Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

[grey boy 2]

I know that. Mig-25 was designed to be fast and furious (Mach 3), able to reach very high attitude (30,000m) to intercept the supersonic bomber the North American XB-70 Valkyrie, which got cancelled.

View attachment 364626View attachment 364626

Bro, will you please stop response to the random troll who's on a mission to troll, provoke and degrade, derail the thread

 

[Asoka]

Bro, will you please stop response to the random troll who's on a mission to troll, provoke and degrade, derail the thread

OK, Bro. I haven't seen this poster before, until yesterday.

 

[Ultima Thule]

OK, Bro. I haven't seen this poster before, until yesterday.

Asok bro @BoQ77 is a anti Chinese troller

 

[Asoka]

Asok bro @BoQ77 is a anti Chinese troller

OK, it's good to know. Thanks!

 

[gambit]

Mig-25 was designed to be fast and furious (Mach 3), able to reach very high attitude (30,000m) to intercept the supersonic bomber the North American XB-70 Valkyrie, which got cancelled.

If you are even implying that the XB-70 was cancelled because of the fear of the MIG-25 -- Stop.

The XB-70 was cancelled because the jet -- believe it or not -- could not live up to its conceptual expectations. In other words, it was too technically demanding of a project and the USAF needed the funds elsewhere.

The XB-70 was designed around the idea of 'compression lift'...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compression_lift
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/design/waverider/design.shtml
http://xb70.interceptor.com/

North American engineers pored through every aerodynamic study they could find, looking for anything that could be applied to a large, triplesonic bomber. They came across a forgotten NACA (now NASA) research paper about "Compression Lift." This paper described how a conical body underneath the center of a wing would push the air to the side, increasing pressure under the wing section (thereby increasing lift!) with far less drag than simply increasing the size of the wing itself.

Essentially, the jet would be 'surfing' on its own supersonic shock waves. The XB-70 was approaching that goal when program technical difficulties and mishaps forced the project's cancellation. In many ways, the XB-70's goals were more technically challenging than the F-35's.

The MIG-25's speed was achieved thru sheer propulsive brute strength. No subtlety or finesse about it.

The SR-71's speed was achieved thru minimal aerodynamic drag via extraordinary shaping.

The XB-70 combined both.

If finances allowed, the XB-70 would -- not could or might -- end up as the world's fastest and highest altitude cruising bomber. Not even the MIG-25 could chase.

 

[yusheng]

 

[Asoka]

If you are even implying that the XB-70 was cancelled because of the fear of the MIG-25 -- Stop.

The XB-70 was cancelled because the jet -- believe it or not -- could not live up to its conceptual expectations. In other words, it was too technically demanding of a project and the USAF needed the funds elsewhere.

The XB-70 was designed around the idea of 'compression lift'...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compression_lift
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/design/waverider/design.shtml
http://xb70.interceptor.com/

Essentially, the jet would be 'surfing' on its own supersonic shock waves. The XB-70 was approaching that goal when program technical difficulties and mishaps forced the project's cancellation. In many ways, the XB-70's goals were more technically challenging than the F-35's.

The MIG-25's speed was achieved thru sheer propulsive brute strength. No subtlety or finesse about it.

The SR-71's speed was achieved thru minimal aerodynamic drag via extraordinary shaping.

The XB-70 combined both.

If finances allowed, the XB-70 would -- not could or might -- end up as the world's fastest and highest altitude cruising bomber. Not even the MIG-25 could chase.

I simply stated "North American XB-70 Valkyrie, which got cancelled." Mig-25's first flight was on 1964. The west did not learn of its existence years later. And USAF cancelled the B-70 program on 1961. How could Mig-25 influenced the decision?

Nice post on the XB-70 background, though.

Relax, Bro, and pop a pill, before you burst a blood vessel in your brain.

 

[Deino]

Guys ... no need to add MiG-25, Valkyrie or other large fighters to that tread otherwise some Western specialists like Carlo Kopp will again jump on that bandwagon "it is long, it is large, .. it is a F-111-like fighter bomber" !

Deino

 

[cirr]

View attachment 364641 View attachment 364642

Goodbye 2016, hello 2017

http://share.acg.tv/flash.swf?aid=7113144&page=1

May 2017 be promised to be a very interesting and exciting year for you all.

 

[Deino]

Oh You are turturing me again !

At least a hint what will happen in May??

Anyway I wish all of You all the best for 2017.
Deino

 

[Naif al Hilali]

The MIG-25's speed was achieved thru sheer propulsive brute strength. No subtlety or finesse about it.

The SR-71's speed was achieved thru minimal aerodynamic drag via extraordinary shaping.

The XB-70 combined both.

If finances allowed, the XB-70 would -- not could or might -- end up as the world's fastest and highest altitude cruising bomber. Not even the MIG-25 could chase.

Thanks gambit.

If I may add,

1. The MiG-25 would actually start eating its engine beyond Mach 2.5, so not really at par with the other two in any respect, though we did not know that until after the defection to Japan by Victor Belenko.

https://theaviationist.com/2016/09/...a-secretive-mig-25-foxbat-40-years-ago-today/

https://theaviationist.com/2013/07/19/foxbat-defection/

2. The wing form of the SR-71 was necessary for the high speeds but most of the rest of the shaping had to do with signature reduction.

The reason behind the SR-71's sustained speeds of Mach 3.0-3.2 were the shock inlets of the Pratt & Whitney J58s that acted as 'ramjets' and produced 80% of the thrust above Mach 2.5 by compression alone, as well as the special (toxic) JP-7 fuel that leaked through the wing's 'pores' on the ground but super-cooled (relatively speaking) the airframe in flight.

See Ben Rich's book "Skunk Works" on the topic, specially the part on his design of the inlets.

3. Interesting that two shock-riders in history (see BAC TSR.2 below, though designed for a different but equally demanding flight regime) were both canceled during development. My own feeling is that they would probably have run into controllability issues and suffered from lack of sufficient agility if developed further, even though the designers felt otherwise.

 

[Deino]

Guys ... this was a clear order !

Other BIG like Valkyrie. MiG-25, SR-71 and now even TSR-2 aircraft are irrelevant in this thread.

Stay on topic please.

Deino

 

[Ultima Thule]

If you knew that many aircrafts have enough power to reach Mach 2.5 and more. They didn't do it because some reasons.

J-20 wouldn't long fly at above Mach 2 speed, because it would ruin its engines and its RAM and some more consequences because of aerodynamic heating and others, even if it has the more powerful engines.

That's why I said "it would fly at Mach 3 if it was designed to do so, and it wouldn't if it wasn't designed for that speed"

We should satisfy if J-20 could supercruise at Mach 1.2

how do you know that it could cruise at MACH 1.2?,all information are classified about J-20, just in you wet dream and wishful thinking

 

[jkroo]

Goodbye 2016, hello 2017

http://share.acg.tv/flash.swf?aid=7113144&page=1

May 2017 be promised to be a very interesting and exciting year for you all.

One word to comment the video 屌！！

 

[WarFariX]

happy new year leak...guess what message does this pic give?

@grey boy 2 any idea bro???
apart from hmd