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: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Eastpolar Commander
 





How about F-86 and MiG-15? them both looks similar!


Only in as much as they both have a hole in the front and a hole in the back


The F-86 has a flat bottomed ovoid fuselage, the MiG 15's is a circular barrel, the F-86 has a low wing derived from Messerschmitt design which is smooth and slatted, the MiG 15 has the Focke Wulf wing with fences. The F-86 as a fuselage mounted all-flying tail with dihedral while the MiG 15 has a fin mounted conventional tail with separate control surfaces which is flat. Two utterly different planes really.




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!


No, not at all. The F-86 was designed with a straight wing (see also FJ-1 Fury) and was underway well before anyone in the west had an inkling that the MiG 15 even existed. NA modified the design as soon as the benefits of having swept wings became apparent, NA and Boeing both using the same Messerschmitt data which is why the wings of the F-86 and B-52 are both designed to very similar principles (he was a clever bloke, that Willy Messerschmitt). The MiG was based upon TsAGI research coupled with Focke Wulf data (relying on fences to control the spanwise flow) which TsAGI circulated to all Soviet design bureaux and the Mig 15 was in competition with very similar looking designs from Yakovlev and Lavochkin for the Sov AF order.




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


Both designs were entirely new, what was taken from the Germans was the data on designing swept wings that worked properly, also Handley Page acquired the same sort of data from Arado and Heinkel, which proved most useful in designing the HP Victor bomber.




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


Because if you look at them without squinting they are not even remotely similar.




posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 


Alright, maybe the LFIwas not taken from the JSF, but is there any possibilities that it taken from the US?

cause it looks similar.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eastpolar Commander
Alright, maybe the LFIwas not taken from the JSF, but is there any possibilities that it taken from the US?


Its going to look similar because at the end of the day, there is only so much you can do with an airframe in order to suit the requirements.

Any stealth fighter aircraft is going to have a resemblance to either F-22 o F-35 because that the best way to set up the plane in terms of radar visibility, fuel, avionics, engine mounting and weapons loadout for the mission requirement.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 02:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Eastpolar Commander
 


In addition to neformores reply remember also that aircraft designers have always taken inspiration from from others are doing, in an 'if it isn't broke don't fix it' sort of way, inspiration is not the same as copying, or 'taking from'.

example, the Tu-4 was 'taken from' the Boeing B-29 (and every subsequent large Tu bomber up to the Tu-95 built on this design principle until it was no longer recognisable), but the An 72 was inspired by the Boeing YC-14 by taking its design goals and making use of them in a new design in which no copying went on at all. Does that help?



edit to add, if anyone ever asked me to describe the Su-27 in terms of a US aircraft that went before it I would say it resembled a fixed wing F-14 rather than the F-15. But I still wouldn't say it was taken from either of them.

[edit on 24-9-2007 by waynos]



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 07:40 AM
link   
As far as i know Iran purchased the design for the I-2000 and have built it as the Shafaq

content.answers.com...

according to online sources it is now ready for flight testing and is a light attack/adv trainer class of aircraft with LO properties (think armed hawk/teja class iirc)

oh and that woman in the picture is one of the lead engineers apparantly



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 09:51 PM
link   

But we don't have to worry about it. As we know the Russia was better in technology in cold war.


As you know, the soviet propaganda did its job
You do not know this. It has been said that America was anywhere from 10-15 years ahead of CCCP technologically speaking, in regards to military applications. (also in the civilian departments aswell) America preferred a smaller more technologically sophisticated force, while Soviet Russia preferred a massive, yet largely outdated force.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by West Coast


As you know, the soviet propaganda did its job
You do not know this. It has been said that America was anywhere from 10-15 years ahead of CCCP technologically speaking, in regards to military applications. (also in the civilian departments aswell) America preferred a smaller more technologically sophisticated force, while Soviet Russia preferred a massive, yet largely outdated force.




Well they did notch up quite a few firsts. Russia focused on getting the job done before the US and then improving on what they had made where as the US was a little more considerate to those who operated their gear and made sure it was suitable for service first. There is no denying however that the Russian philosophy towards technological advancement put them in the lead for some time in the space race and ICBM's etc. Their capacity, whilst not as refined was often superiour to the US.

You see the problem is a lot of Americans believe that evrything that comes out of the US is always the best and that anything else is second rate. Well in the REAL world the US produces just as much crap as the rest of us.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 04:15 AM
link   
Thx for the information Harlequin! Is the LFI is a trainer/ not a fighter? coz i read in articles that the rival of I-2000 is Sukhoi S-54 (the train aircraft)!

about the Russian advanced technology, for examples the Russian spy discovered first the technology of tapper that use the IR that reflects from a building to the outside, so they may hear the conversation inside the building while the US just found the way to bug by telephone cable.

that's the proof of Russian advanced tech. that time!



