PDA

View Full Version : Russian B-29?



LittleDevil2243
07-21-2004, 03:19 PM
Just a little history report that I though I would share. Did you know that 3 B-29s landed in Russia due to lack of fuel. At the time Russia needed a superior bomber. So Stalin asked Toupolve (sry for the spelling on his name) to copy the B-29s airframe and so he did. The copy was named the Tu-4 and absolutely everything was that was in the B-29 was the same in the Tu-4 even down to the "Boeing" insignia on the rudder pedals. Surpriseingly the U.S. had no idea of this and was shocked to see a look-a-like B-29 named the Tu-4 at the Paris Airshow.

I was watching Discovery Wings when I saw this and I found it very interesting and thought you guys might want to hear it! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

LittleDevil2243
07-21-2004, 03:19 PM
Just a little history report that I though I would share. Did you know that 3 B-29s landed in Russia due to lack of fuel. At the time Russia needed a superior bomber. So Stalin asked Toupolve (sry for the spelling on his name) to copy the B-29s airframe and so he did. The copy was named the Tu-4 and absolutely everything was that was in the B-29 was the same in the Tu-4 even down to the "Boeing" insignia on the rudder pedals. Surpriseingly the U.S. had no idea of this and was shocked to see a look-a-like B-29 named the Tu-4 at the Paris Airshow.

I was watching Discovery Wings when I saw this and I found it very interesting and thought you guys might want to hear it! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Dire_Wolf_1
07-21-2004, 03:32 PM
I heard that a B29 was having a few malfunctions and the crew had to land it in a field. The Russians sent the crew back to the United States, but kept the bomber and never said why. A few months later the TU4 a copy of the B29 was shown.

WOLFMondo
07-21-2004, 03:32 PM
I think I saw the same program a while ago. Stalin so desperatly wanted a big long range bomber and its the only way he was gonna get one then. The way the crew were treated and escaped was also quite an interesting story.

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)
Home of WGNDedicated

(GreyFox5)
07-21-2004, 03:55 PM
Here is some info on that. Thanks to Google http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RAFAQ/Tu-4.html

Enjoy, http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Fox

ASH at S-MART
07-21-2004, 03:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skull_Fox5:
Here is some info on that. Thanks to Google http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RAFAQ/Tu-4.html

Enjoy, http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Fox<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Have you seen the Russian space shuttle? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

Platypus_1.JaVA
07-21-2004, 04:20 PM
Yes, A well known fact http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

This showed the world the sheer Enginering Genius that Tupolev was. He had translate manuals, buy or manufacture American tools (inches), take the aircraft apart and convert all the measurements to meet Russian standards. The B-29's structure was made of alloys that was unknown to them at that time.

And of course, they had to keep an eye on the weight. Of course you could use thicker or inferior alloys for the construction but, they would end up with a heavy aircraft wich could take less payload.

I think Tupolev deserves respect for his engineering skills to pull this off.

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge,
ye shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be measured
to you again.

Placed 3rd, with team, in the official european championship Il-2/FB

(GreyFox5)
07-21-2004, 04:22 PM
The Chinese had a version as well but this was long after WWII http://www.moninoaviation.com/39a.html

georgeo76
07-21-2004, 06:52 PM
The Ru version of the B-29 was obsolete by the time it reached production.

I know that Ru gets a lot of flack for copying other country‚'s technology; there are two things you must consider.

1. Ru has better spies. You've got to have good intelligence to replicate technology and it seems that most of the good intelligence was running west to east. (There are some disadvantages to an open society) I submit that the west would have gladly copied Ru technology given the opportunity.

2. In regards to the Space Shuttle and the Ru SST, it's not surprising that independent engineers would come to similar solutions when faced w/ the same problem.

Magister__Ludi
07-21-2004, 08:36 PM
Russian space shuttle is only superficially similar with the American one (especially aerodynamically). Russian space shuttle doesn't have its own engines, it is just a huge space glider riding a powerful rocket.

In fact, the only period when Soviets copied a lot of Western technology (especially German), was in late '40s. Later Soviet military planes become increasingly different from their American or European counterparts (and most of the time better http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif).

