Tu-160 "Blackjack"

"I can only imagine the B-1 is hugely superior" I would not bet to much on it. A common american attitude is to underestimate russian engineering. One example is the Archer missile that the west didnt have a single clue about how it worked. The west didnt even know it had vectorrised thrust. Another technology that the west did not have a single clue about is the helmetsights that went hand in hand with the archer missile. Before western countries got to see the archer up close they allways saw the sidewinder as better, now we know how much better the archer was then the sidewinders of the same era. The close range missiles we in the western world build today (for example aim9-X and iris-t) are improved copies of the aa-11 archer that russians used in the 80s.

All is fair in love and war..and aircraft design ;)

touche your right. which is why i stated when i gave credit to russians for thier space program and stealth calculations. and yes, i know france and GB made the concorde. i was going to mention it but forgot. i guess i just feel like theyve crossed some line, like the difference between collaboration and plagarism.

Quote:

HugHugHugHugHugHugHugHugHugHugHugHugHugHugHugHugHugHugHugHugHugHugHug

Make that 'Wernher von Braun'. My bad.

cam 210: 'some american plane....concorde..' hmmm..... concorde..... america...... hmmmmm...oh, no, wait concorde=britain france :)

And the fact that you guys get so wound up about all this- geeze relax. Contrail_25 stated it best himself "we are idiots for stating the obvious" :>

America has benefited from other's research too. Werner Von Braun anybody? V1's, V2's, Mercury, Gemini, Apollo. Duh.

And the Russians have made some very impressive and very unique designs over the years. Give credit where credit is due.

And America has made amazing airplanes. Duh. There, now everyone can have a group hug.

i would never suggest that the us has never taken any ideas or technologies from the russians. thier space program was undoubtedly better than ours at one point. the origional mathematics and proofs used to create stealth structures was written by a russian acedemic and discovered by the lockheed martin skunkworks who used it to make the F117.

im simply saying that weve havent based much on them in 60 years or so. they, however, have been creating aircraft, not as similar designs, but as nearly exact copies for a long time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B29

it talks about how they "carbon copied the b29, this tu-160 is an obvious clone of a b1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSOoio1RJaw

thats a video about the "russian concorde"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VE9B1SeADw

and the valkyrie/t4.... naw these are all just coincidences.... any questions.

oh and yay about canted ejections seats... the ACES ejection seat used in most american fighters, namely the f-16 uses onboard aircraft telemetry and in cockptit pitot tubes near the pilots head to select one of three ejection sequences. it also has an off axis rocket used to rotate the seat and steer the pilot away from the oncoming tail.

nice information, next time try linking your brain to your keyboard before you go writing silly things.

Where did I conclude silly things? I was pointing out that someone argued that the TU-160 looked nothing like a B-1 before on here. So before you start insinuating that we are idiots for stating the obvious physical relation between the two, learn to read what was really said first.

I have indeed linked my "eyeball mk1 to my gray matter" and it concluded correctly that the TU-160 bears a very similar resemblance to the B-1. As far as in innards....I'm rather sure that they have their own way of doing things as we do ourselves.

In what manner is it more like the 144 than a B1? Avionics? Systems? Those I could see. However, aerodynamically you are way off base.

You guys do know that politics play a role? The initial proposal for the Buran ('Shuttle copy') looked more like the X-33 Venture Star, then politicians said 'No, we need something that looks like the Space Shuttle'. Still it had different solutions (like a viable ejection system, non toxic OMS equivalent, 3 times higher payload, and last but not least a fully autonomous flight control system, which is still impressive, even today) Oh, it also rode on top of the world's most powerful rocket (copied from who? ;) ). So do some research before linking your eyeball mk1 to you gray matter and concluding silly things.

It has more in common with the Tu-144 than with the B-1A or B. An interesting thing, the tu-160 has a simultaneous ejection sequence, so all crew leaves at the same time, no time intervals for seat spacing, just different trajectories achieved by deflection rockets. That is cool (and saves lives) IMHO.

Quote:

F-15??

yeah, in some ways security does suck. plans have leaked plenty of times in history. plus, theres plenty of ways to steal design past getting blueprints. look at the pictures of the comparable aircraft. theyre not "following fashion", theyre making cheap sunglasses in mexico and printing oakley on the side.

Quote:

No, please, not again... Believe me, designers are only men and they can be driven by fashion in designing the exterior of an airplane, but you sure know that, for any airplane, beauty is only skin deep. What lies below the surface is all to the credit of the designer themselves unless you think (wrongly, I suppose) that your CIA is wasted money because it can't prevent GRU from stealing the blueprints of your airplanes. Every single time you say that others copy your aircraft, you imply that your security sucks.

It is true the Blackjack has more in comon with the B-1A a high altitude supersonic bomber and I dont know much on the avionics of the Blackjack but I can only imagine the B-1 is hugely superior ,good call ,Contrail

Didn't someone on this site argue that this has "no relation" to the B1 in terms of design?

lol

lol, i love how almost every successful russian plane is basically an exact replica of some american plane. its been going on since world war 2 when the russians captured a b29 (i believe it was) and literally replicated it to the point that it had the same engine overheading problemsm etc. look at our vulkyrie, at the concord, space shuttle... all copied.

Nice footage indeed !

B-1B's faster cousin. Sweet footage.