@khask72 The B-1 invented the art of cruise missiles, where have you been the last 30 years. It was the B-1 and its cruise missiles that made the Soviets shit their fucking pants and fall back in it. There have always been rotary launchers for cruise missiles in the B-1. Where do you get your information, it is flawed and baseless.
T-4 is interesting in that after lifting off and nose cone into position (to supersonic flight) crew was unable to see the surrounding area in general, because unlike the Tu-144 nose cone had no glass. The flight was carried out only by instruments. Including monitors mounted with a camera nose.
The russians version sucks. The window looks non aerodynamic and like a 1850's choo cho train window. Fucking always copying us. Its pissing me off. The most hysterical thing is in the early 1990's russia was sold secrets how to make a f117 steal fighter from a spy... and they couldnt build it even with the blue prints. LMFAO.
@Lifeisincredible911 think u will find that u spied on them making or designing it and u copyed them my friend.. america are the best at spying and then putting there version in the media first.. its just a pitty u guys dont know what your doing with all that good equipment.. you got to admit your a paranoid nation so thats what makes u spy on everyone else.. but hey russia spies too and other nations but they dont put things on the news to say hey look what we have now like u guys..sshhh quiet
@khask72 You didn't save us from anybody, you shithead. We did all the fighting and then you simply wanted to occupy us. Learn the fucking history. And yeah, the IAR-80 BOMBED THE HELL OUT OF YOUR SORRY ASSES after you occupied OUR Moldova. Get it, asshole? You were the aggressors, not us.
@StiviGun1 LOL you're a filthy gypsy. Most of Europe hates Romanians. In France they put up signs at the train stations to warn about Romanian thieves. The Italians hate the Romanians as well, they say they bring disease.
@khask72 By the way, the first aircraft that used the swing wing design and that could change the sweep of its wings DURING FLIGHT, was the Bell X-5. So, little boy, before making any further comment, go make some actual research and then start arguing with people.
@khask72 using this wing design. So what other great Russian "inventions" and "innovations" do you got for me? There were, of course, some, but not as much as the Americans have done.
Also, that Schevchenko guy, he was a Ukrainian, not a Russian. Learn how to make the fucking difference.
@khask72 OK, I made some quick research and it appears that the first variable sweep wing aircraft was built by the Messerschmitt and designed by Willy Messerschmitt. That V. Shevchenko guy seems to have been a musician or something and he had nothing to do with engineering. Lies only make you look pathetic & desperate... As 4 stealing, yeah, it seems like the Americans stole the GERMANS idea of this wing design, but they were the 1st 1 make it work & actually built the 1st plane that could fly
@khask72 OK, u say that "a lot" of American revolutionary design features were known long time before the Americans implemented them on their designs. I told you to give me an example of shoulder mounted wing and side mounted air intakes aircraft that was built before the XF-108. And give me the name of the swing wing aircraft that you say it was developed by you in1946.
@khask72 big contribution in aviation, search Aurel Vlaicu, who built the first metal plane and Henri Coanda, who had a major contribution in the development of the jet engine and even the helicopter. As for one famous plane designed in Romania, how about the IAR-80, that bombed the hell out of you at Stalingrad? I;m not bragging about that, but you talk a lot of shit without knowing what you're talking about. Do some research before making statements.
@khask72 I'm someone who has made a lot of research on airplane designs & on weapons systems, in general. The T-4, with minor differences, is almost an identical copy of the XB-70, the Tu-160 is an exact B1B copy, only larger, the MiG-23 and Su-24 are both heavily based on the F-111, only less powerful. BTW, even the BT tanks from the '30s were based on Walter Cristie's innovations. The BT-2 is nothing more than a Cristie tank, only it has a different turret. As 4 Romanian engineers that had a
@khask72 If you think that T-4 doesn't look extremely similar to the Valkyrie, then you should go have you eyes checked. Maybe you need glasses. The T-4's form of the fuselage, the form of the wing looks very similar to the Valkyrie.The American design was of course, bigger and more powerful. And they designed it during the '50s, much earlier than the T-4. Besides, go look what wiki says. It clearly says that the T-4 was meant 2 take advantage of MANY OF THE XB-70'S INNOVATIONS.