The only domain where Soviets waited for an aerodynamic solution from the west and inspired heavily from it was for airliners (cargo planes however, where again very dissimilar to their Western counterparts).

[This message was edited by Magister__Ludi on Wed July 21 2004 at 07:45 PM.]

WTE_Galway
07-21-2004, 10:50 PM
interestingly at the same time in history the Russians beat America into space and were the first to develop practical intercontinental ballistic missiles

I suspect this incident was more a case of opportunism on the part of the Russians .. we got one so lets copy it .. rather than evidence of the inferiority of Russian engineering skills compared to the US as some people here have claimed in the past.

Korolov
07-21-2004, 11:26 PM
I think the only reason why the west gets the idea that russian tech is inferior to western, is that they use pencils and we use $100 zero-g ballpoint pens.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/klv_sigp38shark1a.jpg

wayno7777
07-21-2004, 11:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Platypus_1.JaVA:
Yes, A well known fact http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

This showed the world the sheer Enginering Genius that Tupolev was.I think Tupolev deserves respect for his engineering skills to pull this off.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I think it was his reverse engineering skills that were genius. The History Channel show I saw went into detail about the whole episode. From the spies to the aircraft themselves.


One of the B-29's was the Gen. H.A.P. Arnold. IIRC the crews were housed almost 8 months.

http://img74.photobucket.com/albums/v224/wayno77/FB%20shots/Aircraft/heinkel_219.jpg
Any landing you can walk away from is a good one!

M.R.Maiornikov
07-22-2004, 02:31 AM
There was a history channel's programm about it.
And the only thing stopped tupolev to do his own version is because of stalin's order to duplicate exactly the plane(it was faster and cheaper than to do a new one from scratch)

As for american pilots,they were treated very well according to a interview from one of the pilot. As for escape there were none.The crew went to tachkent and then to Iraq (or iran) to a british station and sent to america (this was done not to provoce japan)
------------------------------------------------------------
http://server6.uploadit.org/files/MRMaiornikov-sovietAF.jpg

The RED GUARD (777th Gv.I.A.P)-"For The Glory Of Our Motherland"
Lt.M.R.Maiornikov

Z4K
07-22-2004, 03:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
... Russian space shuttle doesn't have its own engines, it is just a huge space glider riding a powerful rocket...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really?

What are these then?

http://www.photodump.com/direct/Z4k/Buran12.jpg

http://www.photodump.com/direct/Z4k/Buran13.jpg

http://www.photodump.com/direct/Z4k/Buran15_mainEngine.jpg

http://www.photodump.com/direct/Z4k/Buran22.jpg

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Let's play Global Thermonuclear War

DaBallz
07-22-2004, 03:39 AM
Magister_Ludi has a tendency to shoot his
mouth off with no evidence or basis in fact.

You beat me to it, The Buran was indeed powered.
But it did not reach orbit under it's own power.

I have to give Magister, Huck, Isegrim, or
whomever he is credit for my avitar.
after reading nonsense posts from those spin doctors
for the past few years I chose "Baghdad Bob"
to represent my general feelings about posts
on this message board, especially from them.

Quote from Baghdad Bob...
""There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!""

Quote from Magihuckisegriludi
"... Russian space shuttle doesn't have its own engines, it is just a huge space glider riding a powerful rocket..."

Just a lot of powerful Bovine Excrement.

Da...

Zayets
07-22-2004, 04:01 AM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Zayets out

http://server5.uploadit.org/files/Zayets-sigIAR.jpg

Baron_Kiptofen
07-22-2004, 05:33 AM
Or perhaps in Magister's original language, or in the terminology of Space Propulsion, he's being accurate? Ever stop to think there's a difference in both construction and NAMES between propulsion systems designed to work under different conditions or by different methods? That there is a difference between "Engine" "Rocket Engine" and "Control Thruster"...?

Yes it's a pedantic point. Just as pedantic as your original was in fact. Care to think more carefully before shooting your mouth off in your determination to proclaim Anti-American/Pro What-Ever Magihuckisegriludi bovine excrement related programme activities, DaBallz?

