It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Who Dare Say Our China Be Able To Copy Only ?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Tu 70 is litle modernized Tu 4. Tu 80 just try made some better have Tu 4 "As a whole distinctions were small: the design has been facilitated, the wing slow increased, the stock of fuel is increased by 15 % against That tu-4" - just tu80, tu 4- One chicken-feed , Tu 85 - straight line wing , .... piston engine, with turbo(or turbo-charged don't know) thats all. When the work was ended start work at Tu 95 on based of tu 16, tu 88, tu 82, and the expireans of 1947 - 1948 when was work to the midle and super havy aircraft with speed close to sonic .Tu 95 absolutly diferent aircraft don't have evolution disign process from tu 4 -band.Tu 85 don't be in servise it uses only last prototyp from 2 , there go out in 1958

[edit on 25-2-2005 by Fenix F 308]




posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 04:48 PM
link   
I think I see where you're coming from, and it is largely the same as what I was saying except you state there is no link between the Tu4/80/85 line and the Tu-95 which was all new based on Tu-88 (which WAS the Tu-16) experience. Have I got that right?

If that is true then I suggest (and I do remain open to be convinced otherwise) that the Tu-95 and Tu-85 fuselages are the same with the only alterations being the positioning of the all-new, Tu-88 experience based, swept wing (and tail) for cg reasons. If that is true then, to me that links the development line of the -95 directly to the earlier type, which is what I said. I also fully understand that the Tu-85 never entered service but remained a prototype. Remember I have said before that the Tu-95 was not converted from a Tu-85, only that it was related to it, ie same fuselage.

If however I have misunderstood your post then I apologise and ask you to try and explain it to me again.

[edit on 25-2-2005 by waynos]



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 05:01 AM
link   
^^^ ???!!! @%#$%@#$%#$??!!!



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 01:59 AM
link   
I say that Tu 95 don't have the Evolution of disign Tu 4 , Tu 80 , Tu 85 . It mean that he can used technikals think of other aircraft , And I say thet Tu 95 absolutly unicqye disign . That don't have the identy think of the disign other before him aircraft, it Tu 80 Tu 85 (I am tolk about disign thiks) .
I don't have a time now , so i tolk about other from same time (sorry) .
If you dont mind sad me how much detail have aircraft, i mean Wing , whiles , sistem control, and other, and I say that how much diferent had Tu 95 from Tu 85 and Tu 80 with the history how thes details was maded..



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Before this thread continues, can we just all agree that Comparing the F/A-22 Raptor to the J10 is a bit ignorant?

I mean, the Raptor is in a different class all together, comparing it to the J10 would be absurd. The Raptor has highly advanced avionics, and its RADAR is advanced as well, probably the best.

It is difficult to compare the Raptor to an aircrat in this era because there are almost none like it. Possibly the Su-47 and Su-37.

And yes, the photo with the J10's downing Air Force 1 and that F/A-18c? is a bit anti-american, and I doubt any of us want to see that type of attitude.

Plus, I doubt the J10 would reach that far into American soil to even be able to squeeze off a few shots at AF1, the likelyhood of J10s breaking the defense network?

Shattered OUT...



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 09:25 PM
link   
I agree, the J-10 downing Airforce 1 pic is in bad taste.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 09:26 PM
link   
PLus that F/A-18 no matter the model wouyld have shot it down.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 07:08 AM
link   
You don't know that.

The J-10 has not be tested against the Hornet.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 07:27 AM
link   
1. F-22 raptot should not be compared to J-10 FINALLY somebody backs me up on that!!!


2. AF one pic shouldn't be considered as offensive ..
Its not even worth a mention..


3. J-10 is unkown in terms of combat capability...so comparing it to any jet will be purely speculation



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Tu 95 started from tu 82


I am sure that I am right.

About work under the Tu 95 , this work stareted with Miasyschev M 4, .. and like the Tupolev the (Before this work Myasischev had (they give) the factory N23 and all that he need ) M 4 was to much good Aircraft and there Both go in to seria (M-4, Tu-95) , that was the small risc in mind of (Stalin ). Tupolev to much good say Stalin that his aircraft was maded and and wasn't have trouble, so no risks don't be truoble .. The made the two Aircraft in one time ..
Myasischev build about hundred Aircraft, after that they was diferent to aircraft tank. ....




[edit on 2-3-2005 by Fenix F 308]

[edit on 2-3-2005 by Fenix F 308]



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 12:05 PM
link   
But compare these two side views, I still think the fuselage is virtually the same, thus linking the two types,





posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 04:35 PM
link   
I had no idea about the Tu-95 being developed from the jet aircraft shown. You think you know everything!



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by MOCKBA 1181
I had no idea about the Tu-95 being developed from the jet aircraft shown. You think you know everything!

Let me put it this way, they know more than you
.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 04:22 PM
link   
The J-10 looks cool, but thats about it

www.fas.org...



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 08:37 PM
link   
You still use FAS? Check the updated date on the bottom, it states the year 2000, big things have been changed since then so go to another web site like sinodefence or Chinese military aviation.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 11:14 AM
link   
And, I dont be argue with you.
And in this think I will say that : Tu 95 have Mechanical system of controul, Tu 95 use The symply hidraulic booster ,but it is very low hidraulic booster he have the Multiplied on - 2 to3. It have new wing , of course it was surfase seeng , absolutly diferent construction - it use 2 hard element on that named cesson. It of cours have different aerodynamik.
It have diferent Tyres they was in diferent go on to fuselage,
And it has absolutly diferent aerodinamic (of course )
In that think ,choys does it simply was the stolen fuselage of Tu-85. or it was disign on Tu-85 -Tu 4.

(my computer brake again , And becours I am so long , ..)


[edit on 6-3-2005 by Fenix F 308]



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 12:22 PM
link   
I think we have common ground at last


I was only establishing a link, and there it is. Of course the Tu-95 was a new bomber in all other respects.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Ok thank you.
I think that we get some result's .
I sad somthink if I will have .
..

[edit on 6-3-2005 by Fenix F 308]



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 02:28 AM
link   
Chinese H-6 bombers flying in formation






posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 04:28 AM
link   
an impresive sight in itself but my, what a lot of easy targets for any half decent fighter!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join