B-1 Vs Tu-160

[GZYL]

If these two types had a "fly-off" which would win? I know the Tu-160 is in a bad state at the moment because of a lack of funding but at it's peak, I reckon the Tu-160 would win.

[rusnik]

GZYL.If you read some news.IN the last year alone over 15 new Tu160 wher put into servise and allmost all Tu 160 are bieng upgraided!!!
Afcours Tu 160 win over B 1.
Anyone tell me in whot way B1 is better than Tu 160 except electronics!!!

[frankvw]

B1 would have been equal or better if the Reagan govt hadn't cut the B1-A programme. The b version is a pity, compared to the A

[elpalmer]

I sort of like the blackjack, don't you? :)

http://hep2.physics.arizona.edu/~savin/ram/tu-160-4.jpg

[Arthur]

The Ukrainians finished scrapping their remaining Blackjacks at Priluki airbase, after a number (i believe 8, not 16 Rusnik) were resold to Russia.

The horror, the horror x(x(x(
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/photos/huge/2001_02/2001_02_05/05tu1604.jpg

Now i know that i've seen all existing Blackjacks by 1997 (the almost-finished airframes at the Kazan factory are now appearantly finished and delivered to the Russian AF at Engels AB) and two Ukrainian examples will stay preserved, but this is no way for an aircraft to end!

When will i be happy again? What scrapping-pic will i post tomorrow? What's the meaning of life?

Regards,

Arthur

[PhantomII]

The B-1B is superior to the Tu-160 in many ways. First of all, it has over twice the warload. The B-1B can carry up to 75,000 lb. in three weapons bays. The Tu-160 is designated a heavy bomber and it has a max warload of 36,000 lb. That is quite pathetic if you ask me. The B-1B also has much better electronics and it is being continually upgraded. If you want a list of its weapons I will give it to you, and you will see what power the B-1 can carry in its bays. Another winning factor for the B-1 is its low RCS, which is about 1/10th or maybe 1/100th that of the B-52. It also has great range and good handling. I have heard it handles almost like a fighter. Don't get me wrong, I like the Tu-160, but it is in reality an inferior aircraft. The B-1 also looks a little better in my opinion.

[biffbutkus1]

I really wonder which would win. The B1B handles well and is pretty fast down low. It has 3 bomb bays and can carry quite a bit of ordinance. As far as electronics, the ALQ161 has shortcomings, but is going to be assisted by the ALE50 towed decoy, which saved the skin of B1 crews over Kosovo. I doubt the TU160 has better ECM and a comparable RCS.

Both of these planes are good missile platforms, but neither is really state of the art anymore, and the TU160 is of dubious quality. can we include the B2 in the competition?

[black scorpion]

The warload you mentioned of 75000lb is pure thearaticly.
I have a little book about the B-1 and they mention the warlad of 75000lb to BUT this is as I said before pure theoraticly.
Normally the max warload would be in the 35000lb class like the Tu-160.

But the TU-160 has a smaller RCS than the B-1b It has more speed more range (but this is not so important cause they hav IFR capability) the B-1b has better avionics and lets be honoust much better pilots to. The Tu-160 has problems cause they lack funding, but you forget the b-1b is not accident free it has also a few problems(read that somwhere).

In my opinion the TU-160 is a little better( if they can be maintained properly.)

[minmiester]

On paper, the Tu-160 is the better aircraft.
In practice, the B-1B is far better.

MinMiester

[black scorpion]

That's cause the russians have no money to upgrade or maintain them.

[rusnik]

LAST EDITED ON 06-Feb-01 AT 04:27 PM (GMT)[p]HI!!!
So you don t read any News!!!
Well if you have read the latest news on russian airforce.
Russia upgraded olmost all Tu160.And ther is over 20 standing on producyton line.And 11 new wher build last year!!
P.S. nice pick of the fotose!!!
But if you know Ukrain gave all it s tu160 back to russia plus 10000 sam s missals FOR GAS!!!

[black scorpion]

These pics are not nice men.

If you like those pics you don't like airplanes, They are destroyng a plane and you think thats nice. x(

[biffbutkus1]

Scorpion, I really have a hard time believing the TU160 has a lower RCS compared to the B1B. It makes no sense. Of course, I have no hard data to support my claim, but the TU160 has a few things going against it: size, slab surfaces, lack of blending of different surfaces, huge tail etc.

