Firebar,

Whilst I have great respect for Millar and Goodall and their research.. I’ll take the POH as more definitive guidance …

The point about the 80,000lbs fuel load is that if we assume that the SR carried a minimum fuel load for the records, say 40,000lbs to be safe, then the % overall weight difference between a 1t payload and a 2t payload are in the region of low single digit %..thus unlikely to create a huge speed differential…Perhaps that makes more sense of what I meant..

What really intrigues me however is that NONE of the E-266 or E-266M records break the 3000km barrier..which makes an interesting counterpoint with the 3000km claims.

I also note that in the literature that the designer of the MiG-25 expressed the reduction in stability of the MiG 25 above M2.85.. again an interesting counterpoint to the claims of a ‘reliable’ 3000km/h. The literature also makes not mention of the speed being ‘armed’ as opposed to ‘clean’.

The lack of a 3000km/h speed in the records also tends to debunk the claim that without bombs or missiles it was faster…

Or were they ‘sand bagging?’

I asked where the ‘reliable’ bit of the M3.2 dashes came from…not the fact that they were tracked. However their relative scarcity tend to indicate they are the exception that proves the rule… Yes the MiG 25R could fly that quickly, but it was perhaps not a routine speed..whether for stability, damage or long term fatigue reasons is irrelevant…

Also I wonder for how long, in time and distance; this speed was maintained…as crossing Israel is hardly a long distance task, either N-S or E-W… The profile of the mission would reveal much about the aircraft.

As for inflexbility..who gives a damn? The SR was designed to perform the strategic recon role…it did that perfectly well…no demand for tactical recon role, so no capability…so where’s the issue?

The MiG-25 was an interceptor, it required extensive modification in order to carry out the recon role, creating the Mig 25R, one cannot do the other’s role. So not so multi-role afterall…

If it cannot intercept aircraft pretty much anywhere it was not exactly going to be very useful, or fulfilling its designed task.

The bombing role is interesting, not a role widely linked with the Foxbat…not certain how good it was as a bomber, if it was ever used in this role.

The anti radar role was a post introduction adaptation, not a designed- in flexibility…its like the F-14 being used as a recon platform, perfectly capable but an add-on role.

And great numbers? How does that reflect the quality of the aircraft…? It has more to do with the number needed to carry out the role for which it was designed….the USAF determined it needed 33 SRs..not 350..so why build more…?

As for the F-15….hmm..I think that the economics of the requirement also had a profound effect. This is not to say that there were not technical reasons for redefining the specification, but with experience of the SR and XB-70 within the public or shall we say commercial domain it is unlikely that they were ‘show stoppers’…except when it came to the finances…

I think this is going round in circles….you firmly believe the Foxbat is in some way ‘better’ than the SR, yet they cannot be directly compared…the SR is far more focused.. both on its role and on its long term effectiveness; the MiG 25 stretched the avaliable technology and design paradigm; refinded them in the most effective way possible in order to create the fastest possible aircraft…its a different approach and one which worked exceptionally well for the Soviets and which the US could not have replicated…or for that matter were the Soviets capable of creating the SR…
The conceptual, philosophical and technological differences make any comparison tenuous at best.

David,

Sorry if I gave the impression that I found the F-15 ‘expendable’…I do not, however when the decision was made to locate the F-15 where is currently resides I questionned it..and the response I obtained was that it could be replaced if and when it did deteriorate.

As its inclusion or not was crucial to the re-organisation; its ultimate location was a decision made by the IWM.

As for the IWM North I think you would need to look at the overall funding for the redevelopment of the Salford Keys. This set the need for an architectural competition which was to deliver a distinctive building. It was not solely an IWM demand.

I think the aim to convey ‘conflict’ as a theme which has no obvious artefact base is a brave one and it could be that it was a misinterpretation of the ‘average’ visitor. Its long term success will show.

XH…

The AAM was designed by a team comprising of Foster and Partners as lead designers, with Arup as Structural Engineers, Roger Prestons as Mechanical and Electrical Engineers and DLE as Cost Consutlants.

The form and dimensions of the AAM were governed by the need to house the B-52. It defined the height of the building, the clear span required and the overall footprint.

