodynamic, structures, acoustics and operating environment data on supersonic passenger aircraft.
Six flight and two ground experiments were conducted during the program’s first flight phase, which began in June 1996 and concluded in February 1998 after 19 research flights. A shorter follow-on program involving about seven flights began in September 1998 and concluded in April 1999. All flights were conducted in Russia from Tupolev’s facility at the Zhukovsky Air Development Center near Moscow.
Tu-144LL Modifications
The aircraft flown in NASA’s research program was a “D” model and was the last Tu-144 built. Bearing tail number 77114, it was constructed in 1981 and had logged a total flight time of only 82 hours and 40 minutes, most of that for research and test purposes, before being selected for the NASA-sponsored program. It was never used in commercial service.
The aircraft underwent many upgrades and modifications in its conversion to the “LL” Flying Laboratory, including the installation of more powerful NK-321 augmented-turbofan engines that were originally produced for the Tupolev Tu-160 Blackjack bomber.
A new Damien digital data collection system replaced an earlier analog system to collect airworthiness data and data from the experiments. Thermocouples, pressure sensors, microphones and skin friction gauges were placed on the Tu-144LL to measure the aerodynamic boundary layer—the layer where the air interacts with the surfaces of a moving aircraft. It also carried a significant number of other research instruments. An emergency crew escape system was also installed.
Flight and Ground ExperimentsOut of 50 experiments originally proposed, project officials selected eight, including six flight and two ground engine experiments, for the first phase of flight research. The flight experiments included studies on the aircraft’s exterior surface, internal structure and engine temperatures, boundary layer airflow, the wing’s ground effect characteristics, interior and exterior noise, handling qualities in various flight profiles, and in-flight structural flexibility. The two ground experiments, completed before the flight experiments began, studied the effect of air inlet structures on the airflow entering the engine and the effect on engine performance when supersonic shock waves rapidly change position in the engine air inlet.
The second phase of research flights entailed further study of the six flight experiments conducted during the first series. Additional instrumentation was installed by Tupolev technicians to assist in acquisition and analysis of data. A new experiment aimed at measurement of in-flight deflections of the wing and fuselage was conducted, and American-supplied transducers and sensors were installed to measure nose boom pressures, angle-of-attack and sideslip angles with greater accuracy. In addition, two NASA research pilots—Robert Rivers of NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va., and Gordon Fullerton of NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, Calif.—assessed the Tu-144LL’s handling qualities at subsonic and supersonic speeds during the first three flights in September 1998. The follow-on series concluded after four data-collection flights in the spring of 1999.
Aircraft SpecificationsThe modified Tu-144LL Flying Laboratory used for the NASA flight research program has essentially the same dimensions as the Tu-144D model, although the new engines installed for the program give it improved performance. The aircraft has a wingspan of 94 feet, 6 inches, an overall length of 215 feet, 6 inches, and a height of 42 feet 2 inches. Its nose droops up to 12 degrees for better pilot visibility on takeoff and landing, and retractable canards are extended to give the aircraft better pitch control at low airspeeds. Maximum takeoff weight of the Tu-144LL is about 410,000 pounds, including a full load of 224,000 pounds of fuel.
The newer Kuznetsov NK-321 turbofan engines, rated at more than 55,000 pounds thrust in full afterburner, give the aircraft a maximum cruising speed above Mach 2.3 (about 1,550 mph). These engines also give the Tu-144LL a greatly improved range of about 3,500 nautical miles (4,040 statute miles/6,500 km).
Before being upgraded to the “LL” configuration, the Tu-144D was powered by four Koliesov RD-36-51 turbojets which gave it a maximum cruising speed of Mach 2.15 (2.15 times the speed of sound or approximately 1,450 mph) at 59,000 feet altitude. It had a maximum range of less than 2,500 miles and an absolute ceiling of 62,000 feet. The Tu-144D was designed to carry up to 140 passengers, although earlier models used in actual passenger service were configured for only 100 seats.
The Tu-144LL is constructed mostly of a light aluminum alloy. Titanium and stainless steel were used for the leading edges, elevons, rudder and under-surface of the rear fuselage.
Technology CommercializationData collected from the flight and ground experiments during the NASA-funded Tu-144LL flight research program are being used to develop the technology base for a proposed future second-generation American-built supersonic jetliner. Although development of an advanced SST is currently on hold, commercial aviation experts estimate a market for up to 500 such aircraft could develop by the third decade of the 21st century.
Among the technological goals set for the aircraft is that it must be environmentally acceptable in the areas of noise generation and pollution control, i.e., the engine exhaust must not contribute to the depletion of the ozone layer in the stratosphere. At the same time, it must be economically viable, that is, be able to carry larger payloads for longer distances and at cheaper costs than first-generation SSTs. Among the targets are a 300 passenger capacity (three times that of first-generation SSTs), a range of 5,000 nautical miles (twice that of first-generation SSTs), and an efficiency which would allow fares to be set at no more than 20 percent above subsonic jetliner fares on the same routes.
Project ManagementThe Tu-144LL supersonic research program was conducted as part of NASA’s High Speed Research (HSR) program, managed by NASA Langley Research Center. The Tu-144LL project established direct working relationships between American and Russian aircraft manufacturers and enhanced the relationship between U.S. and Russian aeronautical agencies.