For those of you less concerned with enforcing your own sense of Patriotic Correctness, and more concerned with what the actual builders of Buran state, you can read about the official Buran homepage here:

http://www.buran.ru/htm/molniya.htm

Note that, amongst actually rather fair comparisons to the US program (read "The Note" under Main Differences), the makers state that whilst the test bed did indeed have strap-on Turbojets, all the "main engines" were removed for the Orbital model and placed onto the Energia launcher instead.

Z4K
07-22-2004, 05:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> from http://www.buran.ru/htm/molniya.htm

- the absence ot the main rocket engine on the orbital aeroplane. The main engine was placed onto a central block of a carrier-rocket ENERGIA which is able to launch into an orbit 120 tonns of payload against 30 tonns for Space Shuttle;<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, Baron_Kiptofen I think - from reading the site you mentioned - that they're saying that the main launch engines are on the Energia rocket which occupies the position of the main fuel tank on the Space Shuttle.

It's not saying there are no engines on the orbiter itself, just that the "middle bit" has engines on it - and in this case they are the "main" engines.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Let's play Global Thermonuclear War

TheEngine88
07-22-2004, 06:00 AM
During the cold war the Russian vs Western engineering philosophy were totally different. The Soviets had a quantity-over-quality philosophy. Which is not to say they didn't produce some quality aircraft, tanks, and other military hardware, but many of their production methods seemed crude when compared to western methods, such as the lack of flush rivets on early Mig-25s. They have certainly seem to have caught up in the post-Soviet era, as far as quality of engineering goes, and produce some outstanding aircraft.

"Pain Fades, Glory lasts forever, Chicks dig scars."

Future-
07-22-2004, 06:19 AM
Regarding the main topic: with the announcement of PF being able to fully "merge" with FB/AEP, we will sure be able to create scenarios that will feature B-29s with red stars "pretending" to be Tu-4 Bull.

Picture this: 2 wings of La-7 escorting a formation of Tu-4. They go up against intercepting Ta-152 while trying to reach their bomb target.

S!
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

- Future

Commanding Officer of the 530th Bomb Squad
380th Bomb Group 5th AF USAAF

http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p1083.jpg

Visit us at http://www.310thvfs.com , home of the 310th FS and the 380th BG

ednavar
07-22-2004, 06:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
I think the only reason why the west gets the idea that russian tech is inferior to western, is that they use pencils and we use $100 zero-g ballpoint pens.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/klv_sigp38shark1a.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/s/spacepen.htm

Baron_Kiptofen
07-22-2004, 08:30 AM
"Actually, Baron_Kiptofen I think - from reading the site you mentioned - that they're saying that the main launch engines are on the Energia rocket which occupies the position of the main fuel tank on the Space Shuttle."

Time to get really technical: The US Space shuttle has 5 main Rocket Engines. 2 on the outlying booster Rockets, and 3 mounted on the rear of the Shuttle. In Aerospace terms the part which is to be placed into space is called the Orbiter. In this case, that is the Shuttle itself. Thus there are 3 Rocket Engines on the Orbiter.

Look at the back of the Shuttle, and you will see something like 3 larger apertures, and 2 small ones. The 3 large ones are the Main Engines, and the 2 small (upper left, upper right) are what Nasa calls the OMS, or Orbital Manoeuvring System.

This link from the NASA homepage details the relevant parts of the US Shuttles flight:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>At launch, the three Space Shuttle main engines - fed liquid hydrogen fuel and liquid oxygen oxidizer from the external tank - are ignited first. When it has been verified that the engines are operating at the proper thrust level, a signal is sent to ignite the SRB (Solid Rocket Boosters). At the proper thrust-to-weight ratio, initiators (small explosives) at eight hold-down bolts on the SRB are fired to release the Space Shuttle for liftoff. All this takes only a few seconds.....

The boosters briefly continue to ascend, while small motors fire to carry them away from the Space Shuttle. The boosters then turn and descend, and at a predetermined altitude, parachutes are deployed to decelerate them for a safe splashdown in the ocean. Splashdown occurs approximately 141 nautical miles (162 statute miles) from the launch site. The boosters are recovered and reused.