[torpedo]

LAST EDITED ON 06-Feb-01 AT 06:52 PM (GMT)[p]I've read somewhere that the Tu 160 engines blades were designed to be stealthy but whith regard to the low russian maintenance / building capabilities I don't think the stealthiness is that great.
Just remember this Blackjack that lost part of its dorsal spin during some airshow. It continued to fly but it illustrates the poor quality of the Blackjack airframes.

B1B was designed to be more stealthy than B1A and what it lose in flight capacity (speed , thrust) is gained in efficacity against air defense networks.

[rusnik]

Yes the pichurs are terreble i know.

[TJ]

Rusnik,

You have been reading some dodgy news articles!

There are not “20 on production line” or “11 new build aircraft”



Source: MNA, May 5, 2000

"The new TU-160 Blackjack built at the Kazan aviation factory has landed at the Engles airfield, the Military News Agency learned on Friday. (Incorrect spelling of the airbase)

This is the first strategic bomber received by the Air Force from the defence industry in the past 15 years. Six of the bombers currently stationed at Engles were received after the collapse of the USSR. Another eight were transferred from Ukraine as repayment for gas-debts in November 1999 - January 2000.

Lieutenant-General Mikhail Oparin, commander of the long-range aviation, who attended the ceremony, said that the TU-160 Blackjacks had the lowest malfunctioning level in the Air Force, that is 7 percent /the average is 15 percent/. All of the strategic bombers were manned with highly professional
crews, he added.

According to Oparin, the Blackjacks will form a strategic long-range aviation regiment which will become part of the 37th Air Force army.

The new TU-160 has received the honorary name of Alexander Molodchy, a well-known WWII pilot who was one of the first to bomb Berlin. Hero of the USSR Alexander Molodchy now resides in the town of Chernigov, Ukraine."


TJ

[elpalmer]

Well said Min.


elp
usa

[cpm]

LAST EDITED ON 07-Feb-01 AT 02:59 AM (GMT)[p]I don't know where you get your info on the Tu 160, phantom, but it ain't accurate. The "max warload" of the Tu 160 is closer to 86,000lbs, not 36,000. Hardly pathetic.

[GarryB]

LAST EDITED ON 07-Feb-01 AT 03:36 AM (GMT)[p]A few facts:
"While being 27% heavier than the B-1B, the Tu-160 has 80% more thrust."
"The Tu-160 has relatively low aerodynamic drag, as well as radar cross section, both believed to be much smaller than those of the B-1B."
(This is mostly due to the external carriage of weapons on the B-1B... all weapons are internal on Tu-160).
Tu-160 is limited to about 30,000kgs (about 66,000lbs), though its theoretical limit is given as 40,000kg (about 88,000lbs)(with conventional freefall weapons which they are not currently fitted for). This is a size constraint with the weapon bays. As noted above with 80% more thrust it could certainly carry more weapons but not without modification. (Carpet bombing is a job B-1Bs might be capable of (say to replace elderly B-52s) but the Russians use the cheaper but still effective Tu-22M3 for that.ie in Afghanistan)

I personally would choose the Tu-160 (But I'm biased) especially when the Kh-101 comes into service.
(My source for this info is Air International May 2000, "Blackjack Profile" by Piotr Butowski.)

[biffbutkus1]

The B1B carries most of its ordinance externally?? According to whom, Mr. Butowski? Thats ludicrous. The B1B has three good sized internal rotary launchers. I've seen them in person. It is possible that some weapons are not cleared for the bays of the B1 or are not compatible with the rotary launchers, but its unlikely that the Air Force simply hangs weapons externally on a bomber with more than adequate internal storage.

[Vortex]

Yes, let's get this straight, the B-1B's theoretical is 110,000 lbf+...however, let's be reasonable and i agree a typical mission will probably see ~30-50,000 lbf of payload (can include more fuel). No B-1Bs in operation ever uses external stores, in fact i believe most of them are not even fitted with hardpoints, except the prototype modified from B-1A. Tu-160's vertical fin is all moving...RCS? (unless it's composite fin). The range of the B-1B however is very questionable....about this payload thing, I believe the Tu-160 can "hang" way more than 36,000lbf, but it doesn't mean if you can hang it, you can drop it. Let's put this into perspective, the theoretical load of the F-111A is 40,000lbf+!...i don't think it'll fly very far with that, although it was demonstrated....so, extrapolate this to both the B-1B and the Tu-160...you get the point. The most important thing to me is how capable is the avionics of the Tu-160? Also, drag is a function of size, not how "aerodynamic" it is...drag coefficient IS a function of how "aerodynamic" it is. I would agree with the Tu-160 being lower in Cd, but don't factor in the more thurst the Tu-160 has...b/c it has more drag and also b/c it needs to go mach2+. I don't think the Tu-160 can hang low like the B-1B...the crew will get really really sick.

