It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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



page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 09:48 PM
i found a picture of what looked like a XB-70 but was actually the Sukhoi T-4

Sukhoi T-4 "Sotka"

The T-4 experimental supersonic aircraft, also known as the "Su-100" or "Project 100", first flew in August of 1972. The test pilot was Vladimir Ilyushin, son of the famed aircraft designer, S.V. Ilyushin.

The T-4 is similar to the North American XB-70, which first flew in September, 1964.

The T-4 was made largely from titanium and stainless steel. It featured fly-by-wire control systems but also employed a mechanical system as a backup. The aircraft's nose lowered to provide visibility during takeoff and landing. A periscope was used for forward viewing when the nose was retracted. Braking parachutes were used in addition to conventional wheel brakes.

The T-4 is believed to have reached at least Mach 1.3 using four Kolesov RD36-41 engines. These engines each produced 16,000kg (35,274 lb) thrust with afterburners. The aircraft was designed to achieve speeds of up to Mach 3.0, but the program was cancelled before the full performance of the aircraft could be determined.

The museum's aircraft was designated "101" ("100S" was a static test aircraft). It has flown only ten times for a total of less than eleven hours. At least two additional prototypes ("102" and "103") were under construction, but only the single aircraft shown above was completed and flown before the project was cancelled in 1974 or 1975. The other two prototypes were scrapped.

external image


[edit on 2-12-2005 by chinawhite]

posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 11:08 PM
Here is another picture of one in-flight, which I had bookmarked:


Another image for comparison:

XB-70 "Valkyrie Bomber" Pictures...


posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 12:25 AM
The T-4 is a lot smaller.

here is how they enter the cockpit


posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 03:10 AM
Sure reminds me of the Valkyre...

But the part of the plane being able to go 3+ mach... I have really hard to believe... Sure the plane looks good... but it can't take the friction... the Sr-71 is much smoother, and even it is pushed to the limits when going 3+ mach. It actually becomes 5 cm longer because of the expansion caused by the hot temperature... I'am pretty sure that the mach 3 thing is faulty...

Might be that I'am wrong tough...

posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 04:32 AM
If you think that looks like the Valkyrie you want to track down the Tu-135, that is virtually an EXACT clone.

posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 05:02 AM

Originally posted by waynos
If you think that looks like the Valkyrie you want to track down the Tu-135, that is virtually an EXACT clone.

Thanks Waynos... they look exactly like eachother...
But wich of these planes were built first... that way we could know wich country came up with the "Valkyre design" if I can call it that...

posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 05:07 AM
Actually its engine configuration is quite different.

The Tu-135 started in 1958

posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 05:17 AM

Originally posted by chinawhite
Actually its engine configuration is quite different.

Not where I'm looking from, like I said, XB-70 clone.

edit: Oops, wrong picture

[edit on 3-12-2005 by waynos]

posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 05:23 AM
waynos. From pictures i have just googled it has four engines not six

posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 05:31 AM

Originally posted by chinawhite
waynos. From pictures i have just googled it has four engines not six

So, because it only has four engines (which you can see from my pictures anyway) are you saying the airframe does not look like the XB-70?

Sorry, I'm not buying that

Besides, how many engines has the Sukhoi T-4 got, which you started this topic with?

Not having a go at you but that does seem a very tenuous argument there.

edit - is this a language confusion? does your earlier post mean engine configuration or engine number?

It has fewer engines, but its configuration is identical.

[edit on 3-12-2005 by waynos]

posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 06:22 AM
No offence waynos but i said.

Actually its engine configuration is quite different.

I didn't make no mention of it having a very similar shape. looks like the tu-125 to.

I meant it as the number of engines. Not where they are placed


I started i thread becauses i found the russian counterpart to the XB-70. I just used ski becauses it sounded ruski.

