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.

 

MiG-I-2000 aerodynamic

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 04:58 AM
link   
Here is my own analysis about the LFIs aerodynamic of the wings:

" target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

" target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>
The center thick wing section.

I think it was taken from WW2 British MK-2 Spitfire.

The airflows will go from Pt.1
through the center of the wings (Pt.2).

It is good to get the speed of the airplane.

And the rest of it (the outer wings), it is designed for manuever. not like the F-35 wings which is just made for manuever not for speed.

Different thickness of the wings is important to maintain the different characteristic of the airflows of the wings, so it could get both speed and manuever.


....



Is there any analysis of this fighter? thx before


[edit on 9/18/2007 by Eastpolar Commander]




posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 05:21 AM
link   
So you think that this design is a kind of modernisation of the elliptical wing concept... Interesting, I am no aeronautical engineer but I think that the original elliptical concept in R.J. Mitchell's designs was a compromise which enabled the provision for 4X.303 Brownings in each wing as the British Air Ministry has specified designs for an 8 gun fighter.

The Messerschmitt Bf-109 was actually on a near par with the Spitfire in terms of manouverability, despite common conception that it wasn't and the Hawker Hurricane was actually more manouverable in some respects. Neither of these aircraft shared the elliptical wing design that distinguished the Spitfire.

I think that in this case these pictures are disinformation to feed the media whilst Russian designers work furiously on their next gen aircraft.

[edit on 18-9-2007 by JimmyBlonde]



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 08:33 AM
link   
Now this layout has been
Shafaq


[edit on 18-9-2007 by emile]



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Could the Russians at least try for once to make one of our designs they ripped off at least look different.....I mean is it a coincidence it looks like the F-22????

Yes, yes before you all say it, I know the wing platfom/airfoil is different but come on talk about a blatant rip off......



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by JanZizka
Could the Russians at least try for once to make one of our designs they ripped off at least look different.....I mean is it a coincidence it looks like the F-22????

Yes, yes before you all say it, I know the wing platfom/airfoil is different but come on talk about a blatant rip off......


Of course, we all know how Russian stuff like the Su-47 is a complete rip-off of American design as well. And of course that shabby excuse for a MiG-35 which is so a copyright infringement of the F-35. And let's not forget that foolish Su-34 Fullback, complete rip-off. Mikoyan Project 1.44? Taken from the secret files of the DoD, it's obvious!

Don't make generalizations. They hurt my feelings. And when my feelings get hurt, Mr. Jingles gets angry. And when Mr. Jingles gets angry, people get proven wrong.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 11:29 PM
link   
I cannot analyze it's stealth by this pictures. How it could be stealthy?

plasma stealth? or the inner costruction of the plane, just like the SR-71 does?

....



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 01:00 AM
link   
How many times can you "crank" a wing before it just looks stupid?

I like the Russian styling of aircraft design, but I don't think I have ever seen a Russian aircraft that didn't look like it wasn't the bastard child of some American or British aircraft! Don't get me wrong, I'm as American as you can get but I DO prefer the looks of the Russian products. If I had to make a gear-up landing, I'd much rather do it in an SU-7 than an A-7. The only exception is that I think when the A-10 was hot, it looked tougher than ANYTHING else out there.

As someone already said, this aircraft looks like a rip-off of something in between an F-22 and F-35. I agree. Russia needs to quit looking to what the Americans put out first.

I was proud of them (the Russians) when they made the Mig-21. It didn't look like anything else out there (well, maybe the BAC Lightning, but I think the Mig was first). But still, it was the exception.



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 02:00 AM
link   
reply to post by CreeWolf
 


Yah, but by taking others design, the Russia could reduce the development cost.

In todays Russian economic, it is important to reduce the cost of anything include defence industries.

But we don't have to worry about it. As we know the Russia was better in technology in cold war. If their economy back, so do the rest of it!for example, now Russia develop a new MBT, the T-95 (u should see it in youtube!try to find "Russian Iron Fist"), the tehnology is incredible.

But i need help in analyze this fighter. however, it's different from F-22 or F-35.

thx guys!



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by emile
 


Thx Emile! it's a good picture. so you know where this toys came from?