Meanwhile, the orbiter and external tank continue to ascend, using the thrust of the three Space Shuttle main engines. Approximately 8 minutes after launch and just short of orbital velocity, the three Space Shuttle engines are shut down (main engine cutoff), and the external tank is jettisoned on command from the orbiter. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/shutref/sts/profile.html

In other words, for the second part of it's flight, the Shuttle is powered entirely by the engines mounted on it's rear, fed from fuel taken from the central tank (which has no engines of it's own).

There are no such engines on the Soviet shuttle. This is the meaning of the quote you found on the designers web page. The Soviet designers prefered to place all engines onto the main rocket: and so the Soviet Shuttle piggy-backs the Energia rocket all the way to orbit. It is a complete passive passenger in the journey. The little "engines" you see on the back of Buran are Orbital Maneuvering Systems only.

In theory you can leave a US Shuttle in orbit, send a new fuel tank up to it, and then send it wizzing out into space from there, because it still has rocket engines attached... the Soviet Shuttle cannot do this. The advantage of the Soviet system is that the Energia can be used to launch other payloads than a Shuttle: Indeed it's still the worlds premier heavy lifter, with a 100 Tonne payload capacity. Which is fortunate, because the Soviets quickly found they couldn't afford a true Shuttle program, but have since found that they could perform all of their required space activity with older and cheaper systems regardless.

Magister__Ludi
07-22-2004, 09:30 AM
12<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Z4K:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> _from http://www.buran.ru/htm/molniya.htm _

- the absence ot the main rocket engine on the orbital aeroplane. The main engine was placed onto a central block of a carrier-rocket ENERGIA which is able to launch into an orbit 120 tonns of payload against 30 tonns for Space Shuttle;<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, _Baron_Kiptofen_ I think - from reading the site you mentioned - that they're saying that the main launch engines are on the Energia rocket which occupies the position of the main fuel tank on the Space Shuttle.

It's not saying there are no engines on the orbiter itself, just that the "middle bit" has engines on it - and in this case they are the "main" engines.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Let's play Global Thermonuclear War<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



From an atmospheric vehicle point ot view Buran is a glider. The engines you see at the back of Buran are fired for the first time at 160 km altitude, when Buran is already on a temporary orbit (way outside of atmosphere). They are used to push Buran from the temporary orbit to its definitive orbit at 250 km altitude.

American space shuttle fires its main engines (SSME) from launch to orbit. There is nothing equivalent to SSME on the Russian shuttle. The only engines Buran has are for changing the orbits, correcting or maneuvering on the current orbit, or initiating reentry.

Although American space shuttle and Buran have similar dimensions, Buran is almost 20 tonnes lighter (105t compared to 123t) and carries 5 tonnes more payload (30t compared to 25t). This is precisely because of the main engines of the American shuttle (and lack of them on Buran). SSME weights 14 tonnes.

[This message was edited by Magister__Ludi on Thu July 22 2004 at 09:13 AM.]

Magister__Ludi
07-22-2004, 09:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Baron_Kiptofen:
Or perhaps in Magister's original language, or in the terminology of Space Propulsion, he's being accurate? Ever stop to think there's a difference in both construction and NAMES between propulsion systems designed to work under different conditions or by different methods? That there is a difference between "Engine" "Rocket Engine" and "Control Thruster"...?

Yes it's a pedantic point. Just as pedantic as your original was in fact. Care to think more carefully before shooting your mouth off in your determination to proclaim Anti-American/Pro What-Ever Magihuckisegriludi bovine excrement related programme activities, DaBallz?

For those of you less concerned with enforcing your own sense of Patriotic Correctness, and more concerned with what the actual builders of Buran state, you can read about the official Buran homepage here:

http://www.buran.ru/htm/molniya.htm

Note that, amongst actually rather fair comparisons to the US program (read "The Note" under Main Differences), the makers state that whilst the test bed did indeed have strap-on Turbojets, all the "main engines" were removed for the Orbital model and placed onto the Energia launcher instead.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Thanks Baron_Kiptofen. Such answers we've come to expect from DaBallz. He cannot make an argument without offering novel scatological insights. I don't like calling the mods, but in this case proper forum hygiene requires it.

crazyivan1970
07-22-2004, 10:27 AM
I think someone needs to learn how to conduct proper conversation, ganging up on people just because they have a different opinion and especially in such unpleasent manner is a big no-no in my book. Be sure to check my new smiley http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/band.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

DaBallz
07-22-2004, 04:11 PM
""Russian space shuttle is only superficially similar with the American one (especially aerodynamically). Russian space shuttle doesn't have its own engines, it is just a huge space glider riding a powerful rocket.""