[Ference]

I agree with your point about internal carriage on the B-1B. I even believe that the B-1B cannot carry any weapons externally anymore, the hardpoints were welded over because of START.

Ference.

[minmiester]

Garry, you seem to be mighty confused here. As far as I know, the B-1B CANNOT carry weapons externally.

MinMiester

[frankvw]

Originally, it was able to. If I remember what I saw on a schema, it could take either a multple bomb ejector, or some 3 or 4 cruise missiles under each wing stub.

[elpalmer]

Confirmed. The B-1 carrys no external stores.

elp
usa

[frankvw]

I agree, but it was DESIGNED to. Due to a nuclear treaty, the hardpoints were unmounted, I think I have the drawings at home. If you are a good boy (and if I find them) :-) , I'll scan it this week-end, and send them to you newt week. (Sorry, but a firewall forbids me to upload somthing to this forum)

Best regards,

Frank

[GarryB]

If you read my post all the way to the end you will see that I credit the information to an author other than myself.
Drag has as much to do with shape as size. Or is a 275 ton square block of concrete just as low drag as a Tu-160?
I'll take your word on the hardpoints being removed (Which held 14 missiles externally according to the article).
The article also made the point that despite being capable of Mach 1.2 at optimum conditions, the B-1B was a subsonic bird. The Tu-160 however can be used up to 2000km from base in a high low high flight profile at 2000km/h (at high level) and just supersonic at low level. The difference in practical warload is marginal and the higher structure weight of the Tu-160 will probably mean a longer airframe life. I think any defence capable of shooting down a Tu-160 would also be capable of doing the same to a B-1B, so as I said the choice between them is really just a personal one. (And I'm sticking with the Tu-160)

[SOC]

The B-1B's external hardpoints were removed under the START treaty. One of my fun extra jobs here at McConnell AFB is to escort the Russian inspection team when they decide to grace us with their presence. The bulkheads of the B-1B's forward weapon bay is locked in the middle position (i.e., it could fit 2 rotary AGM-69-type launchers, but not the single longer AGM-86B launcher). And the external hardpoints have been welded over. There were only two aircraft ever to even have the hardpoints fitted during tests, and they were at Edwards and had extra blade antennas on their spines for satellite verification of being cruise-missile carriers.

As for the Tu-160 vs B-1B debate, you can no longer really compare them. The B-1B is a low level penetrator; the BLACKJACK is a standoff cruise-missile platform. The BLACKJACK is more equivalent to the B-1A (I think someone pointed that out). If I had to choose, I'd rather have the Tu-160. People will complain about the inferiority of Russian equipment and so forth, but the aircraft is extremely capable in its own right. As the B-1B is being adapted to carry JDAM's and other PGM's, the Tu-160 is being adapted to actually employ free-fall bombs. Contrary to popular belief, Russian Tu-160's have only ever operated as strategic missile platforms. The BLACKJACK has much larger internal capacity in its weapon bays than the B-1, so it should be an effective bomber as well.

As far as the whole "Tu-160 has smaller RCS" issue, the B-1B has its fair share of slab surfaces as well (horiz/vert tails), and neither aircraft will be confused with a stealth platform with its weapon bay doors open. The Russian claim was that the Tu-160 is a much more aerodynamically refined and 'cleaner' design, and I tend to agree with them due to the fact that the design wasn't hindered by low observables. The Russians learned a lot as far as large supersonic aircraft go with the Tu-144 project (has anyone seen a picture of Tupolev's original Tu-160 design? Think CHARGER with a red star instead of Aeroflot markings). However, I am neither an aeronautical engineer nor a fluid mechanics physicist, so I'm sure the Russian claims will be gunned down by the Western Mafia as soon as I post them }>

Incidentially, the Tu-160's that everyone keeps talking about being in "disrepair" (see picture further up on this thread)? Those are the original flight test articles at Zhukovskiy, which have undergone substantial modifications during their careers. The operational aircraft at Engels are in much, much better shape. And they're painted.

[Arthur]

Forgive them, oh SOC, for they do not know the road to Engels AB. The Tu-160s there look terribly kitsch, by the way: overall white with a Russian flag finflash. Still, and all have gotten nicknames now (Ilya Murometz was the first one, coded 05r - i don't know the other ones). I completely agree on the general appearance of them though: they look as good as any Russian aircraft i've ever seen. Well, in 1996 that is.