@khask72 Name me several Americans designs that look very similar wit one of yours. From airplanes, to tanks, to whatever. They have stolen ideas from you, of course & espionage exists, of course, but that doesn't mean America is the most active in this area, but espionage is most of the times meant to see what developments the opponent has made, not only 2 steal ideas.So name me one American design that looks extremely similar to one of yours that was built BEFORE the American one.
@khask72 that the American politicians didn't wanna use because they were some pathetic pussies. There was nothing revolutionary in any of you designs. The A-5 was revolutionary. The XF-108 was revolutionary. The XB-70 Valkyrie was revolutionary. They all incorporated features that no one else incorporated on any design before them. That's what innovative and revolutionary means. Copying and claiming it to be yours is not innovative or revolutionary.
@khask72 designed to reach, and you think you're tough and smart? Don't make me laugh. The MiG-25 is just a smaller Vigilante, with much shorter wings to be able to fly fast. But in the end, it didn't fly that fast, that's why they had to design the huge MiG-31. There was nothing special about the MiG-25. The Americans had such a design 10 years b4 it & with greater performances. The XF-108 was a mach 3 interceptor. The only thing you ever managed to do was to actually use the American ideas
@khask72 Design characteristics and who incorporated them first on their own aircraft, are not my own conclusions... I know everything there is to know about the MiG-25. You go read about the XF-108 and A-5 Vigilante. Go see how much the Su-27's wing design resembles the A-5's wing design. The XF-108 was a mach 3 interceptor that was designed in the 50s. You barely managed 2 build an interceptor in the '60s, copied from the American designs that couldn't even reach the maximum speed that was
@khask72 Actually, you are a biased person who can't even use its common sense when evaluating things. BTW, if you say that the MiG-25 was so "innovative", give me one example of a soviet fighter that had shoulder mounted wings & side mounted air intakes that was designed in the '50s. The XF-108 Rapier & the A5 Vigilante, now those were really innovative. They incorporated features that no1 else had incorporated on any other plane before them. That's what INNOVATIVE means.
@khask72 They may be fantastic, but they are not at all unique. Their design characteristics were incorporated on other, American fighters, that were built and designed before them. The Tu-160, although a very powerful bomber, is nothing more than a B1B on steroids. The T-4 is definitely based on the XB-70, which was designed over 10 years before & the Su-27 & MiG-29, again, although excellent performing fighters, have a lot of design features 1sy incorporated on others, American fighters. So
@khask72 Used, stolen, it doesn't matter what word you use. The ideas is that it couldn't be like this since they were the first to make such a design. Go read about the XF-108 Rapier as well. That was just another extremely powerful and advanced fighter that was canceled because if US politicians stupidity. You know, this stupidity saved you from a lot of good American designs too many times.
@khask72 It's impossible for the Americans to have used "innovations" from the MiG-25 if the MiG-25 itself was heavily influenced by the A-5 Vigilante. The only difference between the MiG-25 and the A5 is that the MiG-25 has 2 vertical tail fins, while the A5 has one. Well, the MiG-25's wings r also shorter so it can gain better speed. But the fuselage shape & everything else was heavily influenced by the Vigilante.
@khask72 From what I know, the soviets were the 1st 2 discover the benefits of the sloped armor. If you have proof that others also knew abt it, provide them.
As 4 "characteristics" define what YOU understand by this word. I am talking about DESIGN characteristics, like wing design, engines placement, tail design, nos design. In Tu-160, T-4, SU-24 & MiG-23, all these characteristics r obvious that they were taken from Americans designs.
And I never spoke about WW2 tanks vs modern cars...
@khask72 I don't know if the panther can be called a T-34 copy, but it certainly borrowed the sloped armor design. That is what the Germans copied from you.
As for the Tu-95, yeah, that is a B-29 copy. Everyone admits that.
@khask72 Well, that's the problem, the Tu-160, the T-4, the MiG-23 ad the Su-24, they don't have different characteristics from their American counterparts. They look almost identical.
As 4 coaxial rotor design, that design exists 4 such a long time that u simply can't talk about copying. That is something everybody can do. It's not the same with placing the wings, the engines & designing the tail in the exact same way as on ur opponent's designs.
@khask72 I rejected yout F-1 comparison because planes are much more sophisticated. When you talk about planes, It's not that simple as when you talk about cars.