The project was enabled by an agreement signed in June 1994 by U.S. Vice President Al Gore Jr. and Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin. The Langley Research Center subsequently contracted with the Boeing Commercial Airplane Group which in turn contracted with the Russian aerospace firm for use of the modified Tu-144D jetliner to conduct the flight experiments. In addition to Boeing, the American industry team for the Tu-144LL project included engine manufacturers Pratt and Whitney and General Electric. NASA’s Dryden Flight Research Center provided instrumentation and data processing support as well as management of the actual flight test project. IBP, Ltd., London, England, assisted with contract management.
Bager1968Which is why most civilian Skymasters had the rear engine disabled… or at least not run unless the front one quit.
It was not removed due to C/G issues.
Bager1968Yes… note the larger fillet in front of the vertical fin, as well as the squared top of the taller vertical fin.
That’s an R4D-8 (C-117D).
In response to proposed changes to the airworthiness requirements that would limit the continuing use of the large numbers of DC-3s and surplus C-47s in commercial use in the United States, Douglas offered a late 1940s conversion of the DC-3, modified to improve takeoff and single-engined performance, to meet the new Civil Air Regulations, and with increased speed to compete with newer airliners.
The new model, the DC-3S or “Super DC-3”, was 39 in (0.99 m) longer, allowing thirty passengers to be carried. It also had larger tail surfaces and new outer wings with a greater sweep back at the trailing edge to accommodate a rearward shift in the center of gravity. More powerful engines, either 1,475 hp (1,100 kW) Wright R-1820 Cyclones or 2,000 hp (1,490 kW) Pratt & Whitney R-2000s incorporated into larger engine nacelles, were installed along with shorter, jet ejection-type exhaust stacks. Minor changes included wheel well doors and a partially retractable tail wheel along with flush rivets and low drag antennas, that all contributed to a top speed of 250 mph.
With greater than 75% of the original DC-3/C-47 configuration changed, the modified design was virtually a new aircraft. The first DC-3S made its maiden flight on 23 June 1949.
Although the changes fully met the new FAR 4B airworthiness requirements, and significantly improved performance, there was little interest from commercial operators in the DC-3S, which was too-expensive for the smaller operators who were its main target, with only three being sold to Capital Airlines. The U.S. Navy, however, had 100 of its R4D aircraft modified to Super DC-3 standard as the R4D-8, these later being redesignated C-117D in 1962.
Bager1968There is an old saying, which relates to A-5 vs MiG-15 vs F-15 vs F-14 vs Su-27 vs MiG-29 as well.
“similar performance requirements create similar aerodynamic solutions, because physics remains the same.”
Bager1968– China has no interest in all out war with its major trade partners, nor in collonialism. it has ignored most of its neighbours for milenia, and been invaded by pretty much everyone. at most it’ll try to keep safe its direct environement, but will prefer to do so with diplomacy or economics rather than military force.
Tibet, Vietnam… just two examples that prove you wrong here.
China considers any territory that was ever under Chinese rule a part of China to be gathered back into China… no matter how many centuries that nation has been an independent nation since the last time China had any actual control over said territory.
contrary to the US, which has NEVER been invaded by a foreign power and has probably agressively attacked more countries than anyone else, except maybe the USSR
1813, Britain invaded the US during the War of 1812.
1942, Japan invaded the US territory (now State) of Alaska.
Bager1968Shame they got the aesthetics so wrong on the Rafale 🙁
“aesthetics” don’t matter a bit with a combat aircraft, only with “all show no go” art displays.
They got the aerodynamic shaping correct, that’s the important part… and it still looks much prettier than the Eurofighter Typhoon.
Bager1968Rows of resistors, along with transistors… 1970s+ I would say. They should either have a set of colored bands (which give the resistance value) or a value printed on in numbers.
The similar-shaped components on the bottom of the tube assembly seem to have been painted over, and would be rather hard to determine component value for.
Bager1968Not at all.
A-6A = aircraft designed for Attack, 6th model of the category, first variant
E-6A = aircraft designed for Electronic warfare, 6th model of the category, first variant
EA-6A = aircraft designed for Attack (but modified for Electronic warfare), 6th model of the category, first variant of the modified version
Bager1968While I think Ignatius should get a support ship… Inouye absolutely rates a DDG, as he was awarded the Medal of Honor for his actions in Tuscany, Italy, during World War II.
Bager1968Is this France’s answer to the Gannet?
Yes… both were late 1950s turboprop carrier ASW aircraft that were also used in AEW and COD roles.
Alizé initial service delivery March 1959.
Gannet initial service delivery April 1954.
The Alizé didn’t have a separate AEW version, though… as the Iguane radar fitted in its early 1980s refit program was capable of air-search/track modes as well.
Bager1968Except that the X-47 (X stands for experimental, remember?) is NOT entering the fleet… after it completes the series of arrested landings aboard later this year, the USN intends to retire this experimental prototype.
They have decided to not even do the “automated mid-air refueling” tests they originally planned to do with the X-47B… they are going to use a manned biz-jet that is equipped with an “autonomous control system” that mimics the system aboard the X-47B.
Then the USN is going to solicit bids from industry for the actual carrier-based UCAV that will become operational aboard USN carriers.
Sign In