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by West Coast
As you know, the soviet propaganda did its job



That is rich coming from someone residing in the country that has produced CNN, MSNBC/CNBC and Faux News (they are pulling the wool over YOUR eyes about the manipulation of YOUR country by their rich owners).

But I'll not continue down this line any longer as some will get upset (even though its in their own best interests to start seriously looking at these 'news' stations through a much more critical eye).


Originally posted by West Coast
You do not know this. It has been said that America was anywhere from 10-15 years ahead of CCCP technologically speaking, in regards to military applications. (also in the civilian departments aswell) America preferred a smaller more technologically sophisticated force, while Soviet Russia preferred a massive, yet largely outdated force.


Different philosophies and doctrines. America needed a more complex solution because they sought much more flexibility in their machines.

The Soviets had dedicated ground support and A2A regiments and aircraft. Their approach meant more specialised solutions - and thus some of the technology (needed for the more flexible US solutions) could be dropped out.


For instance, the MiG-23 was designed for A2A, while the MiG-27 was designed for A2G. Different systems in each aircraft for the different roles.

The US would have used the F-4.


[I'm treating the A-10 and Su-25 CAS aircraft as different from regular A2G]

[edit on 25/9/07 by kilcoo316]



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by West Coast
As you know, the soviet propaganda did its job
You do not know this. It has been said that America was anywhere from 10-15 years ahead of CCCP technologically speaking, in regards to military applications. (also in the civilian departments aswell) America preferred a smaller more technologically sophisticated force, while Soviet Russia preferred a massive, yet largely outdated force.


Which of course begs the question: Where did you get that 10-15 year stat from? I'd be willing to bet that the source is American. And we all know that every word that comes out of an American politician and/or news source is infallible and should therefore be considered holy law. And then we know how the Americans had their first satellite up 10-15 years before the Russians. There's American propaganda out there as well, my friend. It's just closer to home and harder to see.

[edit on 9/25/2007 by Darkpr0]



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
That is rich coming from someone residing in the country that has produced CNN, MSNBC/CNBC and Faux News (they are pulling the wool over YOUR eyes about the manipulation of YOUR country by their rich owners).


Well, Mr.Kilcoo I do not even bother watching those networks. I am, however, guilty of watching ESPN.





Different philosophies and doctrines. America needed a more complex solution because they sought much more flexibility in their machines.

The Soviets had dedicated ground support and A2A regiments and aircraft. Their approach meant more specialised solutions - and thus some of the technology (needed for the more flexible US solutions) could be dropped out.
For instance, the MiG-23 was designed for A2A, while the MiG-27 was designed for A2G. Different systems in each aircraft for the different roles.
The US would have used the F-4.
[I'm treating the A-10 and Su-25 CAS aircraft as different from regular A2G]

OH I agree, The soviets did something the americans really didnt do till they made the F15. They made aircraft that were specialized for a certain job. This is a great idea IMO. Now this isnt to say the US didnt have good aircraft before hand, just that they didnt 'get with it' till the F15 IMO.

The Soviets always took the sheer numbers approach with there military. Bigger was always better for them. Look at there nuclear stockpile, there armored tank forces, etc. The soviets always valued the numerical advantage over the qualitative advantage the americans chose, and enjoyed.

Now, this doesnt mean the US showed the USSR up in every fashion, they most certainly did not! However, The russians were thought to be a good decade, to a decade and a half behind the United States in technological terms, just before the collapse of the USSR.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by West Coast
America preferred a smaller more technologically sophisticated force, while Soviet Russia preferred a massive, yet largely outdated force.


Actually, the Russians were realists and developed simpler, more easier to repair systems that could keep going in the rather dehabilitating weather conditions they encounter. They relied less on solid state because they realised some of its vulnerabilities.

"You Americans build aircraft like a Rolex Watch, knock it off the night table and it stops ticking. We build aircraft like a cheap alarm clock. But knock it off the table and it still wakes you up" - Alexander Tupelov talking to Kelly Johnston and Ben Rich



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eastpolar Commander
Thx for the information Harlequin! Is the LFI is a trainer/ not a fighter? coz i read in articles that the rival of I-2000 is Sukhoi S-54 (the train aircraft)!

about the Russian advanced technology, for examples the Russian spy discovered first the technology of tapper that use the IR that reflects from a building to the outside, so they may hear the conversation inside the building while the US just found the way to bug by telephone cable.

that's the proof of Russian advanced tech. that time!

Poor example when talking about technological superiority between two superpowers. But i'll bite.

The US put a man on the moon, and was the first to ever do so, in the 1960's. Which do you think is more important? Which one is more ground shaking?



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
Actually, the Russians were realists and developed simpler, more easier to repair systems that could keep going in the rather dehabilitating weather conditions they encounter. They relied less on solid state because they realised some of its vulnerabilities.


