|
Shall we now compare your lots 'firsts' with the USSR. Thought not. But we're still around...............:} |
Sunk at Narvik. Your high wing Nimrod would have a very interesting undercarriage.
nacluv. As mentioned earlier, the 2 wheel bicycle bogey needed more wheels to take the increased weight of the MK2. Even if it had super strong wheels and tyres, it would be limited by the LCG of the operating runways and taxiways. forget. For those of us without inside knowledge, what were those Russian firsts in aviation (apart from getting the first SST into service)? I wonder if the soundtrack is absent to get around any copyright claims? Still brilliant footage without it! I've seen Canberras roll off the top of a LABS profile but seeing one roll at low level is truly spectacular. Nice to see a Scimitar in the air as well (where is that sound track when you want it). |
Similar to a Valiant's you mean? I did warn you....:eek:
|
Without looking too hard -
1956. The Tu-104 makes its debut as the world's first commercial jetliner. 1965. Mil's Mi-12/V-12 makes its maden flight. It is still the largest helicopter ever build. 1968 (December 31). First flight of the Tu-144, the world's first supersonic transport. 1988 (November 30). Rollout of the An-225, the world's largest airplane. |
For those of us without inside knowledge, what were those Russian firsts in aviation (apart from getting the first SST into service)? http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r...es/Sputnik.jpg On 4th October 1957 an R-7 Semyorka rocket lifted off from the Baikonur Cosmodrome, Kazakhstan, carrying Sputnik, the Earth’s very first artificial satellite. Sputnik was named from the Russian phrase for “Simple Satellite” (Sputnik Zemli). This date symbolically marked the dawn of Space exploration, and beat the Americans into space by several months, but perhaps the most amazing thing about the spacecraft is that it only took around a month from inception to launch. In the post-WWII years, rocketry was still an imprecise science. Great leaps were being made on both sides of the Atlantic. In the USSR the world’s first intercontinental ballistic missile, the R-7 Semyorka (SS-6 “Sapwood” in NATO parlance) was being developed as part of the arms race against the USA. The R-7 proved its ability to propel several tons of payload over great terrestrial distances, and calculations showed it could launch a smaller mass into orbit. So the go-ahead was given to develop and launch a satellite. Sputnik-1 was launched on the night of 4th October 1957. The Soviet Union had initially planned a heavier and more complex design for the first satellite. However, under pressure to launch in the International Geophysical Year, the simple and aesthetically pleasing design for Sputnik-1 was chosen. The satellite was a sphere of aluminium 23-inches (58 cm) in diameter and weighed 184 lb (83.6kg), with four long protruding antennas and it circled the earth once every 96 minutes. The sphere’s skin was just 2mm in thickness and it was filled with pressurised nitrogen gas. Internally, the payload consisted of batteries (which made up most of the weight) and a pulsing 1-watt radio transmitter operating on 20MHz and 40MHz. The transmitter was intended to convey simple telemetry about the capsule’s temperature and internal pressure by varying the transmitted pulse lengths. Sputnik’s mission was largely political — the famous “beep-beep” signal was broadcast on a frequency that anyone with a good shortwave radio could pick up, thus ensuring the widest possible audience, but it was also used to study the physical properties of the upper layers of the Earth’s atmosphere. The Reaction The launch of the world’s first satellite grabbed headlines across the globe — except, strangely, in Russia. On the day of the launch, Pravda only carried a small report buried in other news. Western papers, on the other hand, trumpeted about the event: the New York Times, for instance, ran a three line banner headline: “SOVIET FIRES EARTH SATELLITE INTO SPACE; IT IS CIRCLING THE GLOBE AT 18,000 M.P.H.; SPHERE TRACKED IN 4 CROSSINGS ACROSS THE U.S.” Other papers carried similar headlines. This response took the Soviet Union by surprise, but the following day saw much more reaction in the official Russian press, with a far more triumphant tone to the headlines. After 57 days aloft, Sputnik-1 re-entered the atmosphere and was destroyed. Sputnik-1 was followed a month later on 3rd November 1957 by the launch of Sputnik-2 which carried a small dog, called Laika (meaning “barker”), the first living creature in space (it died on re-entry). The Americans responded by launching their Explorer-1 satellite a few months later in January 1958. Subsequent Developments For a while the USSR held the lead in space -the first man (and woman) in orbit, the first object to orbit (and land on) the moon. But all the while the USA was racing to develop its own space technologies. By December 1958 the US had placed its first communications satellite into orbit (Project SCORE) and in 1962 Telstar provided a useful transatlantic link with sufficient bandwidth for television signals. And of course by the end of the sixties, the Americans had put men on the moon. Today, satellites are taken for granted. We can receive TV via a dish pointed at the Sky satellite; most of our internet and telephone traffic is carried around the world by satellites; we see weather pictures from space, use our SatNavs to navigate and use Google Earth to gawp at our houses as seen from space. But unless you were there at the time there was nothing like the excitement of tuning in a radio to hear the bleeping signal that came from that little aluminium sphere, the first man-made object in space — so Happy 50th Birthday, Sputnik! Word soon got around and each time Sputnik was in range a crowd of eager airmen gathered in ATC to hear the “beep-beep” signal. |
Or this - left the US Navy in tears. :ugh::ugh: I remember, at the time they were proudly telling the world that they were getting their experimental fighters at up to 60 degrees Angles of Attack.
