Combat Aircraft Projects & Designs - Index in 2nd post

[nightcrawler]

---

---

AntiBody reduce your posts per day; I can't cop with this speed thnx you

[ANTIBODY]

can anyone guess the name of this mini B-2 Spirit?

[ANTIBODY]

@nightcrawler
i was free today-- otherwise ive 1 post/day average for the past 2 years! -- i just wanted to put back the military aviation aspect in this forum-- there were just so many speculative threads posted here these days


i dont think i posted a4 yet

[nightcrawler]

This was the biggest achievement of the Soviets over the US SpaceShuttle [SS] programme. Relatively the Buran program [the Russian SS] was the thing without any hassle & failures.

Key differences from the NASA Space Shuttle
Soyuz, Space Shuttle, and Buran

* Buran was not an integral part of the system, but rather a payload for the Energia launcher. The orbiter had no main rocket engines, freeing space and weight for additional payload; the largest cylindrical structure is the Energia carrier-rocket, not just a fuel tank. In contrast, in the American Space Shuttle system, the three main engines on the rear of the orbiter comprise the second stage launch propulsion system, and the External Tank and twin boosters are not used to launch anything except an orbiter.[citation needed]
* The main engines were mounted on the core Energia stage and thus destroyed when it burns up in the atmosphere, unlike the U.S. Space Shuttle which has reusable main engines in the orbiter. Both designs feature reusable boosters (although reusability was not demonstrated on Energia). There were some plans for constructing a fully reusable Energia carrier, but funding cuts meant that this was never completed.[citation needed]
* The boosters used liquid propellant (kerosene/oxygen). The Space Shuttle's boosters use solid propellant.[19]
* Buran's equivalent of the shuttle's Orbital Maneuvering System used GOX/Kerosene propellant, with lower toxicity and higher performance (a specific impulse of 362 seconds)[citation needed] than the Shuttle's hydrazine OMS engines.
* Energia was designed from the start to be configured for a variety of uses, rather than just a shuttle launcher. Other payloads than Buran, with mass as high as 80 metric tons, could be lifted to space by Energia, as was the case on its first launch. The heaviest configuration (never built) would have been able to launch 200 tons into orbit. (The Shuttle-C concept was a similar proposal to the Energia system, envisaged to complement the space shuttle by adapting its boosters and external tank for use with other vehicles, but it never moved beyond the experimental mock-up stage. The NASA Ares V rocket, in development, is a similarly "shuttle-derived" idea.)[citation needed]
* The Energia launch rocket was also capable of delivering a payload to the Moon. However, this configuration was never tested. The Space Shuttle was never intended to go beyond Low Earth orbit.[citation needed]
* As Buran was designed to be capable of both manned and robotic flight, it had automated landing capability; the manned version was never operational. The Space Shuttle was later retrofitted with an automated landing capability; the equipment to make this possible was first flown on STS-121, but is intended only as a contingency, and has never been used on any flight.[20]
* The orbiters were designed to carry two jet engines for increased return capability. Although they were not installed in the first orbiter for reason of weight limits on the first Energia launcher, provisions exist in the structure for later retrofit.[21] Although early designs of the NASA Space Shuttle also incorporated jet engines, the operation version landed as an unpowered glider, relying entirely on management of descent energy for landing.
* The nose landing gear is located much farther down the fuselage rather than just under the mid-deck as with the NASA Space Shuttle.
* Buran could lift 30 metric tons into orbit in its standard configuration, comparable to the early Space Shuttle's original 27.8 metric tons[22][23]
* Buran was designed to return 20 metric tons of payload from orbit, compared to 15 metric tons for the Space Shuttle orbiter.[citation needed]
* The lift-to-drag ratio of Buran is cited as 6.5,[24] compared to a subsonic L/D of 4.5 for the Space Shuttle.[25]
* The thermal protection tiles on the Buran and U.S. Space Shuttles are laid out differently. Soviet engineers believed their design to be thermodynamically superior.[23]
* Buran was designed to be moved to the launch pad horizontally on special train tracks, and then erected at the launch site. This enabled a much faster rollout than the US Space Shuttle, which is moved vertically, and as such must be moved very slowly (less than one mile per hour, typically taking about 6 hours to move the Mobile Launch Platform supporting the Shuttle stack from the VAB to the launch pad on a Crawler-Transporter.)[citation needed]
* The booster rockets were not constructed in segments vulnerable to leakage through O-rings, which caused the destruction of Challenger. (Their liquid-fueled nature would make this design inapplicable.) However, the liquid fuel for the booster rockets (see above) would have made them less easy to prepare - and hold ready - for flight than solid rocket fuel in the Shuttle boosters and in addition represented a potential explosive hazard on the ground.[citation needed]
* The manned version was intended to have a crew of ten as opposed to seven.[23]

[Oscar]

I can assure you . that T-12 did not exist..
not even as a secret project..
its somebody's reporting gone wild..
I have a good idea of soviet and American experimental designs.. and there was never a T-12 made by the sukhoi OKB.. the biggest clue to this being a hoax comes from the date.. 1970.. the T-10..prototype for the Su-27.. first flew on 20th may 1977..even the RFP for the T-10 was issued in 71..
So this bird is a hoax.. a fanboy's dream chase..
However.. lets let it be.. as an example of a hoax and how to spot em...

[ANTIBODY]

santro , should i post many pics in 1 post or relatively less pics/ post ---

i thought it was authentic , its even mentioned on secret projects forum, but i didnt read the thread there -- i got it in translated form from spanish / russian sources -- but now ive closed those tabs

[ANTIBODY]

WW2 Aircraft - 1939

GERMAN
Arado Ar 196--Reconnaissance

Dornier Do 215 -- Light bomber/Night fighter

Flettner Fl 265 -helicopter

Focke-Wulf Fw 190 Wurger (Shrike) - fighter

[ANTIBODY]

Heinkel He 115 finest sea, torpedo bomber

Heinkel He 178 -- distinct honor of becoming the world's first aircraft to fly solely with a turbojet engin

Junkers Ju 88 - bomber

Messerschmitt Bf 110 Zerstorer (Destroyer)

[ANTIBODY]

Boeing 314 Clipper (C-98)

Bristol Beaufighter

[ANTIBODY]

CAC Wirraway-trainer
Dewoitine D.520-french

Fiat CR.42 Falcon

[ANTIBODY]

lockheed P-38 Lightning

Loire-Nieuport LN.401/LN.411 (LN.40)
Mitsubishi Ki-21 (Sally)-bomber

[ANTIBODY]

Saro A36 Lerwick -flying boat

Vultee BT-13 Valiant -- trainer


as i promised, design evolution ww2-- per year !

[ANTIBODY]

1940

Yak-1

Petlyakov Pe-2

Lavochkin LaGG-3

Lavochkin La-5

[ANTIBODY]

Arado Ar 240

Arado Ar E.530
Blohm & Voss Bv 138

focke-Wulf Fw 189 Uhu (Owl)

[ANTIBODY]

---

---

Amiot 354
Avro Manchester

Beech AT-10 Wichita

Bell XFL Airabonita
Bell XFM-1 Airacuda