@khask72 The Americans could not have stolen the idea of putting ceramics in the nose of the F-15 because they didn't had access at such information on MiG-25 when they designed the F-15. Only lather, after F-15 entered production, they got their hands on the MiG-25 & saw that they have built a very maneuverable fighter 2 compete with a very fast one.
As 4 my approach, if it looks very similar or if it's almost identical & if it's built after the system it resembles, than it's a copy.
@khask72 I am not relying my claims on timing, but on astonishing design similarities. Russians & Americans think very differently. It's impossible 4 the Russians 2 have such similar design ideas. Like I said, general physics laws can give birth to a lot of very different designs. And if u say timing is not important in making claims abt copying, give me reliable resources abt the Tu-160 and T-4. Show me their history and how they were design & by how long before they first took off.
@khask72 I suppose that for you, the Su-24 & the MiG-23 are not based on the American F-111 neither, right? Even the MiG-25 looks very similar with the A-5 Vigilante. In fact, from some angles you would say that they are one and the same aircraft. That means copying. On, the other hand, show me an American design that was built after and looks exactly or very similar to one of your designs. This way, you would also prove your theory about the physics laws and all that.
@khask72 A plane can have a big variety of configurations, a big variety of wing designs and a lot of other details that can differentiate it form other designs. The Tu-160 has the same wing design, the same engine positioning, the tail design is identical. That means copying and when the B1B was in the project level, the Tu-160 was not even on the drawing board.
As 4 the Su-27 & the MiG-29, I already enumerated the design details that they borrow from the American fighters. That is COPYING.
@khask72 Formula 1 is not the same with weapons technology. When it comes to weapons you can achieve the same results by a multitude of methods and designs. The Tu-160 and the T-4 are copied after American bombers. The Su-27 and MiG-29 also have characteristics incorporated from American fighters, like the F-16, F-18 and F-14. The engines widely spaced apart r taken from the F-14, the leading edge extensions r taken from the F-16 & F-18. The tail is exactly the same with the F-15's and F-14's.
@khask72 U started the copying debate when u talked about Sikorsky. As 4 T-4, yeah, it was a magnificent plane, but the fact that is an almost direct XB-70 copy, can't be denied. Look at them. They are extremely similar. The tail differs a little bit, but in the rest, they are the same. Just like with the Tu-160. That aircraft resembles the B1B even more than the T-4 resembles the XB-70. Even the tail is exactly the same.
i got to look at this plane every morning before i got on the bus when i was a kid...:)....i lived right across the stree from the gates at wright patterson museum , she sat out there on the tarmack for a couple of decades...
The only thing Russia invented without theft is vodka (maybe stolen from poland) rape, chronic masterbation. Evan their subs look like a fucking tractor.
@OTULP62 Actually, their subs are pretty good. The Akula is definitely more advanced than the Los Angeles class. It's just that they have a too small number of them. But they are very advanced. Much quieter than the LA class. And Russians actually, did invented a lot of things. They built the 1st ICBM, they put the 1st artificial satellite on the orbit, they sens the 1st man in space, they were the 1st 2 reach 2 the moon. These are just a few of their accomplishments.
Ok first of all why is the T-4 in (?) cause it's as prominent as the XB-70 in this vid. Second u call it the russian version/copy of the XB-70, one remark to that source wikipedia: "the Sukhoi T-4 was not intended as a Soviet equivalent of the North American XB-70 Valkyrie" enough said.
Not enough said. Copy the whole sentence: "Despite design similarities the Sukhoi T-4 was not intended as a Soviet equivalent of the North American XB-70 Valkyrie supersonic bomber, but was rather intended to take advantage of many of the XB-70's aeronautic innovations to develop a smaller reconnaissance and anti-carrier aircraft capable of reaching Mach 3."