Just the facts. No engines=NO engines.
The US Space shuttle is also a atmospheric glider.
after main engine shut down it uses the engines
in the same manner as the Buran.

Yes, the US orbiter uses the main engines for takeoff
and, in theory could use them any time.
But after the external tank is jettisoned
the main engines are meerly dead weight.

I am proud of my scatalogical insights.
Since i am careful to check the facts
my scatt is somewhat less oderifious than yours.
I do shoot from the hip on ocassion, but I
let people know when I do.


As to the original post, the TU-4 is a wonderful
achievment. It took the then backward Russian
aircraft manufacturing industry and forced
it to catch up with the US in less than three
years. I believe this is what Stalin wanted
more than a B-29 copy. He knew the B-29
represented a massive step forward in technology.
By copying it and demanding no shortcuts.
He forced the design bureaus to build and
understand the very latest in airframe and
electronic designs.
Also he got a good long range bomber that gave
him parity with the US for the next 10 years.

The TU-4 was meerly a copy, no doubt.
The TU-4 allowed the Soviets to catch up
on 10+ years of aircraft design quickly.

Da...

[This message was edited by DaBallz on Thu July 22 2004 at 03:30 PM.]

p1ngu666
07-22-2004, 07:33 PM
that soviet bear bomber can trace its history to the tu-4 ive read, but russians improved b29 in a few steps.

btw the space shuttle isnt that good a design, in terms of what it could have been.

too many compromises, a clever design, but like the space pen thing http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Z4K
07-22-2004, 07:41 PM
I had tried reading further into that site, but my Russian isn't that good (ie. I can't read Russian at all).

The impression I had from this { http://www.buran.ru/htm/rocket.htm } page was that the Buran Orbiter was analogous to the third stage of a standard multi-stage launch vehicle.

Thanks for the education. While I've got a couple of Buran experts here, I've always wondered - how many times did it fly? I know about the atmospheric jet-powered flights, but is my impression there was only the one orbital flight correct?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Let's play Global Thermonuclear War

WTE_Galway
07-22-2004, 08:51 PM
Some care needs to be taken when making value judgements about technology without understanding why it is the way it is.

A case in point is the embarressment of american offials commenting on the inferior backward "non electronic" nature of captured Russian fighters during the late cold war .. even the radios used valves .. not a semiconducter in sight.

It later turned out they were built that way to survive EMP .. if a nuclear war had eventuated in the late 60's only the Russians would have had flyable aircraft.

M.R.Maiornikov
07-22-2004, 09:11 PM
People let's stop arguing..yes the Buran looks like space shuttle but that don't really mean that the russians copied it from americans.Look at submarines they are all looking alike but inside it's a complete opposite thing.So please stop posting judgments about technologies ( to do it you have to atleast be an expert)

As for some post here that Buran don't have an engine.Do you really believe that?

------------------------------------------------------------
http://server6.uploadit.org/files/MRMaiornikov-sovietAF.jpg

The RED GUARD (777th Gv.I.A.P)-"For The Glory Of Our Motherland"
Lt.M.R.Maiornikov

Magister__Ludi
07-22-2004, 10:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaBallz:
""Russian space shuttle is only superficially similar with the American one (especially aerodynamically). Russian space shuttle doesn't have its own engines, it is just a huge space glider riding a powerful rocket.""

Just the facts. No engines=NO engines.
The US Space shuttle is also a atmospheric glider.
after main engine shut down it uses the engines
in the same manner as the Buran.

Yes, the US orbiter uses the main engines for takeoff
and, in theory could use them any time.
But after the external tank is jettisoned
the main engines are meerly dead weight.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


When I was talking about Buran as being a glider, obviously I meant that I doesn't have engines that work in the atmosphere. In space DaBallz, there is no gliding, so the engine that Buran has for orbital maneuvering do not count.