Like the R-77 is called the AMRAAMski


OK here is what i meant

can you see where the engines are place. more like the tu-160 with the central fin and two engines each side

I was responding to this picture

[edit on 3-12-2005 by chinawhite]

posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 06:36 AM
No worries, I took configuration to mean the placing of the engines on the airframe - its most commonly understood meaning over here, thats the only problem with international boards

Clearly the Tu-135, like all planes, went through various design stages. From the picture above the engine configuration (there I go again :@@
looks similar to the Tu-144, as does the fin, but in the version I was talking about well, you can see it is almost exactly the same as the XB-70 in every respect.

posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 09:11 AM
Everything about XB-70 here:

Everything about T-4 here:

And on monday I will post flight video of T-4!!!

BTW1: Maybe T-4 looks like Valkyrie, but it is much advanced. It was made from big titanium structures [that were used by USA only on A-12/SR-71], had unique EDSU flight control system [something like adaptabile FBW] and many other progressive technologies. And Suchoj T-4MS or izdelije 200 with flatened fuselage, which was made in 1972, looks also in present days very modern.

BTW2: Sukhoi T-4 was made as proposal for SRUK program [Svjerzvukovoj razvjedno-udarnyj kompleks - supersonic reconnaissance and attack weapon system] together with Tupolev Tu-135, Myasischev M-56 and Yakovlev Yak-33.

posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 09:26 AM
The Sukhoi T-4 Sotka being a bomber was a 'Dangerous Concorde' and having the retractible nose like one. It was supposed to reach the speed of Mach 3 but never made it. Did its design lead to the Backfire or Blackjack bombers?

posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 12:22 AM
Actually, the T-4 was the competitor of the Backfire. It's possibly the only reason I loath Andrei Tupolev. He convinced the government to back his project, which he claimed was a slightly modified Tu-22 Blinder, hence the Backfire being designated Tu-22M. If fact it was a new design from the ground up and was nowhere near as capable as the T-4. Tupolev just didn't want his old pupil Sukhoi getting into HIS bomber business.

As for it looking like the XB-70, only three part give it that appearence. The canards, intake, and nose gear. The rest looks more like the Tu-144 than the XB-70. Drooping nose, full length tube body, single fin, heavy duty landing gear. Not things you find on the XB-70.

posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 02:14 PM
Where is that video matej promised us for monday
Not that I'm getting unpatient(something like this deserves waiting for)
but I really want to see it

And on the topic
It didn't rech M3 because they seased the test program befor the main stage was began.
And I think that all documentation was sent to tupolev who (not suprisingly) junked it and desined the Tu-160 from his own plans (Tu-135 and the other competitors to the T-4 he envisioned) which is ofcourse a beatifull plane but not as capable as the T-4-200 could have been

T-4 not to be confused with T-4-200 the flying wing type.
The were answers to two different requests from the Government

[edit on 5-12-2005 by vorazechul]

posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 02:43 PM

Hitler Jugend observing war tropheys from the enemy luftwaffe
Among them are the B-29 who bombed the former allies and BX-70 a failed attempt to breach our strahljeger mauer .

I don't know why but those boy scouts really remind me of the hitler jugend

But there is another funny story I wanted to share with you

Apperantly befor the final design for the T-4 was chosen there was a consensus to be reached first:
The pilots didn't want to sit in a windowless cockpit which they would have to do in a supersonic flight (notice the flight configuration of T-4)
And the engineers meant that there was nothing to be seen anyway flying with M3, 10 000 meters above the ground.
Then a suggestion occured, to put video screens in the cockpit where the pilots could enjoy a movie.
And the testpilots asked what movie that could be.
And the engineers: Well what ever you want, even a porno.
So every body lough and that was the end of the disput

No other komments from me

[edit on 5-12-2005 by vorazechul]

posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 03:30 PM
These planes remind me too Thunderbirds the tv show.

posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 04:04 PM

These planes remind me too Thunderbirds the tv show.

Ah, you are thinking of the Fireflash I take it?


Tupolev didn't design the Tu-160, it was a Myasischev design called the M-18 which Tupolev merely refined and put into production.

posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 02:53 AM
I didnt have time yesterday, but here it is:

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in