@Ascend3r Yeah, Wikipedia says that, but it refers to the role the bomber would've been used in, not to the design features. From design point of view, it's obvious that it has been very accurately copied. But unlike the Valkyrie, which never got into service because of US's politicians stupidity & incompetence, this one was simply outclassed by another design, the Tu-160, which is indeed an excellent design, even though it too was based on an American design, the B-1 bomber. U can't deny that.
we still need it
DerSturmerSS 2 months ago
@khask72 Its not propaganda Khask, Russian shit is just that, Russian shit. The T-4 was a piece of shit, it didn't work, the XB-70 worked!
sakoshooter48 2 months ago
@khask72 I guess your fucking Nazi's were better than our fucking Nazi's!
sakoshooter48 2 months ago
@khask72 You are so removed from reality that this conversation will officially cease right now!
sakoshooter48 2 months ago
@khask72 Shit our pants?! Not Likely!
sakoshooter48 3 months ago
@khask72 The B-1 invented the art of cruise missiles, where have you been the last 30 years. It was the B-1 and its cruise missiles that made the Soviets shit their fucking pants and fall back in it. There have always been rotary launchers for cruise missiles in the B-1. Where do you get your information, it is flawed and baseless.
sakoshooter48 3 months ago
What we need is a space freighter
vladdrac88 7 months ago
T-4 is interesting in that after lifting off and nose cone into position (to supersonic flight) crew was unable to see the surrounding area in general, because unlike the Tu-144 nose cone had no glass. The flight was carried out only by instruments. Including monitors mounted with a camera nose.
KINO2x 8 months ago
The russians version sucks. The window looks non aerodynamic and like a 1850's choo cho train window. Fucking always copying us. Its pissing me off. The most hysterical thing is in the early 1990's russia was sold secrets how to make a f117 steal fighter from a spy... and they couldnt build it even with the blue prints. LMFAO.
Lifeisincredible911 8 months ago
@Lifeisincredible911 think u will find that u spied on them making or designing it and u copyed them my friend.. america are the best at spying and then putting there version in the media first.. its just a pitty u guys dont know what your doing with all that good equipment.. you got to admit your a paranoid nation so thats what makes u spy on everyone else.. but hey russia spies too and other nations but they dont put things on the news to say hey look what we have now like u guys..sshhh quiet
uksaselite 6 months ago
@Lifeisincredible911 Ignorant moron. The nose cone was elevated during supersonic flight and as far as drag and aerodynamics go, the T-4 is better.
DrHavoc1 6 months ago
@DrHavoc1 The Sotka was better, really, really????? What do you base that statement on?
sakoshooter48 3 months ago
@sakoshooter48 Read it on wikipedia. Sotka has better aerodynamics, Valkyre has better engines.
DrHavoc1 3 months ago
@Lifeisincredible911 ha ha we own you! :-)! the whole world will be a russian empire!
DerSturmerSS 2 months ago
Didn't a Soviet/Russian TU-144 crash during an airshow in Paris in 1971 or 73?
xxchinookxx 1 year ago
@khask72 BTW, there's not such plane with "two tails"...
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@khask72 You didn't save us from anybody, you shithead. We did all the fighting and then you simply wanted to occupy us. Learn the fucking history. And yeah, the IAR-80 BOMBED THE HELL OUT OF YOUR SORRY ASSES after you occupied OUR Moldova. Get it, asshole? You were the aggressors, not us.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
Comment removed
Jospehporta 1 year ago
@StiviGun1Romanians are indeed mongrel dogs and should be put down :)
Jospehporta 1 year ago
@Jospehporta No, elements such as yourself, should be put down...
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1 LOL you're a filthy gypsy. Most of Europe hates Romanians. In France they put up signs at the train stations to warn about Romanian thieves. The Italians hate the Romanians as well, they say they bring disease.
Jospehporta 1 year ago
@Jospehporta Trust me, u're the filthiest on YT. Everyone you harassed and stalked agrees with that.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1 LOL a coming from a filthy disease ridden Romanian. Romania is the toilet of Europe.
Jospehporta 1 year ago
@Jospehporta No, u're the toilet of YT... STALKER.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1 = FILTHY GYPSY
Jospehporta 1 year ago
@Jospehporta Is that all you got...? Common, show us you're ENTIRE STUPIDITY...
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1 Copying and pasting my words again.
Jospehporta 1 year ago
@khask72 By the way, the first aircraft that used the swing wing design and that could change the sweep of its wings DURING FLIGHT, was the Bell X-5. So, little boy, before making any further comment, go make some actual research and then start arguing with people.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@khask72 using this wing design. So what other great Russian "inventions" and "innovations" do you got for me? There were, of course, some, but not as much as the Americans have done.
