dark light

aerospacetech

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 466 through 480 (of 1,127 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Unbuilt FULCRUMs #2656125
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    You’ve got most of them there.

    9.11 Early MiG-29 configuration with smaller wing
    9.15E MiG-29ME Export version of M
    9.17V MiG-29OVT SMT with vector nozzles
    9.41 MiG-29MTK SMT based naval version
    9.47 MIG-29MTK SMT based 2 seat trainer version

    in reply to: SR-71 FLight manual online and declassified #2657340
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    The MiG-25 was mainly made from high-temperature steels (80%), titanium (8%) and high temp aluminium. It used 5kg of pure silver to line the engine bays…

    Melting point of such steels is around 1480 deg C.
    Melting point of titanium is about 1800 deg C.
    Melting point of aluminium is about 650 deg C.

    Titanium is more resistant to high temperatures than steel, but steel is a hell of a lot better than aluminium in this respect. Steel also is much easier and cheaper to produce than titanium. The A-12/SR-71 series are certainly amazing, but they are tough to build, tough to maintain, and expensive.

    A titanium MiG-25 would not have been any faster than the steel one, because the limiting factor was the engines. Rather than the advanced engine of the A-12/SR-71, it has a very simple low pressure ratio turbojet.

    A titanium MiG-25 would have been lighter, probably a bit more agile, but cost would have been very high.

    in reply to: I wonder how true this is. #2657348
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    I was only 6 when Maggie Thatcher was elected but I remember it being on the TV quite clearly. My parents were not amused…

    in reply to: Mikoyan MFI = MiG-37 ???!!??? #2658582
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    What part of “unofficial designation” did you miss, Gary?

    IF the Russian airforce had ordered the “MiG-35”, they might have called it MiG-29BM, MiG-29Bis, MiG-33, or whatever. The point is, the designation wasn’t made by Mikoyan, but by the airforce. Given that we are asking what the designation of the 1.42 would have been IN SERVICE, you cannot reasonably claim it would have been MiG-37 because -33 and -35 were taken, because these designations were never officially given out, and if the MFI project had continued then there would have been no need for the “MiG-35” design anyway.

    in reply to: Mikoyan MFI = MiG-37 ???!!??? #2658605
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    The MiG-29M as MiG-33, and the advanced MiG-29 derivative as MiG-35, are both unofficial designations by the Mikoyan OKB that postdate the fall of the USSR. The official designation of the MiG-29M is still “MiG-29M”. I guess it is possible that if the MiG-29M had entered production as the MiG-33 for export purposes, that the Russian airforce would have skipped the designation, but given their stubborn insistence on calling the “Fullback” Su-34 “Su-27IB” somehow I doubt it.

    in reply to: Mikoyan MFI = MiG-37 ???!!??? #2658862
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    I simply don’t believe this.

    The MiG-29M was called MiG-29M. The next free designation was MiG-33, and thats what the 1.42 would have been.

    in reply to: ASTOVL confusion #2658874
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    Short Snort vectored thrust from the engine over the wing to produce a fighter with runway requirements of only a few hundred feet. The concept employed ducts and ports that diverted engine exhaust out spanwise along the top of the wing. The approach generated tremendous amounts of lift at very low speeds. The ducting, however, was very heavy, and ultimately proved impossible to incorporate in a high-performance supersonic fighter.

    http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/1998/articles/apr_98/apr_98_p.html

    in reply to: ASTOVL confusion #2658945
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    Thats “Short Snort”, not “Sneaky Pete”- Sneaky Pete was a stealthy tailless delta.

    in reply to: Help ID these #2659776
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    Here’s the Boeing VFX design, it has dorsal intakes.

    in reply to: Help ID these #2659943
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    The swing wing design I am pretty sure is a General Dynamics design undertaken in the ADF program. I think the picture below is a closely related design, retaining the twin podded engines, while the design below that is clearly smaller, single engined and ancestral to the eventual F-16. I know these two are General Dynamics for sure, I’ve scanned them from an article 🙂

    in reply to: Help ID these #2660310
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    The first two are pics of the Boeing LWF contender.

    The next three are General Dynamics studies from the mid/late 60s conducted under the FX and ADF (predecessor to LWF) programs.

    in reply to: FTTU plus Firefly #2660573
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    There was a strong German section who favoured a lightweight, 25,000lb fighter in the ND102 mould. Don’t forget the Germans were after a pure air superiority aircraft at the time. The ND102 design was notable for using two non-afterburning PW1120 engines of about 13,000lb thrust each, and was supposed to reach speeds as high as Mach 2.

    in reply to: FTTU plus Firefly #2660639
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    The ACA was a UK-German-Italian program, merging MBB’s TKF90 and BAe’s work on P106, P110 and earlier projects like ECF/ECA.

    The EAP was SUPPOSED to be a demonstrator for this design, but Germany pulled out and hence the tail/rear fuselage, which was supposed to be designed by MBB, was replaced with a single Tornado tail.

    in reply to: FTTU plus Firefly #2660643
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    MBB TKF90
    Bae P110
    BAe P106
    Northrop-Dornier ND102

    in reply to: MiG-23/27 Flogger and MiG-25/31 #2660684
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    Well that was the discussion we had with Flogger on the CDF forums, I think…

Viewing 15 posts - 466 through 480 (of 1,127 total)