If it is not perfected.



"You Americans build aircraft like a Rolex Watch, knock it off the night table and it stops ticking. We build aircraft like a cheap alarm clock. But knock it off the table and it still wakes you up" - Alexander Tupelov talking to Kelly Johnston and Ben Rich


And there is no agenda behind his words, is there. Its not like hes biased.

Where are the examples he speaks of?



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimmyBlonde
Well they did notch up quite a few firsts. Russia focused on getting the job done before the US and then improving on what they had made. where as the US was a little more considerate to those who operated their gear and made sure it was suitable for service first


Russia did no such thing. Russia would rather go out, build a totally new system that was untested, poorly designed, etc while the americans would build a system, keep the system, and make significant upgrades to that system. So basically they kept the weapon frame, but gutted out the insides and replaced it with technology that was on par if not superior to anything the russians had. America goes with, what gets the job done, versus wasteing billions on a weapon system that they did not need. Meaning the americans are more practical then the russians.


There is no denying however that the Russian philosophy towards technological advancement put them in the lead for some time in the space race and ICBM's etc. Their capacity, whilst not as refined was often superiour to the US.


That lead was short lived after the US got its act together and decided to put a man on the moon. The US hasnt looked back ever since.


You see the problem is a lot of Americans believe that evrything that comes out of the US is always the best and that anything else is second rate. Well in the REAL world the US produces just as much crap as the rest of us.


I am a proud german living in America for the time being...



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by West Coast
Where are the examples he speaks of?


Umm...you do know who Alexander Tupelov was, right?

I think hes more qualified that either you, or myself are to make that observation.

Sometimes I just get stunned by the arrogant assumptions and statements put on here.

[edit on 25/0907/07 by neformore]



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by West Coast
Russia would rather go out, build a totally new system that was untested, poorly designed, etc while the americans would build a system, keep the system, and make significant upgrades to that system. So basically they kept the weapon frame, but gutted out the insides and replaced it with technology that was on par if not superior to anything the russians had.


Which is funny, since the Russians have been upgrading Flankers since forever, and the US now has two very recent airframes made new-to-spec. And of course, the US was completely justified in making completely new airframes since the last few pieces just weren't efficient enough at turning stuff into fine clouds of mist, and no money at all was really spent on them. 'Cause they weren't really new, they were just upgrades. And of course, the Russians haven't been making aircraft based on previous aircraft that are adept at the current primary purpose of combat aircraft (airshows), and they're always making such new and radical designs that always get those huge contracts. And the huge swath of new, radical designs that have come from Russia were slapped right into combat with whatever enemy it is they go to combat with. No testing. Just combat.


America goes with, what gets the job done, versus wasteing billions on a weapon system that they did not need. Meaning the americans are more practical then the russians.


And the B-2 costs how much you say?

[edit on 9/25/2007 by Darkpr0]

[edit on 9/25/2007 by Darkpr0]



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by West Coast
Where are the examples he speaks of?


Umm...you do know who Alexander Tupelov was, right?

I think hes more qualified that either you, or myself are to make that observation.


No, I dont think he is more qualified since he was voicing and opinion and not a actual fact ( a biased one at that), he lost alot of credibility with his analogy.
Quite frankly, it made no since and he listed no examples. That might be enough for you to make your mind up about, not me.



Sometimes I just get stunned by the arrogant assumptions and statements put on here.


Which would be what Mr.Tupelov did, made an arrogant assumption with no details backing up why he thought what he thought. Making Mr.Tupelove come off as a nationalistic, chest thumping, idiot.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkpr0
Which is funny, since the Russians have been upgrading Flankers since forever, and the US now has two very recent airframes made new-to-spec. And of course, the US was completely justified in making completely new airframes since the last few pieces just weren't efficient enough at turning stuff into fine clouds of mist, and no money at all was really spent on them. 'Cause they weren't really new, they were just upgrades. And of course, the Russians haven't been making aircraft based on previous aircraft that are adept at the current primary purpose of combat aircraft (airshows), and they're always making such new and radical designs that always get those huge contracts. And the huge swath of new, radical designs that have come from Russia were slapped right into combat with whatever enemy it is they go to combat with. No testing. Just combat.


The US defense budget is astronomical now, the military industrial complex is alive and kicking in the US, more so then what it was during the cold war years. What flew squarely over your head, was me making my observation of what I thought the difference was between the philosophies and doctrines employed by both the US and the CCCP were (during the coldwar).



And the B-2 costs how much you say?


Does it get the job done better then anything else out there?



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by West Coast


Does it get the job done better then anything else out there?


It would seem that you can actually do just as well with a civilian Boeing 737.

Maybe even better considering the B-2 has yet to successfully penetrate a hard and heavily defended target like say, New York.

lol.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join