Also, that Schevchenko guy, he was a Ukrainian, not a Russian. Learn how to make the fucking difference.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@khask72 OK, I made some quick research and it appears that the first variable sweep wing aircraft was built by the Messerschmitt and designed by Willy Messerschmitt. That V. Shevchenko guy seems to have been a musician or something and he had nothing to do with engineering. Lies only make you look pathetic & desperate... As 4 stealing, yeah, it seems like the Americans stole the GERMANS idea of this wing design, but they were the 1st 1 make it work & actually built the 1st plane that could fly
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@khask72 OK, u say that "a lot" of American revolutionary design features were known long time before the Americans implemented them on their designs. I told you to give me an example of shoulder mounted wing and side mounted air intakes aircraft that was built before the XF-108. And give me the name of the swing wing aircraft that you say it was developed by you in1946.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@khask72 What I have is the thousands of photos that show how similar the designs we're talking about are. That is more than proof.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@khask72 big contribution in aviation, search Aurel Vlaicu, who built the first metal plane and Henri Coanda, who had a major contribution in the development of the jet engine and even the helicopter. As for one famous plane designed in Romania, how about the IAR-80, that bombed the hell out of you at Stalingrad? I;m not bragging about that, but you talk a lot of shit without knowing what you're talking about. Do some research before making statements.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@khask72 I'm someone who has made a lot of research on airplane designs & on weapons systems, in general. The T-4, with minor differences, is almost an identical copy of the XB-70, the Tu-160 is an exact B1B copy, only larger, the MiG-23 and Su-24 are both heavily based on the F-111, only less powerful. BTW, even the BT tanks from the '30s were based on Walter Cristie's innovations. The BT-2 is nothing more than a Cristie tank, only it has a different turret. As 4 Romanian engineers that had a
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@khask72 Give me the name and a source about that Russian design from 1946 with sing wings.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@khask72 If you think that T-4 doesn't look extremely similar to the Valkyrie, then you should go have you eyes checked. Maybe you need glasses. The T-4's form of the fuselage, the form of the wing looks very similar to the Valkyrie.The American design was of course, bigger and more powerful. And they designed it during the '50s, much earlier than the T-4. Besides, go look what wiki says. It clearly says that the T-4 was meant 2 take advantage of MANY OF THE XB-70'S INNOVATIONS.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@khask72 Name me several Americans designs that look very similar wit one of yours. From airplanes, to tanks, to whatever. They have stolen ideas from you, of course & espionage exists, of course, but that doesn't mean America is the most active in this area, but espionage is most of the times meant to see what developments the opponent has made, not only 2 steal ideas.So name me one American design that looks extremely similar to one of yours that was built BEFORE the American one.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@khask72 that the American politicians didn't wanna use because they were some pathetic pussies. There was nothing revolutionary in any of you designs. The A-5 was revolutionary. The XF-108 was revolutionary. The XB-70 Valkyrie was revolutionary. They all incorporated features that no one else incorporated on any design before them. That's what innovative and revolutionary means. Copying and claiming it to be yours is not innovative or revolutionary.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@khask72 designed to reach, and you think you're tough and smart? Don't make me laugh. The MiG-25 is just a smaller Vigilante, with much shorter wings to be able to fly fast. But in the end, it didn't fly that fast, that's why they had to design the huge MiG-31. There was nothing special about the MiG-25. The Americans had such a design 10 years b4 it & with greater performances. The XF-108 was a mach 3 interceptor. The only thing you ever managed to do was to actually use the American ideas
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@khask72 Design characteristics and who incorporated them first on their own aircraft, are not my own conclusions... I know everything there is to know about the MiG-25. You go read about the XF-108 and A-5 Vigilante. Go see how much the Su-27's wing design resembles the A-5's wing design. The XF-108 was a mach 3 interceptor that was designed in the 50s. You barely managed 2 build an interceptor in the '60s, copied from the American designs that couldn't even reach the maximum speed that was
