Reply With QuoteTu-22M weighs 53,500 kgs and can carry 54,000 kgs of fuel. Where did you get the 78,000 kgs figure?Originally Posted by 500
Thats not a big mistery. You can compare emty weight with fuel weight.
For B-1B empty weight is 86183 while fuel weight is 88450 kg
For Tu-22M3 its 78000 kg and 53550 kg. That means B-1B is only 10% heavier, but has 65% more fuel. Thats why he will have much more range.
Tu-22M weighs 53,500 kgs and can carry 54,000 kgs of fuel. Where did you get the 78,000 kgs figure?
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/bomber/tu22m3.html
The Buran-Energia project, despite being a wonderful system, was completely unnecessary and very expensive. Perhaps it was the major merit of the Space Shuttle: Misleading the Soviets about its capabilities, despite its own design probles. Indeed, the vast expenses spent by the Soviets in these huge projects, aided to its demise.
Now, Can we go back to the topic?
Can someone explain me what are these grill-like features at both sides of the engine inlets? Thanks you.
1234567890
Adjustable drains for the extra air from the intakes, AFAIK.
PS: While Buran orbiter might've been unnecessary (which is disputable), Energia booster was one of the finest heavy lifters ever built and its canceling hurt the space development greatly. If it wasn't discontinued, we could launch much heavier payloads, which would allow for considerable expansion of our space goals. For example, the interplanetary probes could use much simpler and sturdier engineering solutions, making them both more reliable and less expensive, etc.
Well, that's a load of FAIL.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/tu-22m.htm
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Backfire.html
FAS has Tu-22M0 prototype listed as weighing 53,5 tons. Carlo Kopp in his article mentions that each subsequent modification was much lighter, with extensive use of titanium in the Tu-22M3 modification. Hence, its mass must be somewhat smaller than 53,5 tons.
Think about this logically. The maximum take-off weight of Tu-22M3 is 126 tons. It can carry 54 tons of fuel and 24 tons of armament. How can it POSSIBLY weigh 78 tons by itself? I'm sure you can do subtractions too, but 126,000 - 54,000 - 24,000 = 48,000 kgs of empty weight.
So, going back to your example: For B-1B empty weight is 86,183 while fuel weight is 88,450 kgs. For Tu-22M3 empty weight is 48000 while fuel weight is 54000 kg. Hence, B-1B has 79% more weight than Tu-22M3, but only 63% more fuel.
Of course, I am not sure why we are comparing B-1B to Tu-22M. Tu-22M is F-111 writ large, while B-1B is Tu-160 writ small, in that the first two is a theatre bombers, while the second two are strategic bombers. Just compare their payload weight and range and you'll see that I'm right.
I also thought that T22M was a tactical bomber..... But apparently its difficult to place it in one of these criteria, since with refueling probes it can be a strategic bomber and without them it is more of a tactical bomber. Never the less, i think that it has potential to be better than B1, if only it will get modernized.
Dude.... Youre TOTALY wrong. Tu160 are even now better than B1 and are going through a modernization (glass cockpit aso.) that will make them the best bombers in the world. They will probably also get RAM coating in this modernization to make them WLO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-160
Also Tu22 ME is one of the best "tactical" bombers now, providing a variety of weapons as shown by Airpower australia.
Originally Posted by KuhanVincek
All the tecnology USA used to build F22 is available and known to russians, so they are fully capable of building a fighter of same (or better) capabilities as F22.
Are you serious?
Yes, why wouldnt this be so?
Now, thats not true.I'm talking about Soviet aircraft. Not today's. And I'm talking about engines and airframes. Not overall performance. Western engines had always been more advanced than Soviet engines.
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/col...cket_engines-0
Russians always were and will be MASTERS of jet and rocket engines. -.- Oh and reactor tecnology ofcourse.Alfa class subs are the proof of that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfa_class_submarine
reported him.
Same here, his were among the first posts I saw early this sat morning, enuff for me
About who are we talking about here?
Last edited by KuhanVincek; 05-22-2010 at 10:46 AM.
Same here, his were among the first posts I saw early this sat morning, enuff for me
None of that has anything to do with jet engines.Now, thats not true.
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/col...cket_engines-0
Russians always were and will be MASTERS of jet and rocket engines. -.- Oh and reactor tecnology ofcourse.
jet engine =/= rocket engine or nuclear reactor.
Well, he regards Pravda as a reliable source. I'll say you should answer with a Debka report.
Or FOX news.Well, he regards Pravda as a reliable source. I'll say you should answer with a Debka report.
Well i saw a documentary on Discovery Channel, where they said that NASA bought Russian rocket engines, cause US scientists couldnt develope a turbocharged rocket engine.
And Russian jet engines are equal, or better than american. Only in TURBOFAN engine design were russians a little behind till now. But with introduction of PS90 engines even the gap in this area was closed.
It cant carry max fuel with weapons.
B-1B Length - 44.5 m, wing area - 181.2 m²
Tu-22M3 Length - 42.4 m, wing area - 175.8-183.6 m²
How can Tu-22M be much lighter if its virtualy of same size of B-1B?
NASA buying Russian rocket engines is a cost-saving measure. It's cheaper to buy an already-made engine as opposed to doing additional research and development on a new one. It isn't because they can't develop one, and you are showing that you're completely ignorant or niave to think that.
As for your 2nd statement, try backing it up (this time, with reliable sources).
Posting Permissions