Also for you information, any orbital vehicle, that has a longer lifetime (like an orbital manned vehicle) HAS to be equipped with orbital maneuvering engines, otherwise in a number of orbits it would fall to the Earth. Saying that an manned orbital vehicle has maneuvering engines is like saying that a car has wheels, there is zero need to mention it.

Since you need special help to understand a simple phrase I will reformulate it for you:
"Russian space shuttle doesn't have its own engines that work in atmosphere (like the SSME on American space shuttle), it is just a huge glider riding a powerful rocket."


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaBallz:
I am proud of my scatalogical insights.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd say better keep them for your intimates. Thank you.

[This message was edited by Magister__Ludi on Thu July 22 2004 at 10:08 PM.]

WUAF_Badsight
07-22-2004, 10:49 PM
Ivans smiley Rawks

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

jenikovtaw
07-22-2004, 11:02 PM
Buran doesnt ride a huge rocket during this very same GLIDING you speak of, neither does the shuttle.

Also, im not clear on this one, these orbital thrusters, are they not rockets?

Rockets work everywhere, not just in space, their effectiveness is negligible in the atmosphere but they still exert the same amount of force as in space.

http://www.theartofwarfare.net/ftp/graphics/sigs/EXT-jenikovtaw.jpg

Magister__Ludi
07-22-2004, 11:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jenikovtaw:
Buran doesnt ride a huge rocket during this very same GLIDING you speak of, neither does the shuttle.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't get your point here.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Also, im not clear on this one, these orbital thrusters, are they not rockets?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, they are.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Rockets work everywhere, not just in space, their effectiveness is negligible in the atmosphere but they still exert the same amount of force as in space.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Buran's own engines are fired only after it already exited the atmosphere.

HellToupee
07-22-2004, 11:39 PM
rockets work in space, rocket fuel is hydrogen + oxgen, one other advantage of the buran is that it used liquid fuel, not the solid rocket boosters on the US shuttle, solid fuel being less predictable.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

DaBallz
07-23-2004, 05:35 AM
[/QUOTE]

When I was talking about Buran as being a glider, obviously I meant that I doesn't have engines that work in the atmosphere. In space DaBallz, there is no gliding, so the engine that Buran has for orbital maneuvering do not count.[/QUOTE]


[/QUOTE]
"Buran's own engines are fired only after it already exited the atmosphere."
[/QUOTE]
But you finally noticed it has engines...


Magister, it is NOT obvious, you got caught spouting AGAIN!
Face it dude, when posting spin and nonsense all the time
you are going to get bagged.
You have painted yourself into a corner this time.

Just the facts, No engines=No engines.....
Your BUSTED!

Have a nice day. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

Da...

PS: The $100 pen is an example of how we won the cold war.
We could and did out spend the Soviets.

tfu_iain1
07-23-2004, 05:39 AM
YES BURAN HAS ENGINES! manoeuvering ones. no main engines.

shuttle has manoeuvering engines AND its main ones. This means it must glide down with them. it means it must also carry them into orbit. Buran loses main engines with Energia. It does not carry them into orbit. it also does not glide down with them. this means it can have a bigger payload, either direction. either way it makes less sense than single use vehicles, as shuttle-type aircraft require such extensive maintenance to keep them operational that its cheaper to launch rockets for stores and crew separately. the envisaged use of shuttle and buran, performing maintainance on satellites and retrieving them, has not transpired as far as i know, with the exception of hubble, and even then repair was done in space. I am however interested in this MAKS system they detail on the website, which looks like it would actually be quite useful and cost-effective.

DaBallz
07-23-2004, 11:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tfu_iain1:
YES BURAN HAS ENGINES! manoeuvering ones. no main engines.

shuttle has manoeuvering engines AND its main ones. This means it must glide down with them. it means it must also carry them into orbit. Buran loses main engines with Energia. It does not carry them into orbit. it also does not glide down with them. this means it can have a bigger payload, either direction. either way it makes less sense than single use vehicles, as shuttle-type aircraft require such extensive maintenance to keep them operational that its cheaper to launch rockets for stores and crew separately. the envisaged use of shuttle and buran, performing maintainance on satellites and retrieving them, has not transpired as far as i know, with the exception of hubble, and even then repair was done in space. I am however interested in this MAKS system they detail on the website, which looks like it would actually be quite useful and cost-effective.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yup, it did have engines.