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@khask72 Actually, you are a biased person who can't even use its common sense when evaluating things. BTW, if you say that the MiG-25 was so "innovative", give me one example of a soviet fighter that had shoulder mounted wings & side mounted air intakes that was designed in the '50s. The XF-108 Rapier & the A5 Vigilante, now those were really innovative. They incorporated features that no1 else had incorporated on any other plane before them. That's what INNOVATIVE means.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@khask72 they are anything but unique.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@khask72 They may be fantastic, but they are not at all unique. Their design characteristics were incorporated on other, American fighters, that were built and designed before them. The Tu-160, although a very powerful bomber, is nothing more than a B1B on steroids. The T-4 is definitely based on the XB-70, which was designed over 10 years before & the Su-27 & MiG-29, again, although excellent performing fighters, have a lot of design features 1sy incorporated on others, American fighters. So
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@khask72 Used, stolen, it doesn't matter what word you use. The ideas is that it couldn't be like this since they were the first to make such a design. Go read about the XF-108 Rapier as well. That was just another extremely powerful and advanced fighter that was canceled because if US politicians stupidity. You know, this stupidity saved you from a lot of good American designs too many times.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@khask72 It's impossible for the Americans to have used "innovations" from the MiG-25 if the MiG-25 itself was heavily influenced by the A-5 Vigilante. The only difference between the MiG-25 and the A5 is that the MiG-25 has 2 vertical tail fins, while the A5 has one. Well, the MiG-25's wings r also shorter so it can gain better speed. But the fuselage shape & everything else was heavily influenced by the Vigilante.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@khask72 From what I know, the soviets were the 1st 2 discover the benefits of the sloped armor. If you have proof that others also knew abt it, provide them.
As 4 "characteristics" define what YOU understand by this word. I am talking about DESIGN characteristics, like wing design, engines placement, tail design, nos design. In Tu-160, T-4, SU-24 & MiG-23, all these characteristics r obvious that they were taken from Americans designs.
And I never spoke about WW2 tanks vs modern cars...
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@khask72 I don't know if the panther can be called a T-34 copy, but it certainly borrowed the sloped armor design. That is what the Germans copied from you.
As for the Tu-95, yeah, that is a B-29 copy. Everyone admits that.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@khask72 Well, that's the problem, the Tu-160, the T-4, the MiG-23 ad the Su-24, they don't have different characteristics from their American counterparts. They look almost identical.
As 4 coaxial rotor design, that design exists 4 such a long time that u simply can't talk about copying. That is something everybody can do. It's not the same with placing the wings, the engines & designing the tail in the exact same way as on ur opponent's designs.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@khask72 I rejected yout F-1 comparison because planes are much more sophisticated. When you talk about planes, It's not that simple as when you talk about cars.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@khask72 The Americans could not have stolen the idea of putting ceramics in the nose of the F-15 because they didn't had access at such information on MiG-25 when they designed the F-15. Only lather, after F-15 entered production, they got their hands on the MiG-25 & saw that they have built a very maneuverable fighter 2 compete with a very fast one.
As 4 my approach, if it looks very similar or if it's almost identical & if it's built after the system it resembles, than it's a copy.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@khask72 I am not relying my claims on timing, but on astonishing design similarities. Russians & Americans think very differently. It's impossible 4 the Russians 2 have such similar design ideas. Like I said, general physics laws can give birth to a lot of very different designs. And if u say timing is not important in making claims abt copying, give me reliable resources abt the Tu-160 and T-4. Show me their history and how they were design & by how long before they first took off.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@khask72 I suppose that for you, the Su-24 & the MiG-23 are not based on the American F-111 neither, right? Even the MiG-25 looks very similar with the A-5 Vigilante. In fact, from some angles you would say that they are one and the same aircraft. That means copying. On, the other hand, show me an American design that was built after and looks exactly or very similar to one of your designs. This way, you would also prove your theory about the physics laws and all that.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@khask72 A plane can have a big variety of configurations, a big variety of wing designs and a lot of other details that can differentiate it form other designs. The Tu-160 has the same wing design, the same engine positioning, the tail design is identical. That means copying and when the B1B was in the project level, the Tu-160 was not even on the drawing board.
As 4 the Su-27 & the MiG-29, I already enumerated the design details that they borrow from the American fighters. That is COPYING.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@khask72 That what were you speaking about?