In order to build the resultant form its geometry needed to be established and mapped out. The torus was the geometry that came closest to the ‘ideal’ form. A torus is a doughnut and the AAM is a slice from it. However the torus is the means to the end, not the other way round.

The Chris you mention was one of the engineering team responsible for the AAM and he was also part of the team for the Millenium Bridge. But not Cosford.

As for design types ‘walking off with millions with something they drew on the back of a fag packet’ may I suggest you re read my posts. You can build a pretty basic warehouse for relatively low cost… but by the time you match the performance of the ‘fag packet designs’ the cost is broadly similar…

So choices have to be made….and currently the results of those choices are coming out of the ground and proving to be controversial for a number of specialist observers…..Visitor numbers will however govern their success.

A very strange omission in the record chasing… and no obvious answer to that one..

I’m still unsure where you are getting the data that the MiG-25 was reliable to M3.2?

If the Vne of the MiG 25 was 2.85 as quoted in the literature….this is the relaible maximum speed… that it can be exceeded without damaging the airframe is irrelevant… there was a reason for the 2.85 limit…and that may range from the Soviet testing regime establishing that 2.85 is the max that the ‘typical’ pilot can deal with or the long life issue I don’t know…all that is known is that whilst MiG 25s have been tracked at M3+…did those airframes then ‘use up’ their fatigue life far faster? Were they piloted by the best pilots? Even amongst the MiG 25 pilots…

My feeling is that the margins were set ‘low’ to ensure the enitre fleet sould meet that but knowing that more able pilots could and would exceed that speed ‘when necessary’…

As to the records….

For the 1000km with 2000kg there is an official answer, and that the Sr cannot officially carry 2000kg…so end of conversation….

However in reality I think it would make no differnce at all.. Remember that 80,000lbs fuel load. If we imagine that by the time the SR reaches its full cruise speed there are 60,000lbs remaining, the additional payload would not significantly affect the speed. So my guess is that the Sr would still be faster.. but just a guess.

The same guess would also see the SR at 3000/3100kmh speed range, again still faster….as the E-266 was a 2900plus.. but still below the 3000kmh threshold..

The YF-12 certainly on paper has a lower performance.. anecdotally however the differnces are less than the record books tend to suggest. But its not relevant.

I would argue that the real challenge that the SR addresses far better than the MiG 25 is the percentage of its flight time spent above M3+. The challenge is a thermal one…the length of time that the SR was planned to spend abovve M3+ is orders of magnitude greater than the MiG 25…lack on in-flight refuelling being a primary issue….Heat management was one of the massively difficult issues it needed to resolve.. multiple heat cycles during a single mission and higher overall temps being the systemic challenges…

The other issue is the precision of both the flight control system and the inherent stability of the airframe. Remember the Blackbird was originally designed, with the A-12, to carry an optical camera system.

The parameters of that camera dictated the overall aircraft stability and precision required….The MiG 25’s mission in that regard was less onerous…

So on balance I think the MiG 25 represented the ultimate in ‘conventional aircraft design….whilst the SR was in a different, more difficult/ less difficult is therfore irrelevant.

As to which I would prefer…I’d prefer the best tools to do each job, that means the best recon platform and the best interceptor fighter platform avaliable…so the SR/ F-15 mix was the one the US selected…they realised that the planned F-108 and YF-12 were just not effective or needed.

Firebar,

No, I do not belive that the FCS could not match the precision needed…

I think they did not feel it was worth doing. Hence they did not attempt it.

As for the E-76/ Mig 21 and the MiG-25/ E-266 issue.

The Mig 21PF was relabelled the (Y)E-76 in order to obtain a number of female pilot records. It would appear that it was essentially a ‘stock’ MiG-21 PF….
Note the MiG-21 aircraft seem to have had ‘factory’ numbers in the Ye-4/ Ye-5/Ye-6 and Ye-7 series of numbers depending on the exact evolution, so a E-76 is clearly a MiG -21 type airframe.

The MiG 25 has the factory designation in the Ye-155 series, with the suffix of the 25 matching the 155 suffix.

The initial Ye-266 label was applied to three of the MiG-25 prototypes in order to gain records in the 1966 to 73 period. These are prototype aircraft, not production.
The Ye-133 designation was applied to the two seat training versions, and again that label was used when obtaining further female pilot records.

