Now, Can we go back to the topic?
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.
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.
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.
Also Tu22 ME is one of the best "tactical" bombers now, providing a variety of weapons as shown by Airpower australia.
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.
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
About who are we talking about here?
Last edited by KuhanVincek; 05-22-2010 at 10:46 AM.
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.
As for your 2nd statement, try backing it up (this time, with reliable sources).