Da...

tfu_iain1
07-23-2004, 01:14 PM
well yes, but the original point was that the buran was quite different to the space shuttle. and it is- the main engines are the really heavy ones, which is why not having to carry them into orbit is significant.

all manned orbital vessels must have manouvering rockets regardless, or they cant do anything. the implication that was obvious to just about everyone but you was that, of course it has manouvering engines.

"Russian space shuttle doesn't have its own engines, it is just a huge space glider riding a powerful rocket."

he did not mention manoeuvering thrusters because of course it has them, it must do. It would therefore be illogical to read that statement as saying it has no thrusters, when reading it as meaning 'It has no engines for getting into space like the space shuttle does' makes so much more sense.

So i guess magister's only failing was not making his statement explicit enough as to negate disputation by the stubborn and pedantic among us.

Baron_Kiptofen
07-23-2004, 02:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I had tried reading further into that site, but my Russian isn't that good (ie. I can't read Russian at all).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You shouldn't have too... most of the pages from my link are in English. You may have got to the Russian pages by mistake, or delved into the pure technical stuff which is (as far as I know) entirely in Russian.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The impression I had from this { http://www.buran.ru/htm/rocket.htm } page was that the Buran Orbiter was analogous to the third stage of a standard multi-stage launch vehicle.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahh you are refering to the pictures: You have to be careful with just counting the pictures (and the impressive exhaust gasses from the Orbiter). Those are, to repeat, the OMS systems. The Buran was just like any other soviet payload, like Soyuz or even the parts of Mir... It sits on a big rocket, which throws it into roughly where it needs to be, and then it uses OMS to adjust into the exact orbit. CrazyIvan can translate for you if you have any specific questions on that page.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Thanks for the education. While I've got a couple of Buran experts here, I've always wondered - how many times did it fly? I know about the atmospheric jet-powered flights, but is my impression there was only the one orbital flight correct?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Under full automation, yes. Plans were afoot for a manned test shortly after, and a second Shuttle "Ptitchka", (which means "Birdie", "Buran" means "Snowstorm") was close to operational testing, when the program was scrapped. They were sold to Kazhakstan with the collaps of the Soviet Union, as part payment for continued use of the Baikonaur launch complex. I can't recall off hand what Kazhakstan did with them though...


And Daballz, do you or do you not know what Magi means by engines? And do you know whether there is a difference in his original language between the two systems which he is trying to translate into English?

Baron_Kiptofen
07-23-2004, 02:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>People let's stop arguing..yes the Buran looks like space shuttle but that don't really mean that the russians copied it from americans.Look at submarines they are all looking alike but inside it's a complete opposite thing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's actually explained on Buran's own page... But if you want to know the correct term for what occurs, it is called in biology "Convergent Evolution". For any given niche, there is an optimum design. Submarines also match whales and dolphins and fish, because that is the optimum design for aquatic movement. And for resuable near earth craft, the optimum design at that time was...

M.R.Maiornikov
07-23-2004, 02:33 PM
so you post a reply just to educate me on a term..lol

------------------------------------------------------------
http://server6.uploadit.org/files/MRMaiornikov-sovietAF.jpg

The RED GUARD (777th Gv.I.A.P)-"For The Glory Of Our Motherland"
Lt.M.R.Maiornikov

Baron_Kiptofen
07-23-2004, 02:41 PM
... and also hopefully explain to those determined to claim assert some sort of "truth" about this, and indeed any issue, that physics and design don't care about human egos. It works, or it doesn't. And the laws of physics aren't negotiable. The Soviets could have made a lovely Red Star shaped Orbiter... and it would have been a disaster.

NegativeGee
07-23-2004, 02:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Baron_Kiptofen:

It's actually explained on Buran's own page... But if you want to know the correct term for what occurs, it is called in biology "Convergent Evolution". For any given niche, there is an optimum design.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, thats a good analogy http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Okay Buran buffs, does anyone know anything about the development of the type? in particular did the designers explore the concept of a winged space vehicle with test vehicles like the NASA lifting bodies? (ie. M2F1, M2F2, HL-10, X-24 and the like).