Oh, and SOC: do you have anything on the status of the 63 Tu-22 in storage at Engels? From what i know, they should be regarded as mothballed but i have my doubts if this is still true.

Regards,

Arthur

[black scorpion]

Thanks garryb thats where i read that the rcs of the tu-160 is smaller then that of the b-1b.

[TJ]

Tu-160 names:

Illya Moromets 05 and 06. For some reason both these airframes have the same name. Vasiliy Reshetnikov 02, Ivan Yarigin 04,
Mikhail Gromov 01 and Aleksandr Molodchii 07.

TJ

[elpalmer]

SOC

Rocko and Moose from the McConnell B-1 unit will be over in the morning to "discuss" your remarks about how you like the 160 over the B-1. Something about your "health insurance" rates (not covered under TRICARE) going up if you continue that view :)


elp
usa

[TJ]

Tu-160s were very busy yesterday and today. Two of them conducted a flight in international airspace down off Norway and continued down over the North Sea. Norwegian F-16s were busy with intercepts off Norway and RAF Tornado F.3s shadowed them off the east coast of the UK. Japanese airspace was also probed by Tu-22Ms and a diplomatic arguement broke out over alleged airspace violation by the Tu-22Ms.


TJ

[biffbutkus1]

Sounds like the Russian AF is hitting the gym ;). Steroids anyone?

[ink]

LAST EDITED ON 15-Feb-01 AT 00:54 AM (GMT)[p]Tu-160 looks better. But there can be no doubt that the B-1b is more combat ready (and probably tactically superior, being intigrated well into a functioning airforce). Perhaps, if one day, Russian defense spending increases to give the Tu-160 the upgrades, maintainance and pilots they desperatly need then we can talk about comparisons.

[kenduffey]

Photos of most of the 'named' Tu-160's are on my Blackjack webpage at :- http://www.flankerman.fsnet.co.uk/tu-160.html

[GZYL]

Tanks kenduffey, those pictures are great. I think the Tu-160 is a great looking aircraft!!!

[biffbutkus1]

From fas.org-"The Tu-160 is a multi-mission strategic bomber designed for operations ranging from subsonic speeds and low altitudes to speeds over Mach 1 at high altitudes. The two weapons bays can accommodate different mission-specific loads"

This disputes two things brought up in this thread: that the Tu-160 has 3 weapons bays and that its faster than the B1B at low level. I stil think the B1B with its three bomb bays could carry more guided weapons than the Blackjack, and I also believe it would be able to travel in the weeds at higher speeds.

I also looked at info on the KH-101 which has been said to be highly supersonic on another thread. fas.org shows speeds of .75 mach for the kh101 and kh65.

[elpalmer]

Thats OK the dummies at fas show the DS CALCM attack from Barksdale as being H models instead of G's. Don't know if what they say about the 160 is accurate but the site is riddled with small little errors like that.

elp
usa

[GarryB]

From the stuff I have read the Tu-160 has two weapons bays. They are designed to take AS-15 missiles (6 in each). When carrying AS-15s (which are smaller) they can get twelve in each bay. As Russian cruise missiles are larger than US ones there is more room in the two bays than two of the B-1B. The B-1B has of course 3. One of the things that makes the Tu-160 less stealthy than the B-1B is its variable intakes. These same variable intakes allow the Tu-160 to go 2,200km/h at altitude, though in service speeds are limited to 2,000km/h. (ie regulation rather than limit of ac). As for fas's accuracy... I looked up some info on the Black Eagle and found that it was powered by a fusion reactor (Which gave it unlimited range apparently) and one of its secondary armaments was a 10mm rail gun. I really hope this was for a fictional wargame.
All the info I have shows KH-101 is a conventionally armed attack missile similar in size to the AS-15, with a turbojet engine. This would suggest a Mach 1.5-2.5 speed at medium to high altitude for most of its flight. Terminal might be a dive, or it may drop down sooner and fly low level at Mach 1 to target. I have seen ranges of 5,000km given, and that would require a very efficient turbojet design.

[biffbutkus1]

Actually elp, its very possible that they were H models. That's all that has been there for awhile.

[biffbutkus1]

What does the Tomohawk have. Isn't it also a turbojet? I don't know about the Black Eagle thing. However, I did notice that Venick's Aviation page is used for some references. Perhaps there is the source for some dubious info. Hell, even stuff put out by the Russians themselves is absolutely ludicrous. One had a Russian general saying that the Mig1.44 could "hover in the air motionless and strike targets with pinpoint accuracy" or something.