http://www.indyarocks.com/videos/Cob...e-of-SU30-3544 |
Ah yes, the Russian SR-71.
The Russian Moon landings. The Russian Space Shuttle fleet and missions. The Russian stealth bombers and fighters. (Must be really, really good, no one has ever seen one.) Course we all know that the Russians exceeded the sound barrier way before George Welsh did in an F-86. That the TU-144 flew before the Concorde has nothing to do with the US. And the first supersonic Bomber was the Russian B-58 Hustler. Dang clever them Russians. |
Oh dear, looks like one of those ego malfunctions again, bless.
I suppose you have to 'big-up' your history when you havent got much in the first place. By the way , you seem to have forgotten the biggest first.....didn't something happen at Kittyhawk a while back?? And some chap called Chuck went pretty quick didn't he? Although you didnt get the first guy in space....blah blah blah....our willies are bigger than yours etc etc. |
con-pilot - Sound familiar ;)
Project Cancelled Within a few weeks of the American's visit, the Air Ministry Director of Scientific Research, Sir Ben Lockspeiser, cancelled the British supersonic project, saying: ...in view of the unknown hazards near the speed of sound ... [it is] considered unwise to proceed with the full-scale experiments. Despite 90% of the design work being completed and half of the construction finished, the project fell, apparently due to a Treasury savings measure. The Air Ministry ordered Miles to break up all jigs6 and to send all their design data to Bell Aviation. As it seems likely that the M.52 would have been flying by the summer of 1946, and since it would most likely have achieved its specified performance, it is hard not to believe the British government was pressured by the Americans to cancel the M.52 project. This allowed the US become the first 'through the barrier', in October 1947, using the rocket-powered M.52 lookalike, the Bell XS-1. As an added bonus, the Americans' first jet engine, the General Electric Type 1, drew heavily on the designs of the British jet. |
Fun though willy-waving is, it's even more fun to work out what sort of future aircraft design would actually sell. No point in making Concordes when everyone's hauling around in 737s.