Now we get to the interesting bit. The Ye-155M was developed as an improved version of the MiG -25. It was planned to be in two stages, an initial phase of increasing engine preformance to generate a genuine increase in height, climb and range figures. The next stage involved strucutral changes to replace any and all temperature sensitive aluminium elements to permit genuine M3+ performance as a ‘reliable and repeatable’ limit.

In fact refering to Belyakov’s book the MiG-25’s Vne of M2.83 ‘was in fact somewhat theoretical; the lateral stability margin and structural lifetime were supposed to diminish beyond that figure, but a number of pilots have (more or less intentionally) exceeded M3 without causing damage to the aircraft or sending it to the overhaul shop to check for structural yielding’ (Belyakov and Marmain. 1994).

The Ye-155M was the successful conclusion of the first stage, providing ‘encouraging improvements’ over the performance of the Mig-25, both P and R versions…..

The seocnd stage was not implemented physically, remaining a design exercise. Also excessive engine development time seems to have put an end to the implementation of the upgraded engine deployment.

The Ye-155M was lablled the (Y)E-266M in order to capture the records in 1975 and 1977…

So from the ‘horse’s mouth’ we have confirmation that the E-266M was an upgraded version of the MiG-25, offering better performance over the standard production item. That this version was intended to be productionised is not in doubt….but the actual record breaking aircraft was a developmental/ experimental/ prototype aircraft.

Now other sources may provide an alternative assessment.

As I said before the E-266M is not the MiG-25….although it bears great resemblance it is not..there were ‘significant’ structural differences required to accommodate the new engines….
So my analogy with the Streak Eagle is valid…they looked the same, but under the skin they were not what they appeared to be….

So where does that leave the final analogy?

The SR which took the records was a production (yes they didn’t build many, but its still a production item) aircraft…not a developmental version.
I’ll leave those who flew it into a ‘combat zone’ and got fired at to answer your assertion it was merely ‘military’.

I would also wonder if you class a 400 km/h difference as slight…
(1000km closed course/ no payload/1000kg for the SR and 1000km/2000kg for the 25.)

Granted the MiG 25 had more roles… but the SR was designed as a single mission type aicraft, never intended to do more or less…

As to numbers…should we discount the records set by the An 225 on the basis of numbers built? I’m pretty certain the Ye-266M was not built in more than a few say 3-5 examples…

I’m not sure where it leaves us, but its sure been interesting redoing the reserach to participate in this thread…

Jonathan,

The heating/cooling issue is quite complex. It involves the overall temperature differences over the year and the daily temperature variation. Prior to the installation of the dehumdification plant and cooling loops both cycles were creating problems both in the airframes and in the building. The RH within the airframes was moving quite rapidly on the daily cycle as well as varying with the yearly cycle, this cumulative effect caused problems when it reached levels likely to cause condensation within the airframes…in both winter and summer.

The aim was to try to level out that variability, by reducing the total RH of the environment, which is pretty tough with the number of visitors, by reducing the delta T of the daily cycle ( and hence RH variation) and by a slight reduction of the overall temp, regardless of season.

From what I have been advised the amount of recorded and observed RH within the airframes has been reduced by these measures; along with consequent condensation; in that respect it would appear to have achieved the aims stated. That it does not create the best conditions imagineable for conservation of the airframes is clear, but other facilities within the AAM, like the cafe and the large number of visitors make this aim unrealistic.

In order to preserve the aircraft in the best possible conditions they would need to be in individual chilled black boxes with only limited number of visitors per year and then only on certain climatically acceptable days….As were some of the exhibits at Silver Hill….

The balance between show and save is a very difficult one to find.

As for corporate events….damage to airframes and so forth…its a philosophical dilemma. The amount raised by such events in both cash terms and long term goodwill are very very hard to discount. They do contribute to the viability of the entire operation. That they are potentially damaging is not in doubt…nor is the ammount of money they bring in which is added to the budget of the museum as a whole, allowing the offer to be improved and attract a greater number of visitors. So another compromise needs to be sought…..

From the point of view of the smaller museums the greatest problem that these large flagship projects pose is that they raise the standard very high, making their own efforts at fund raising more difficult, both locally, nationally and within the specialist sector. They simply cannot compete, either in the breadth, depth or quality of their offer.. and so monies are shorter and there are not obvious way so fchanging that. The Lottery Fund is extremely demanding in the standard and quality of submissions and Newark’s success is all the more outstnading for it; many others have not managed it. However the downside is that hilst there is a feel good factor about it the end result is an unremarkable hanger which offers little mileage for the donors….its appeal is limited.