[Rosco]

One thing to keep in mind with statements like that is that a lot is lost in the translation. It might be an indication of the aircraft's stability as a weapons platform, I be surprised if it was meant literally with certain past examples in mind.

[Vortex]

GarryB, know the difference between drag coefficient and drag...then le'ts talk about the aerodynamics of a brick.

[ink]

LAST EDITED ON 27-Feb-01 AT 11:46 PM (GMT)[p]What??? Are you sane Vortex? Garry didn't mention either drag or drag coefficient in his post. Nor did he talk about aerodynamics.

Hey wait a minute, this isn't some sort of private joke is it? ;-)

[elpalmer]

LAST EDITED ON 28-Feb-01 AT 01:32 AM (GMT)[p]LAST EDITED ON 28-Feb-01 AT 01:30*AM (GMT)

I don't understand.

[GarryB]

LAST EDITED ON 28-Feb-01 AT 02:22 AM (GMT)[p]Yes, is the USAF dropping stealth and investing in a fleet of bricks.... nah Vortex probably meant to reply to my post 26 instead of the one he did reply to which doesn't make sense.

We were talking about the drag differences between B-1B and Tu-160.
In post 20 Vortex said:
"Also, drag is a function of size, not how "aerodynamic" it is...drag coefficient IS a function of how "aerodynamic" it is."
My reply in 26 was:
"Drag has as much to do with shape as size. Or is a 275 ton square block of concrete just as low drag as a Tu-160?"

See it wasn't a silly question, just a silly place to put it.
Drag, friction, thrust and lift are all related. Wing fences reduce spanwise flow and therefore reduce drag and increase lift. An increase in thrust increases the airflow over the airframe and increases drag and lift... to a point where drag exceeds lift and then the aircraft will stop accelerating without more thrust.
If shape (and therefore density) has nothing to do with drag, how does a parachute work? The mass doesn't change, except perhaps an increase in weight with air trapped in the canopy. The size increases and the sectional density decreases. The pull of gravity (thrust) stays the same (or changes to such a small degree that the change can be disregarded).
Not convinced? Take a normal playing card and hold it vertical about a metre above the ground and drop it. With your other hand hold a playing card flat and release it at the same time. Both the same size, mass, and shape but one card has higher drag which slows its fall. On the Moon they would fall at the same speed, but on Earth we have an atmosphere.

Are we bored yet?
I will repeat what I have said before on this threat. The differences between the two aircraft are so small that if an opponent can shoot down one they could probably shoot down the other.
The choice therefore becomes one of personal preference.
I still prefer Tu-160.

[elpalmer]

I don't know what up time or ease of maintenance the 160 can perform so I wouldn't pick it unless I knew that.

elp
usa

[Vortex]

GarryB, i don't mean it in a harsh way, but YES drag and drag coefficient is two totally different thing. Yes, a 250ton brick or what ever weight it is can have less drag, in fact way less drag, than the Tu-160. You see by saying Tu-160, you've already given the object a size...which determines pretty much what kind of drag range it is under. That's why earlier i said an experienced aerodynamicists CAN pretty much predict the drag coefficient (how aerodynamic it is) simply by looking at it!

Drag coefficient is different from drag...because:
Drag coefficient is normalized in a way to take care of size dependency, hence it's a measure of how "aerodyanmic" the shape is. Drag is the absolute integral of the pressure and the shear field about the object. I know you probably don't believe me, but if i get the CG position of a brick just right, then i can get the edges to shed vortices that creates a virtual body about the brick. In such a way the drag coefficient of the brick can actually be very small. In fact contrary to intuition, the drag coefficient of a brick is smaller than the the drag coefficient of a cylinder. But, when you compare two things of very different size, then the drag coefficient can be the same while the drag is very different. For example, the drag coefficient of any aircraft at minimum cruise drag is probably 0.02...notice that's any aircraft, but the drag difinitely is not the same because there's a normalizing factor of the planform area (assuming at same speed and altitude). Notice that the drag is an surface integral of the pressure and shear field...pretty much means multiply your pressure and shear by surface area, therefore drag is a function of size...of course there are exceptions, but if the sizes are orders of magnitude different, then it's pretty obvious that the brick have less drag than a Tu-160, but of course higher in drag coefficient (Cd).

[GarryB]

Vortex:"GarryB, i don't mean it in a harsh way, but..."
I am not very easily bruised, and don't take very much personally.