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@khask72 Formula 1 is not the same with weapons technology. When it comes to weapons you can achieve the same results by a multitude of methods and designs. The Tu-160 and the T-4 are copied after American bombers. The Su-27 and MiG-29 also have characteristics incorporated from American fighters, like the F-16, F-18 and F-14. The engines widely spaced apart r taken from the F-14, the leading edge extensions r taken from the F-16 & F-18. The tail is exactly the same with the F-15's and F-14's.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@khask72 U started the copying debate when u talked about Sikorsky. As 4 T-4, yeah, it was a magnificent plane, but the fact that is an almost direct XB-70 copy, can't be denied. Look at them. They are extremely similar. The tail differs a little bit, but in the rest, they are the same. Just like with the Tu-160. That aircraft resembles the B1B even more than the T-4 resembles the XB-70. Even the tail is exactly the same.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@khask72 Well, the truth is that the Valkyrie was developed more than 10 years BEFORE the Sukhoi T-4. So who's copying who here?
StiviGun1 1 year ago
versinaon?
koolomwee 1 year ago
Zoltan Bebto from Hungary,Europe.Plan is Wonderful.
bebtozoltan55 1 year ago
@khask72
almost all major cities in baltics were founded by colonists, but thats not the point.
automats1 1 year ago
@khask72
yeah but ethnicity still remains not russian, baltics and finland were also in russian empire.
automats1 1 year ago
@khask72
Sikorsky was not russian but ukrainian, even sukhoi was from belarussia which is not russia.
automats1 1 year ago
@automats1
russian emire had ukranian terretory included
so he was born in what was russian empire -e.g - russia.
psq007 1 year ago
Great pictures ruined by crapy "music".
EPCBear 2 years ago
i got to look at this plane every morning before i got on the bus when i was a kid...:)....i lived right across the stree from the gates at wright patterson museum , she sat out there on the tarmack for a couple of decades...
centervilletn 2 years ago
@OTULP62 : Like a John Deere or an AGCO lol !
HellBurnobroyeur 2 years ago
Comment removed
mikespeed20082 2 years ago
The only thing Russia invented without theft is vodka (maybe stolen from poland) rape, chronic masterbation. Evan their subs look like a fucking tractor.
OTULP62 2 years ago
@OTULP62 Actually, their subs are pretty good. The Akula is definitely more advanced than the Los Angeles class. It's just that they have a too small number of them. But they are very advanced. Much quieter than the LA class. And Russians actually, did invented a lot of things. They built the 1st ICBM, they put the 1st artificial satellite on the orbit, they sens the 1st man in space, they were the 1st 2 reach 2 the moon. These are just a few of their accomplishments.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
that has got to be the worst music i have ever heard in my life
yourrealmother 2 years ago 2
Ok first of all why is the T-4 in (?) cause it's as prominent as the XB-70 in this vid. Second u call it the russian version/copy of the XB-70, one remark to that source wikipedia: "the Sukhoi T-4 was not intended as a Soviet equivalent of the North American XB-70 Valkyrie" enough said.
Ascend3r 2 years ago
Comment removed
TomozukiII 2 years ago
Not enough said. Copy the whole sentence: "Despite design similarities the Sukhoi T-4 was not intended as a Soviet equivalent of the North American XB-70 Valkyrie supersonic bomber, but was rather intended to take advantage of many of the XB-70's aeronautic innovations to develop a smaller reconnaissance and anti-carrier aircraft capable of reaching Mach 3."
TomozukiII 2 years ago
@Ascend3r Yeah, Wikipedia says that, but it refers to the role the bomber would've been used in, not to the design features. From design point of view, it's obvious that it has been very accurately copied. But unlike the Valkyrie, which never got into service because of US's politicians stupidity & incompetence, this one was simply outclassed by another design, the Tu-160, which is indeed an excellent design, even though it too was based on an American design, the B-1 bomber. U can't deny that.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
00:50
Great shot.
raynus1 2 years ago
the t-4 is a very ugly jet
joriel360 2 years ago 2
Rivals never met each other in the sky!
kuluku 2 years ago
The T-4 looks like it's smiling at 1:12
jgstargazer 3 years ago 10
Doesn't matter. We all know which one went Mach 3.
brandonel12 3 years ago 17
I don't think the t4 ever flew. correct me if I am wrong on that.
coldshot357 3 years ago
Yes. It flew about 10 times, however it only reached a speed of Mach 1.3.
brandonel12 3 years ago
They jacked our idea.
MikaOwns 3 years ago 3