Contrast that to the AAM, a design recognised globally as being at Duxford…and one that continues to bring in monies and visitors.

The balance is being found. The creation the IWM North was the second phase of that, the Cold War at Cosford is the third phase… (I’m ignoring the Milestones at Hendon and AirSpace because they are too bland to count), the next stage will be the creation of a building to house a BA Concorde…this will be the the demonstration of the power of the attraction…as its the general public who drive that display….

The support infrastrucutre for this will them hopefully allow most modest sums to be spent on restoration and storage hangers as the value of the artefacts will be explicit…and spending money to order to bring them to the best standard will be inevitable.

JonathanF,

I understand your points and let me explain further….

There is a cooling system within the AAM…it was put in in Phase 2 when the shop, Founders Room and Cafe were installed. Its aim is to reduce the temp. differences over the year for the aircraft…not necessarily to create optimum conditions for visitors…
The heating system was installed in Phase 3 with the re-organisation…

And the glass is coated to reduce both solar gain and UV penetration…..

None of these are obvious… as they shouldn’t be.

The flagship projects are a problem. The politics of museum funding has resulted in a shift to a populist philosophy, were every collection has to accessible to the general public and the money spent has to be seen to be spent.

A detailled, academic and historically essential preservation effort along the lines of the one carried out on the Arado/ Hurriance/ Serian by the NASM is basically invisible to the general public and therefore offers little ‘value for money’ in a populist view. Afterall a relativley quick and dirty cosmetic restoration would deliver the same visual appearance to the vast majority of visitors. Not the same to the enthusiast or historian etc.. but they are not in fashion’ at the moment.

In order to move from what was previously a specialist sector to a more general sector the museums were forced, by commercial pressures imposed by funding changes, to appeal to a wider audience..and part of that involves creating a publicity image. This is based on the overall ‘offer’ of a day out.. not just the aircraft.

In many ways this has put aircraft preservation on hold for a while, but has resulted in an increase of physical infrastructure never seem before. Once this wave of building is over then the funding may switch back to prodicing fanastic restorations which can populate properly concieved display buildings.

To be honest the point you make about encouraging the next generation of enthusiasts in aircraft and restoration is the most important one. If we do not attract them now then regardless of whether the aircraft is in a hanger/ wart/ flagship makes no differnce the museums will close.. or return to the dakr days of the mid 80s were even on a Saturday there were less than 100 visitors to RAFM Hendon per day…

In order to ge them in, get them interested the offer has to be viable alternative to Pc based gaming and so forth.

On the preservation front the IWM approach has been that ‘its better to display, show and share’ their exhibits… even if it means restoring them at some point in the future. Viz their choice to keep the F-15 outside and not inside the AAM…afterall there are plenty of F-15s around.. another will be fonud if needed.

Note that other than the SR all the aircraft are wearing ‘non-operational’ colours..both the F-111 and A-10 were repainted prior to delivery…so they are authentic services marking but not necessarily those they wore on opreations…

The B-29/ B-24/ B-25, Huey, Phantom, P-47 and U-2 are in non-original colours. The same with the B-17.

The SR does have its retirement colours…and they would appear to be the ones that it wore on operations…

So UV degradation of the colours is an issue that the IWM has taken a view on and acted accordingly.

On that subject having the cafe and letting people touch the aircraft are, in preservation terms, far more damaging than the UV or temp issues.

Similarly the interiors are subject to natural degradation… howver the risk due to having so many visitors is far greater than the UV. In order
tp keep them intact conditions of somewhere like 12 degrees C, 45 RH and pretty much total darkness are required for long term life. This does not tally well with mass visitor numbers.
That is not to say that visitors cannot be permitted but only in limited numbers. Both Wroughton and Udvar Hazy have these types of storage conditions in special units and visitors are permitted at times…

David,

The new Newark hanger was indeed very inexpensive…and as simple rain protection it is exactly what the museum needed. Bear in mind that getting aircraft under cover long term takes care of 85-90 of the preservation needs…

Spaces like this are essential in creating the basis for long term viable collections. They do permit aircraft to be ‘saved’ form certain scrapping and whilst displayed in less than optimum conditions this is a huge step. They are needed. However for larger, ‘national collections’ it is no longer accpetable for this type of unit to be ‘dressed up’ and pass itself off as a cutting edge, national museum which also needs to appeal to a global audience.