"In fact contrary to intuition, the drag coefficient of a brick is smaller than the the drag coefficient of a cylinder."

C'mon now Vortex be honest, you designed the F-117 didn't you...

"Also, drag is a function of size, not how "aerodynamic" it is...drag coefficient IS a function of how "aerodynamic" it is."
(from the original post {20})
Which is what I said without the technical terms. A parachutist increases drag by pulling a cord and opening the parachute, thereby increasing size without increasing weight. Equally with that great big round or square canopy above him he is suddenly very unaerodynamic as well. With bullets we call it lower sectional density. One of the reasons the US uses DU weapons.
What you are saying is that when designing aircraft the forces laymen like myself call drag are broken up into two parts one called drag and the other drag coefficents to make design work easier. (When aiming for a target it is easier with one variable to worry about... ie mass is seperated from shape)

"You see by saying Tu-160, you've already given the object a size..."
I also said 275 ton brick which gives the other basic shape as well. ( a ratio of 1X1.5X4 would suffice)

[Vortex]

well, i shouldn't beat on this anymore, but not quite right...GarryB, do you know what non-dimensional analysis is? Anyways, take for example, the parachute you mentioned, actually by increasing the crossectional area, yes you increased drag, but that's not necessary mean you increase drag coefficient. The reason i'm stuborn on this is because when people say the Tu-160 have lower drag coefficient than the B-1B, i believe them. But, when people say the Tu-160 have lower drag than the B-1B, that's just not true. I guess the simpliest way for a very good analogy is a F-14 1/48 scale plastic model have pretty much the same drag coefficient as the real F-14, but of course the drag is much much less because it's smaller. As for the brick, sorry, in my mind, stating a weight doesn't necessary means size. Yes, i should've assume constant density.

Why do i care about this? well, it's just that "Lift and drag coefficient" is basically what makes the Wright Brothers so different in inventing the first heavier than air, motorized, manned aircraft. The way they measure their airfoils in the wind tunnel is inherently comparing lift and drag coefficient, not lift and drag force. This is the cornerstone of experimental and practical aerodyanmics. By the way, i think only projectile engineers and physicists call something a function of the area as "area density" and 1-D as "line density" all other scientists and engineers assume naturally that density means normalized by volume. So, i've may have been confused by you there. Are you a physicists?

[ink]

LAST EDITED ON 03-Mar-01 AT 00:41 AM (GMT)[p]LAST EDITED ON 03-Mar-01 AT 00:33*AM (GMT)

This is fun, I'm learning. I see your point Vortex, you're saying that drag is a force independant of air resistance and gravity etc but dependant on mass (kinda like inertia), but you could be a little more liberal with terminology, we're not all as clued up as you. My god it's been a long time since I've done physics.

Also, I wasn't aware that the Tu-160 was a copy of the B-1B. Check this out, some layman at the Times seems to think otherwise:

Hostile relations make imitation the most lethal form of flattery

BY MICHAEL EVANS, DEFENCE EDITOR

COPYING the weaponry of other countries has been a longstanding practice, especially during the Cold War when the Soviet Union succeeded in matching American advances in technology by sending out KGB spies to steal blueprints. Although there have been generations of brilliant Russian aircraft designers, Moscow copied American designs for some of its early strategic bombers because it was the quickest way to get the aircraft into production and into operational service.
The American B29 Superfortress, which was designed in 1940 and was the aircraft from which the atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki in August 1945, formed the basis for the early Russian strategic bombers.

The most notorious copy was Russia’s version of the American B1B bomber. When the Russian Blackjack strategic bomber was brought out, the similarities were remarkable.

Like the B1B, it had pivoting wings and a rotary cruise missile launcher on its belly. It was designed, like the American bomber, to fly low and fast during long-range missions. Even the crewing arrangement and the internal layout of the aircraft resembled those of the B1B.

More recently, the Americans have had reason to fear that the Chinese acquired the designs of their latest miniaturised nuclear warheads fitted to submarine-launched Trident ballistic missiles after the discovery of a serious security leak at the Los Alamos laboratory in New Mexico.

If China intends to copy the old Russian carrier, the 47,000-tonne Minsk, to add greater firepower and prestige to its burgeoning navy, Beijing will be joining an exclusive club of carrier owners whose membership stands at nine: the US with 12, Britain with three, France with two, and Russia, India, Thailand, Italy, Spain and Brazil with one each.