So what's it going to be? Manned FJ development seems faintly pointless; it's not as if there's a plausible threat that demands this generation, let alone the next. Transports - haven't we got that covered? A-10: yes please, but why not just buy A-10s? (never understood why we don't). Civil aviation is all about incremental improvements - nobody's got the stomach for HOTOL - and the cost of entry at almost any level is unthinkable. The near future is automation, economy, environmentalism, flexibility... and dull. (When automation gets stuck in, some really exciting things will happen, but it won't be for a while.) Might as well enjoy the Youtube clips. Won't be long before it's all as quaint as cavalry. R (and yes, of course I think there was every point in making Concorde. At least as much as building cathedrals. But it's nothing to base an industry on) |
it is hard not to believe the British government was pressured by the Americans to cancel the M.52 project. |
its been said that the Apollo project got a bit of a boost from all those redundant Avro Canada engineers
This is in fact quite true. Allow me to bring to the attention of interested parties Chris Gainor's Arrows To The Moon, which carefully explores the contributions of former Avro science and engineering staff to the 1960s US space program. Some of those Canadian expatriates also made significant contributions to Apollo's precursor, Gemini. The CF-105 was a remarkable aircraft in the context of its time, and a tribute to its designers and fabricators. It is truly a shame that those who worked so hard on it never saw the Arrow enter service. However, let us pay honorable tribute to their efforts. Several respondents here seem to have parsed this comment, So which country was producing all those fantastic aicraft designs in the 1950's? They must have a really impressive aircraft industry by now... as having been a slap. I don't know in what sense it was intended, but I for one reacted to it with sadness. There was a tremendous capability for innovative design and construction in the British aviation industry at the time in question, and much of that capability was squandered due to shortsighted industrial policy. To me, at least, that loss is as much of a shame as was the premature cancellation of the Arrow. TSR2, for example, was a superb aircraft, killed by political mediocrities and tight budgets, and by the presumed overlap with the F-111 (which turned out to be largely unsuitable in what would have been the TSR2 niche). Note as well that many British boffins who had worked on programmes and for employers in the UK during the 1950s and 1960s, and who then found their skills being neglected for political and economic reasons, then did as the Canadian Avro staff had done, and brought their talents to work in America on advanced systems -- to our very considerable national benefit at a time when the US was facing significant technical and military challenges from the Soviet Union. For which contributions they deserve our fervent gratitude. -- |
Who wants to be an aerospace engineer these days? Finish off a project someone else started 25 years ago, by 'cost cutting' features and functionality. Or perhaps just design the 'new' Hawk varient or 'new' Nimrod (remove wings, build new wings, take lump hammer to new wing to make it fit hole)
Not really a dig at the Hawk, but really what major new aircraft projects are there and of those which are UK based? My great Uncle was involved in work with the RAE back in the days of multiple new aircraft and test beds. Some of his stories really make you wish for those days. |
con-pilot - Sound familiar (Wasn't born until 1947. :() Who wants to be an aerospace engineer these days? I guess there is still space exploration, but can never be another first man to step on the surface of a body other than earth. I suppose that the first person to step on another planet would be somewhat of a first. I realize that technology in the Aviation field is improving and that is nice, but earth-shattering, not hardly. And I'm sorry, I just cannot get excited about stealth. |
Dept of Delusions
TSR2, for example, was a superb aircraft, killed by political mediocrities and tight budgets, and by the presumed overlap with the F-111 Perhaps if Concorde had been cancelled some bright spark would have written a book by now about a potentially world beating aircraft that would have sold in hundreds, still be flying today but was lost because of pressure from the USA.. |
:) Brilliant movie of the good old days of the Farnborough Airshow when it was all British.
Each year there would be new types on display with lots of very noisy displays when a fast fly by really was a FAST fly by. It was all very exciting and we all seemed to be proud to be British. In those days it was a real treat to go to the SBAC show, what a contrast to now when it is held every other year, has very little British content and, apart from things like that Russian jobby that demonstrated a jet doing a tailslide then lighting the fires up and carrying on flying! can be quite boring. |
JJ...
Perhaps if Concorde had been cancelled some bright spark would have written a book by now about a potentially world beating aircraft that would have sold in hundreds, still be flying today but was lost because of pressure from the USA Good idea for a book though ... |
There may have been some anti-concorde lobbying in the USA from environmentalists but I think history will record that Concord was the wrong plane for the time and possibly technically questionable for the passenger market -- fuel tank penertrations by exploding tyres had been reported before the French crash.
Considering some of the other technical debacles that older readers may remember: the Spey engined Phantoms that gave the RAF the worlds most expensive slowest F4s, the RB211 carbon fibre blade debacle, not to mention the Comet. Come to that the UK taxpayer is still paying for the poor level of DH build standard in the current delays to the Nimrod MR4. And in a similar fashion if we go back to the 1940's when the US car company Packard were contracted to build Merlin engines under licence that had to completely redraw all the blueprints with correct tolerances in order to produce the engines in quantity. It all looks very cottage industry. Maybe those goverment advisors are correct and the British aircraft industry can't really manage without being subject to adult supervision from European partner companies... |
Originally Posted by forget
(Post 3748164)
1968 (December 31). First flight of the Tu-144, the world's first supersonic transport.
|
It wasn't just the aviation industry - for British Aerospace read British Leyland...
Tim |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:21. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.