If you look closely at the Udvar Hazy Centre, the NMUSAF at Wright Pat, or the SAC Museum in Omaha; the buildings appear to be hangers, but on a scale never seem over here…they are display buildings first and foremost.
Their costs are similar to the AAM….the aesethics and display philosophy are different but the budgets are comparable….

As for cutting holes and suspending aircraft…it is great to see them form different angles and view points and prevents a photocollection of ‘similar shots’, regardless of the aircraft…but I know there are objections to modifying the airframe to permit this..

The Land Warfare Hall at Duxford is a different kettle of fish entirely. Here the decision was made to create a ‘total black box’ with no relationship wiht the outside. It was therefore possible to create whatever ‘diorama’ the curators wanted… be it of the WW1 trenches; of Normandy; of Northern Germany in the 1970s….with the lighting, sound etc effects as needed. As there is precious little need to make reference to the airfield this was completely reasonable.

I think the proof of what appeal to whom and why is to look at the NASM prior to the opeing of the Udvar Hazy Centre.
The Museum on the Mall is the worlds’ most popular museum…4 million per year….

Silver Hill, less than 10 miles away was a specialist, limited number otur based operation…based in hangers, tatty an dark and musty… but to the aviation geek a paradise, far more interesting an valuable than the Mall…

But its the Mall that permits the restorations to happen… the populairty of the collection was instrumental in creating UH…it was the populist visitor…the man off the street… not the specialist.

Alan,

I know what you mean and its a very different experience for them than for a specailist visitor.

But its view we must remember at all times, because it is the view that pays for them….not the enthusiast….we do nto pay for waht we see..we benfit from others paying for it..

And its not just the first time visitor who is wowed by the AAM…repeat visitors also get a kick out of it…

Rlangham,

A quick view of what the Science Museum would like to happen can be found under ‘Creative Planet’ on their website..

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/wroughton/futureplans.asp

The AirSpace/ Cold War building programmes are possibly the culmination of this phase….

The Creative Planet is possibly the first of the next phase…or a potential general direction…if you do not like it then the best way of doing something about it is to participate to a greater extent to the income generation of the museums themselves….

dh,

Whilst you may feel as an aircraft enthusiast that the AAM is does not display the aircraft correctly and so forth; the bottom line is the bottom line…

Its called the Golden Rule… he who has the gold sets the rules.

The museum wanted a building that faced the active in the only site large enough to build on within Duxford….that imposes certain constraints;
they also wanted to house a number of airframes that was agreed before the first line was drawn… the museum was designed to provide the most efficient envelope for that, and yes it was based on the outline of the B-52….as well as the other aircraft arranged around it…
Many hours were spent with the museum staff working out the best way to display the aircraft at all, let alone the arrangement and relationships within the form of the building, which evolved and responded to the needs of the display.
To state they have been ‘stuffed’ in is to do a disservice to the work of the curatorial staff at Duxford.

As the first stages of the design were done without the IWM having the funding to build it ;the design was an essential part of the fundraising…and the people who gave the money wanted something with sufficient presence and dignity to match the aspirations of a memorial…Getting the major donors on board meant a fund raising campaign that needed a strong visual attraction….

Without the design there is a great chance it would not have happened at all. Perhaps that would have been a preferable outcome…

The old hangers a Hendon are part of the museum display itself.. they are original Belfast trussed hangers built in the early 20th century…they are as much part of the display as the aircraft…in the same way the Belfast hangers at Duxford are used as display areas.. they are part of the history; they are part of Duxford’s past and to walk in the same hangers a Bader and others is part of the entire story…

They are not merely vessels in which to hold the collection, they are part of it.

Perhaps the Bomber Hall or the BoB buildings are the example we should be looking to….

It would be interesting to know which hangers (which are not historic in their own right) you think display aircraft well…say MoF in East Fortune…say Newark…where? Bournemouth? Cosford? Weston super Mare? Wroughton?