China has had ambitions to have a carrier for many years, aware that the possession of a carrier brings with it a different scale of naval power. Japan, whose constitution prohibits the deployment of non-defensive weapons, such as an aircraft carrier, is also venturing down this road. The design of a new generation of destroyer looks uncannily like a through-deck cruiser and may develop into a Japanese-style carrier — one more member of the club.

And this guy is a defense editor for a distinguished newspaper.

[Vortex]

No..No...oh man...i'm confusing more people, sorry...all i'm saying is that aerodyanmicists use "drag coefficients" so they can justify testing subscale models. In that sense, drag coefficient is a measure of how aerodyanmic a certain shape is while drag is the absolute measure of the "resistive" force against the direction of the movement. That's all.

[biffbutkus1]

I don't think drag is dependent on mass. I think Vortex was just saying that drag is independent of the coefficient of drag. If two objects have the same cd, but one is much bigger, the bigger object will have more drag. I don't think the mass of the items matters here. At leat thats what I got, maybe I'm wrong. If I am, I'm sure Vortex will correct me :).

Vortex, is drag treated as a vector force that is opposite the lifting force, or is it opposite the force propelling the aircraft? Or is it neither? :D

[biffbutkus1]

He he, answered my question already. I guess I posted right after you Vortex.

[Vortex]

drag and lift is defined as with respect to the wind velocity vector. Drag is in the direction opposite of thrust and along the wind axis...the direction that the wind is blowing toward you. Lift is defined as perpendicular to the drag. I think what makes more sense to people is the normal and axial force. axial force is basically the force direction along the body of the aircraft and the normal force is perpendicular to that. The angle between the normal and the axial force IS the angle of attack. Note that Lift and Drag is derived from Normal and Axial. You find the force about the body of the aircraft, break them down into x and y axis direction...we call this the body axis of the aircraft. The Lift and Drag is just the wind axis of the aircraft.

[Vortex]

opps, sorry, before someone kill me on a mistake...drag is not opposite of thrust..hehe..mind typo ;-) of course you all know of vectored thrust...

[GarryB]

LAST EDITED ON 03-Mar-01 AT 04:17 AM (GMT)[p]Yes, my reason for mentioning parachutes is simplicity. Gravity is always present when talking about sensible real world objects people can relate to. It makes sense therefore in the context of explaining drag and drag coefficient to remove the thrust by making it gravity, which is reasonably constant. If you have ever jumped out of a perfectly good aeroplane you will know that as you accelerate initially when you jump out pretty soon your speed stops increasing. This is called terminal velocity. If you are horizontal with your arms and legs in a star shape you fall much slower than if you stand up. If you do stand up and put your arms out you can spin by tilting your hands, though you still descend at a great rate(no point to the spinning, but it is fun though).
If I understand you correctly:
By changing body angle you change drag and therefore your maximum possible speed for the given thrust (about 9.8m/s/s) but if you keep your arms and legs splayed out in the same way but are turned vertically your drag coefficient stays the same.
(BTW post 52 is the clearest post yet Vortex and the most useful... cheers.)
################################################## ###########
I tried to post the below message before (would have been post 51) but it didn't work(system crash).
################################################## ###########
"Are you a physicists?" No, I'm a quack... well actually, as I think I mentioned before, my proper title is "layman".
I do have an interest in physics, astronomy, aircraft, military equipment, well just boys toys really.

BTW
"...the Wright Brothers so different in inventing the first heavier than air, motorized, manned aircraft."
Actually that is not strictly true. A NZ chap called Richard Pearce flew before them, but didn't fly far enough or with enough control to be a viable aircraft design, and was therefore ignored by World history. But I guess every country has some guy who was so close, but was just beaten by someone. So something like:
"the Wright Brothers so different in inventing the first heavier than air, motorized, manned aircraft, capable of controlled flight."
...would be more accurate.

[Vortex]

You are correct on the Wright Brothers...many were very close to achieve that, it was a evolutionary milestone rather than revolutionary. Many have attmpted without a pilot. Why they're so important is the introduction of applied aerodynamics with their experimental methods. I don't doubt stories similar to your NZ chap..or you guys call Kiwis? anyway...drag And drag coefficient varies when you change you shape and direction w.r.t to the free stream, i'm not denying that...all i'm saying is that when you compare two identically same shape objects at SIMILAR conditions, then the drag coefficient is the same, but not the drag. I think this is almost what you said in your original post, but your conclusion of Tu-160 have less drag than B-1B is not really correct. It's possible, but not necessary true because somebody said Tu-160 is less "draggy" than B-1B.(of course you also have to satisfy the Reynolds number and Mach number...but let's just stop here on this, unless you don't find me annoying).