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 08:33 AM
link   
In my view, this layout of Shafaq certainly from Russia.
you can see all of new aircraft flew recently just is an improvement out of F-5 Freedom, the situation is really similar to China's J-7 series, although their shape has a little change.
I believe if there is no new concept overseas, there is no such advanced layout would appeared in Iran. I've seen the layout I taken from globalsecurity web has a red star painted on wing, as I had known before this is a concept aliminated by Ruusia.



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by emile
 


yes i was thinking the same thing but didnt the russians pull out off that and now the iranians are carrying on with that them selves



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by JimmyBlonde
 


Very close Jimmy, the elliptical wing of the Spitfire (created mostly by Beverley Shenstone rather than RJ Mitchell) was actually created as the thinnest possible wing in which four guns could be accomodated. It was the thinnest wing on any ww2 fighter and was even against the direct advice of NACA, this gave it a higher diving speed than either the P-51 Mustang or Me 262, fact fans



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Would those people saying that X copies Y please shut up and realise the laws of physics in X are the same as those in Y.

Thus good solutions will tend to be similar.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by JimmyBlonde
 


Very close Jimmy, the elliptical wing of the Spitfire (created mostly by Beverley Shenstone rather than RJ Mitchell) was actually created as the thinnest possible wing in which four guns could be accomodated. It was the thinnest wing on any ww2 fighter and was even against the direct advice of NACA, this gave it a higher diving speed than either the P-51 Mustang or Me 262, fact fans


...and a stability in high speed moves that gave the pilot the confidence to try them.

Thanks waynos.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by CreeWolf
How many times can you "crank" a wing before it just looks stupid?

I like the Russian styling of aircraft design, but I don't think I have ever seen a Russian aircraft that didn't look like it wasn't the bastard child of some American or British aircraft!


Mig-25 Foxbat
Mig-29 Fulcrum
Su-25 Frogfoot
Myasishchev M-50

Are just a few that spring to mind.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by CreeWolf
How many times can you "crank" a wing before it just looks stupid?

I like the Russian styling of aircraft design, but I don't think I have ever seen a Russian aircraft that didn't look like it wasn't the bastard child of some American or British aircraft!


Mig-25 Foxbat
Mig-29 Fulcrum
Su-25 Frogfoot
Myasishchev M-50

Are just a few that spring to mind.


I know that 'look down shoot down' gave MiG-29 the edge for a while. The Rus/US aircraft race is more closely contested than many think.



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by CreeWolf
How many times can you "crank" a wing before it just looks stupid?

I like the Russian styling of aircraft design, but I don't think I have ever seen a Russian aircraft that didn't look like it wasn't the bastard child of some American or British aircraft!


Mig-25 Foxbat
Mig-29 Fulcrum
Su-25 Frogfoot
Myasishchev M-50

Are just a few that spring to mind.


and f-15 looks similiar to mig-25
concord to tu-144 and tu-144 flew before concord
b-1b wing structure is similiar in many respects tu-22

so are like f-15, concord ,b-1b ripoffs of russian fighters/bombers????

no, as darkpro0 said they use similiar physics solution to solve aerodynamic problems

[edit on 22-9-2007 by manson_322]



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 11:03 AM
link   
As Kilco stated, it just so happens that when you have the same criteria for a design as another rival nation does, more than likely you're going to have very similar looking aircraft. Physics doesn't change just because we want it to.

And LOL at Darkpr0.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 01:43 AM
link   
How about F-86 and MiG-15? them both looks similar!

i was read some article and watch in TV that both design taken from the Nazi German Me-XXX (i forgot).

but the soviet built it first! and the US need a quick answer to it, so they built F-86. but it's to close, i mean, i think that major of F-86 design was taken from MiG-15, not the Me!

how could they built a SIMILAR airframe in short times!?

I think any airforce will take advantage by studying their rivals or other fighters to get cheaper development cost and redesign it with the better result.

Shattered get IN again...



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 08:33 AM
link   
I think the mig 15 similairity with the F86 ends with the first being with swept wings and the airintake in the nose.

Other than that there is quite a major difference. The Mig15 is a small fighter capable of getting up high while the F86 is a larger fighter with technical features.

Imho the mig15 vs f86 in korea was one of the most fair fights in air combat history.

The only problem with the mig 15 was that it was pilotted by unexperienced korean pilots while the F86 pilots had WW2 experience.




top topics



 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join