Or are they just sheds in which things are ‘stuffed?’

As for the price… if we imagine a ‘large detached’ house has say 150m2 of floor area. Profit on sales would be approx 25%.

So we have a cost of £150,000 for a 150m2 house…..which works out neatly at £1000/m2.

The AAM covers an area of approx 5,000m2 internally, with another couple thousand sq m of external works, like the entrance ramp…

If you allow £1000/m2 for the inside area you get to £5M, plus the external works…bear in mind this is for a finished functioning building…

I have no idea where you live, but where I live an average house is somewhat more expensive than the prices you have quoted. The going rate for construction would be more like £1500/m2…

Put into that light the museum really didn’t cost much….as the budget, the area were set by the museum, not by the architect…

And by way of reference we build sheds as well… if you take the base cost…and add the necessary bits and pieces that are inherent in the AAM, such as a dehumidification plant, finishes , display lighting etc etc the price comes in at something like £900/m2…( £450 for the basic shed, £300 for services, £200 for display lighting, finishes, equipment)

Add sufficient insulation and climate control and you are increasing the cost again…

If you add the sustainability of solar panels on the roof.. PVs in the case of Cosford, you are adding capital cost at a rate of £800/m2 to the construction…
The pay-back period of PVs is in the region of 50 years, assuming no damage, and perfect maintenance, including cleaning of the PVs every three or so months…

And all of this to get a hanger? Which not matter how you cut it will not generate any additional publicity or PR value for the funding institution?

So whilst there are many reasons why one may not like the AAM its cost, its efficiency and its fitness for purpose are difficult to attack.

None of this however should detract from the basic issue at hand. In order to survive and provide aircraft enthusiasts with aircraft to see and photograph museums are now being run on a more income based footing. The income generated by the specialist visitor is insufficient to keep them viable, so other avenues are needed. In order to attract this other priorities are being introduced and addressed. The mean a broader approach, with more themes and interactive displays, it means a bit of theatre, of wow to get people coming back again and again, it means food, and it means a shop and so on.

It means density of stimulation…its being compared to Disney Land, to Lego Land…all of which are directly contradictory to the widely spaced needs to photography ..

It all comes down to the Golden Rule, he who has the gold sets the rules. And aircraft enthusiasts may have the gold, but they are not spending enough of it in the museums…

I have sat in the café at the AAM and listened to conversations… an broadly they fall into two basic categories… the ‘anorak’ who is complaining that the aircraft are too crowded and they can’t get a good shot of the SR…’it’s the only one in Europe, don’t you know; you would expect the (the IWM) to display it better’ or some such comment, little realising that its because the IWM has the AAM that the NMUSAF have loaned the SR to Duxford….otherwise they would not have it at all..

The other conversation is from wives, kids, veterans who have soaking in the entire AAM, enjoying seeing the aircraft, the view, the sunshine.. whose reaction is..’this is nice, I can sit her and enjoy being here, I can see outside, I can see the aircraft and I can enjoy it knowing that the kids/ husband/ whatever, is able to wander around the planes, or better yet the B-17 pilot, having walked around the B-17 and seen Sally B taking off beyond the glass; enjoying a coffee and remembering his crew…commenting…’it’s a shame they are not here to share this, they would have loved it…’

The Tom was a maintenance hog….avionics was one area that could be addressed.

However what could not be addressed without major redesign, was the basic aircraft systems, fuel and hydraulics etc which were not as well ‘maintenance designed’ as even the legacy Hornet, let alone the Super.

The entire airframe of the Super is designed with easy and rapid access to all major systems…. and once on those systems are designed to be modular and its a more slot- out; slot -in replacement of systems, rather than in-situ repair.

This reduces the ‘basic’ or mechnaical down time by a factor of two or more, added to which is an inherent better (read newer) reliablity…So huge man hours savings are possible in just getting to the defective areas, let alone fixing the gripe.

All of this means the Maintenance demand per flight hour is massively reduced….

This has huge financial side effects…..which when budgets are finally signed off by bean counters and not war fighters means the overall priorities get mixed up..

The Tomcat 21 ‘would’ have been the optimum solution.. .a sort of super F-15E equivalent…..with the inherent ACM advantages of the Tomcat….

But money and political history are stronger than NAVAIR…..