[ink]

No, no, don't stop. I like this. Incidentally I think what was more confusing is the fact that Garry talked about the "weight" of the brick rather than it's size initially. I see, drag is dependant on size and drag coefficient is dependant on aeodynamic qualities (which is presumably why the aforementioned large brick can have the same drag as a Blackjack).

[mercurion]

I can see what you mean- the aircraft looks like it's literally had its neck broken, like an executed swan....it's horrible!

[biffbutkus1]

Ink- or a brick that is less aerodynamic (higher cd) than the TU160, would have less drag than the TU160 (assuming its a normal sized brick, not some 30ft x 40ft monster.)

[mercurion]

You can't really compare a B-1B to a Tu-160! They were designed to different requirements. It would be better to compare the B-1A to the Tu-160 because they are closer in performance and design intention. You would also have to include a very specific mission profile and have them both fly it and see which performed better. I love the B-1, but I still accept the title the Tu-160 has of being 'the world's most powerfull warplane'. It's an awsome machine!

[mercurion]

Yay! Nice to see someone with first hand knowlege who actually knows what they're talking about! There are so many people on this forum who argue so 'authoritatively' yet have no personal experience! It's also refreshing to see that you don't have a bias towards the B-1, even though you work with it--nice going!

[mercurion]

Basta-d! Leave him alone a-seh-le! He has the courage of his convictions, which is what these forums are all about! Are you going to live up the Yank stereotype of not seeing any opinion but yankee doodle dandy????! X(

[Vortex]

Indeed, very powerful plane if they can get their act together. Before i get myself into a deeper hole and people quote me out of context....all that drag and lift stuff, you have to define certain parameters before you compare them...or else it's totally different. Ink, drag also depends on weight, b/c if you need to fly a plane level, not falling, then Lift=Weight...in that case Drag is also a function of the Lift squared (somewhat). I know it's confusing, but most times when people are talking about a certain thing, they are talking about the dominant stuffs.

[ink]

No, no, drag being related to lift makes perfect sense.

Vortex, please feel free to include equations if it'll help you explain certain things, I'm sure they won't confuse us too much.

[minmiester]

I think what vortex has been trying to tell people is that basically, DRAG is the TOTAL dragging force acting against the thurst of an aircraft, whereas DRAG CO-EFFICIENT (cd) is like a ratio of drag per unit of aircraft size/area/whatever. It's like THRUST and THRUST-WEIGHT RATIO. THRUST is solely dependent on the engine (DRAG dependent on aircraft size AND aerodynamics) whereas THRUST-WEIGHT RATIO is dependent mainly on engine performance combined with aircraft weight (DRAG CO-EFFICIENT dependent on a aerodynamics of aircraft, not size, not area blah blah blah). I hope I did an ok job of explaining (in lay man's terms). :)

MinMiester

[GarryB]

"I think this is almost what you said in your original post, but your conclusion of Tu-160 have less drag than B-1B is not really correct."
My original post was not me, but a selection of information from an article on the Tu-160 that included a comparison with the B-1B which I thought was relevant to the thread.

"...but let's just stop here on this, unless you don't find me annoying."
You are not boring. Though it does not come naturally I am interested in physics. (hard work for me, but interesting nonetheless).

According to Bill Gunston in his Putnum book "Tupelov aircraft since 1922" "A second difference (the first was 79% more engine thrust) is that though significantly larger the the USAF bomber (B-1B), the Tu-160 has smaller radar cross sections and lower aerodynamic drag. Dr. Tupolev said 'We believe that this is the most aerodynamically efficient supersonic aircraft ever built'."
"The fuselage cross-section is the minimum necessary for crew, fuel, and payload, and is significantly less than that of the B-1B or Tu-22M. Drag and radar cross-section are further reduced by the acute angle of the conical nose, and by the use of special computer routines to achieve optimum shape and control machine tools in production. Of over 45 antennas, only 3 project as blades or spikes. Apart from the previously mentioned hinged flap fence, no fences or vortex generators were needed anywhere."
"structurally, this aircraft broke new ground with Tupolev in its very extensive use of honeycomb sandwich skin and precision controlled radar absorbant material covering."
So I guess the TU-160 is Russias first gen stealth plane...

[biffbutkus1]

Interesting Garry. I have new respect for the Tupolev.

[Vortex]

exactly, thanks.