Page 4 – Key Publishing

bdn12

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 73 total)

← 1 2 3 4 5 →

Author

Posts
August 28, 2008 at 5:53 pm in reply to: The MiG-25 Unsurpassed interceptor #2483329

bdn12
Participant

Note how much the Mig-25 is faster than YF-12 in closed circuit of 500km and 1000 km.

Umm, no. The Mig-25 isn’t faster than the YF-12. The YF-12 reached 2070 mph officially, and the Foxbat 1856 mph. Just get over it. There is a reason why the Blackbird family looks different and has radical, ramjet-like engines. The Foxbat is a fine aircraft, no doubt, but really just a fighter-interceptor with normal, but huge, engines that can go extremely fast in bursts. The two aircraft are in totally different classes.

August 27, 2008 at 3:37 am in reply to: The MiG-25 Unsurpassed interceptor #2484286

bdn12
Participant

Firebar, you can keep thinking in your little fantasy world that the Mig-25/31 can fly almost as long at Mach 3 as the SR-71 and do crazy maneuvers at high altitude and speed, but that just isn’t the truth. Sure, it handles better than the Blackbird, and any casual aviation observer would notice that as the Foxbat looks much more like a fighter aircraft than the Blackbird, whereas the Blackbird is very long with engines on the wings and non-conventional parts. However, the Mig-25/31 could not keep up with the SR-71 in speed and trying to make that claim is ridiculous. The official records speak for themselves-2193 mph for the Blackbird and 1856 mph for the Foxbat. Plus, the SR-71 could maintain that speed for over 2800 miles, which is what really separates it apart from any other high-speed aircraft.

August 25, 2008 at 12:35 am in reply to: Mig-25 vs. SR-71 and XB-70 vs. T-4 #2485289

bdn12
Participant

It’s amazing how the Blackbird could still be flying today and probably not be touched by any fighter aircraft. The Mig-31 and F-22 might have a shot, but it would still be hard. The SR-71 would have been in service for almost 45 years and still be the fastest thing flying and perform its intended mission.

August 10, 2008 at 10:14 pm in reply to: Best/Worst looking military jet. #2492387

bdn12
Participant

Best: The F-16 might be common, but with an endless number of paint jobs, variants, and upgrades, I would call this the Toyota Supra of fighter jets.

Worst: There’s not too much to say about this little thing…

July 31, 2008 at 5:18 pm in reply to: The Rotary Engine #1180362

bdn12
Participant

Ah. Ok. Thanks for the explanation. So it basically just uses brute force to turn the whole crankcase around. Thats probably the reason the rpms are much lower on a rotary. In a radial or any other type of engine, only the crankshaft needs to be pushed by the pistons, not the whole engine block.

July 31, 2008 at 6:26 am in reply to: The Rotary Engine #1181162

bdn12
Participant

Thanks for that graphic Mark. However, it doesn’t really show the inner workings of the engine and how it spins. I’ve been scouring the internet for a detailed graphic, but can’t find one. In that graphic, I see that the pistons push the connecting rod, which are connected to the “crankshaft”, but that doesn’t explain why it rotates around.

July 4, 2008 at 6:27 pm in reply to: Full-Frontal Pics #2476339

bdn12
Participant

June 12, 2008 at 5:45 am in reply to: Mig-25 vs. SR-71 and XB-70 vs. T-4 #2493827

bdn12
Participant

It’s called envelope expansion. Concorde didn’t hit Mach 2 on its first flight. The MiG-25 wasn’t taken to Mach 2.83 on its first flight. The F-15 didn’t hit Mach 2.5 on its first flight. And it even took the B-70 program a while to get to Mach 3.

But still, the aircraft you mentioned reached their design goals. It seems strange that a country would cancel a state of the art, first fly-by-wire aircraft so suddenly. The U.S. canceled the XB-70 program, but at least we continued flight testing with NASA and collected data. Also, many people believe this aircraft was “aircraft 101” that set a course record of M1.89, which of course isn’t M3.

June 11, 2008 at 5:18 am in reply to: Mig-25 vs. SR-71 and XB-70 vs. T-4 #2494272

bdn12
Participant

So F-22s are not stealthy till they penetrate Russian air defences?

If you want to put it that way, fine, but we have tested their stealthiness in real life (exercises) on real radars. The T-4 was never truly tested at Mach 3, bottom line, and claiming it could go mach 3 is pretty naive.

June 10, 2008 at 5:09 am in reply to: Mig-25 vs. SR-71 and XB-70 vs. T-4 #2494916

bdn12
Participant

They look quite different to me. I can easily tell them apart from almost any angle

I wasn’t talking about the T-4 looking like the Blackbird. I was talking about the picture that rpg put up that looked like the blackbird and then being proud of it. If you want to believe the first T-4 was easily capable of M3 fine, but there’s a reason we have to verify top speeds and records. Wind tunnel testing and calculations are great, but the only way to prove something is to do it. It’s like saying someone will be the greatest soccer player in the world because he’s extremely fast and has a strong leg.

June 8, 2008 at 3:45 pm in reply to: Mig-25 vs. SR-71 and XB-70 vs. T-4 #2495898

bdn12
Participant

GarryB, using wheels as a basis for copying is ridiculous. I just think its funny that there are some people like RPG who claim the Soviets could have built hundreds of T-4’s capable of Mach 3 and are proud they stole our design layout for the SR-71, trying to build a plane that looked very similar. Hey, I admit the Russians have built some very impressive aircraft (TU-160, Mig-31, etc.), but stating claims that the T-4 was a perfect design and could have easily gone into production is ridiculous. As is bragging about copying designs. Imagine if I saw my friend building an ingenious all-in-one tool (just an example), then I went, copied it, and said “Look what I built.” That’s just not right, as my friend was the one who was smart enough to build it. This is the reason we have patents in the U.S.

June 7, 2008 at 4:00 pm in reply to: Mig-25 vs. SR-71 and XB-70 vs. T-4 #2496528

bdn12
Participant

wow. I can’t believe what you are saying RPG. The Soviets could have fielded the T-4 in great numbers? Come on, it never even demonstrated its performance. Even you admit how much the Russians copy and you seem to be proud of it. The U.S. has always been and always will be ahead of USSR/Russia in aircraft design for this reason-they can’t design truly genius aircraft, a la SR-71, without the Americans making it first. I really wasn’t a big believer that the Soviets copied, but RPG, you, sounding Russian, and admitting you guys copy american designs, have switched my whole verdict.

June 2, 2008 at 12:58 am in reply to: Mig-25 vs. SR-71 and XB-70 vs. T-4 #2498935

bdn12
Participant

Ya. If the T-4 really was so great, it would have exceeded mach 1.3 and gone to mach 3. Yes, I know the Russians wanted more Mig-23’s and cancelled it, but still, the XB-70 was cancelled, yet it achieved its Mach 3 goal. I’m not convinced the T-4 was a Mach 3 aircraft.

May 30, 2008 at 5:37 am in reply to: Pure jet vs. Turboprop #533088

bdn12
Participant

Well, thanks for that response deano. I guess this stuff does start to get a little complicated when you factor in every part of the engine. A jet’s not exactly as simple as suck, squeeze, burn, and blow.

April 16, 2008 at 3:37 am in reply to: The Demise Of The TSR.2 (merged) #1211200

bdn12
Participant

How would the TSR.2 compare to the F-111? longer range? payload? speed?
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 73 total)

← 1 2 3 4 5 →