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - G√ľnther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

M.R.Maiornikov
07-23-2004, 03:42 PM
I not quite sure what you mean negativegee,but if you talking about russian testings of different aircraft,so i must say you this:a spacecraft design doesn't come in a dream.Ofcoarse they did ALOT of testings.

------------------------------------------------------------
http://server6.uploadit.org/files/MRMaiornikov-sovietAF.jpg

The RED GUARD (777th Gv.I.A.P)-"For The Glory Of Our Motherland"
Lt.M.R.Maiornikov

Baron_Kiptofen
07-23-2004, 03:49 PM
NegativeGee, if you go to the root directory, you can see all the other designs the Molniya company are working on, as well as the earlier test beds of Buran... which yes, did include lifting wing designs: The link again

http://www.buran.ru/htm/molniya.htm (should go to the English pages)

And if you look closely... one of them is for sale!

If you are interested in the Energia Corp's history, you can see their homepage here:

http://www.energia.ru/english/index.html

jugent
07-23-2004, 04:15 PM
Why did they copy this plane? The soviet planes are superior than all other planes so it would be better if the americans copied the planes manufactored by the outstanding engineers of the Soviet Union. Look at the guns, curving, endurance, speed climb etc etc.
What would you encouter a Me109 in, in a IL2 or a P47?

NegativeGee
07-23-2004, 04:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Baron_Kiptofen:
NegativeGee, if you go to the root directory, you can see all the other designs the Molniya company are working on, as well as the earlier test beds of Buran... which yes, did include lifting wing designs: The link again

http://www.buran.ru/htm/molniya.htm (should go to the English pages)

And if you look closely... one of them is for sale!

If you are interested in the Energia Corp's history, you can see their homepage here:

http://www.energia.ru/english/index.html<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the link- that was just what I was getting at http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I had a quick look at astronautix and there are some more articles there:

MiG 105-11 (http://www.astronautix.com/craft/mig10511.htm)

BOR-4 (http://www.astronautix.com/craft/bor4.htm)

BOR-5 (http://www.astronautix.com/craft/bor5.htm)

And yes, M.R.Maiornikov you are quite correct about the extensive testing that is required to develop a vehicle like the Buran. My interest was regarding how the Russian aerospace industry tested the aerodynamics etc. for a space vehicle that could both re-enter the earths atmosphere and then glide in and land.

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - G√ľnther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

Z4K
07-26-2004, 03:07 AM
NegativeGee:

Glad you looked at Astronautix, I was going to suggest people looked there.

One page there had extensive history (from the US perspective) of the Buran development:

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/buran.htm

Good information...


Baron_Kiptofen:

I couldn't see an english language analogue for the page I linked to and Babelfish isn't that good.

I knew the pictures were highly questionable as a source, but there was nothing else mentioning altitudes, flight times etc that I could see. Astronautix.com had some of that:


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Buran launch sequence was as follows:

* T -30 minutes - LH2 loading starts and pad cleared

* T -11 minutes - launch systems go to automatic sequence

* T -8 seconds - Core engines ignite

* T=0 - Booster engines ignite; liftoff

* T +150 seconds - Boosters separate at 60 km altitude

* T +480 seconds - Core burns out at at 110 km altitude (re-enters in Pacific). Buran separates and engines fire for 67 seconds at 160 km altitude. (This is the ODU)

* T+47 minutes - Buran executes a 42 second cicularisation burn at 250 km altitude. (As is this) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>ODU Orbital Propulsion Unit - The unique ODU differed completely from American shuttle systems. The two restartable reusable 8800 kgf main engines were developed from the 11D68 used in the Block D Proton upper stage. They burned non-toxic liquid oxygen and Sintin (synthetic kerosene). The reaction control system, operating from the same propellant tanks, used gaseous oxygen and Sintin. Two main engines had a specific impulse of 362 seconds and provided a total impulse of 5 million kgf-seconds for orbital operations. With additional propellant tanks up to 9.7 million kgf-sec of manoeuvre capability was possible. The orientation engines consisted of 38 x 400 kgf and 8 x 20 kgf reaction control jets with a specific impulse of from 275 to 295 seconds.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Let's play Global Thermonuclear War