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.

 

Avro Arrow/MIG 25

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   
The MIG 25 as I remember it was designed as an answer to the F15 eagle,which heavily influenced it's design more than anything else.They were both latter day dog-fighters and the major difference was the use of thermionic valves in the MIG which wouldn't be effected by an EMP (Electro Magnetic Pulse) in the event of a nuclear bomb detonation,when the transistors used in the Eagle and all other modern aircraft would be fried by it and fall out of the sky while the Foxbat carried along on its merry way.

(All this from memory from a VERY long time ago,so excuse any inaccuracies please).




posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Imagewerx
The MIG 25 as I remember it was designed as an answer to the F15 eagle,which heavily influenced it's design more than anything else.They were both latter day dog-fighters and the major difference was the use of thermionic valves in the MIG which wouldn't be effected by an EMP (Electro Magnetic Pulse) in the event of a nuclear bomb detonation,when the transistors used in the Eagle and all other modern aircraft would be fried by it and fall out of the sky while the Foxbat carried along on its merry way.

(All this from memory from a VERY long time ago,so excuse any inaccuracies please).


The other way around Im afraid, the F-15 was developed as a response to the Mig-25


At the time, it was thought that the Mig-25 was a lot more advanced than it was - when one fell into US hands, it was discovered that the Mig-25 had a large contingent of steel in its airframe, making it a lot heavier and thus lower performance.



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 06:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: orca71


The Avro Arrow and Mig-25 are completely different structurally and aerodynamically. One is designed to go Mach 3+ (engines allowing) the other isnt. This absurd comparison has to stop.

www.kaap.purpleglen.com...

3 views of both aircraft. Aerodynamic layout is completely different, not to mention the center of gravity, chassis including landing gear placement, etc... Plus the Mig had much more modern aerodynamic features such as the rear lower fins and angle cut tail and stabilizers. What they have in common is side intakes and high primary wing placement, both relatively basic and mundane features that are simple and logical choices to attain certain goals such as aerodynamic or structural efficiency or stability. What Mig might have gained from Avro isnt something they already had demonstrated superiority in like aerodynamics but in the cutting titanium parts fabrication processes. Which is why the plant was gutted.



[edit on 22-2-2006 by orca71]


Odd how some talk with apparently 0 knowledge of the actual Arrow.
You guys keep whining about the mach 2 limit completely ignoring the soon to be installed Iroqois engines that would have brought it to mach 3.

Must be so jealous of such a small country population wise contributions to just about anything that matters..



new topics
 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join