By: Sens
- 9th August 2008 at 23:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In respect of the date of its origin in the early nineties the book was written to expose general information about all MIG aircrafts. The whole Mig-25 aircraft familly is described on approximately 15 pages of text (I have the russian edition "Самолеты "МиГ" 1939 - 1995: Беляков, Мармен: Авико Пресс 1996") in a general manner. For example when discussing specific details like the use of R-15BF2-300 engine, the book says it was used to power the Ye-266M record aircraft only what is not the whole truth. I'm actually not blaming Marmain nor Belyakov, the book was not ment to be a detailed analysis of each type. Therefore I mostly prefer books covering one aircraft type.
You twist the reality in your way to stay polite. :eek:
The correct way is to say, sorry I was wrong about that. ;)
It is your personal claim that the book says "it was used to power the Ye-266M record aircraft only", which I marked in bold letters. :diablo:
Belyakov did claim experimental versions. Even by my limited English, that are more than one. :rolleyes:
By: martinez
- 10th August 2008 at 00:01Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You twist the reality in your way to stay polite. :eek:
The correct way is to say, sorry I was wrong about that. ;)
It is your personal claim that the book says "it was used to power the Ye-266M record aircraft only", which I marked in bold letters. :diablo:
Belyakov did claim experimental versions. Even by my limited English, that are more than one. :rolleyes:
You twist the reality as well. As you said before the R-15BF-2-300 were used for record examples only as the Ye-266M what is a pure lie, now suddenly became experimental aircrafts in general.
So stop acting like a dickhead, and show where Marmain and Belyakov say about those several Mig-25RB aircrafts equipped with R-15BF2-300 engines, actually one of them flew real combat missions.
By: Sens
- 10th August 2008 at 00:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You twist the reality as well. As you said before the R-15BF-2-300 were used for record examples only as the Ye-266M what is a pure lie, now suddenly became experimental aircrafts in general.
So stop acting like a dickhead, and show where Marmain and Belyakov say about those several Mig-25RB aircrafts equipped with R-15BF2-300 engines, actually one of them flew real combat missions.
Unfortunately, the excessive engine development time and the lack of factory availability delayed the second stage of the upgrade; as a result these modifications either remained experimental or did not go beyond the computational phase. (Just a few experimental versions, which did demonstrate the rise in range and ceiling and the records of the Ye-266M from 1975)
All that could be red in the first book from 1991 in French p 291 and in the English one from 1994.
I did mark in bold letters for all to see. I am still in wait for your sorry, my fault or error and no further twisting. :rolleyes:
You claim the Russian issue of Belyakov, so you can not have missed that too!
By: martinez
- 10th August 2008 at 08:14Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I did mark in bold letters for all to see. I am still in wait for your sorry, my fault or error and no further twisting. :rolleyes:
You claim the Russian issue of Belyakov, so you can not have missed that too!
geeez....I will repeat it again for you.
I UPLOADED BOTH PAGES FROM THE BELYAKOV/MARMAIN BOOK, SHOW ME WHERE IS WRITTEN ABOUT THOSE SEVERAL MIG-25RB EQUIPPED WITH R-15BF2-300 OR AT LEAST WHERE THEY CLAIM ABOUT SEVERAL EXPERIMENTAL VERSIONS WITH R-15BF2-300.
The text content in the French, English and Russian book should be almost the same, so I do not believe what you fabricated in last seconds and then marked with bold.:rolleyes:
I`m also waiting for sorry for this lie....:D
the R-15BF-2-300 were used for record examples only
By: Sens
- 10th August 2008 at 12:44Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
geeez....I will repeat it again for you.
I UPLOADED BOTH PAGES FROM THE BELYAKOV/MARMAIN BOOK, SHOW ME WHERE IS WRITTEN ABOUT THOSE SEVERAL MIG-25RB EQUIPPED WITH R-15BF2-300 OR AT LEAST WHERE THEY CLAIM ABOUT SEVERAL EXPERIMENTAL VERSIONS WITH R-15BF2-300.
The text content in the French, English and Russian book should be almost the same, so I do not believe what you fabricated in last seconds and then marked with bold.:rolleyes:
I`m also waiting for sorry for this lie....:D
:D
"so I do not believe what you fabricated in last seconds and then marked with bold.:rolleyes:" Do you speak of yourself? :diablo:
For all to see:
9th August 2008 23:01
martinez
You twist the reality as well. As you said before the R-15BF-2-300 were used for record examples only as the Ye-266M what is a pure lie, now suddenly became experimental aircrafts in general.
So stop acting like a dickhead, and show where Marmain and Belyakov say about those several Mig-25RB aircrafts equipped with R-15BF2-300 engines, actually one of them flew real combat missions.
:D
For all to see:
8th August 2008 22:06
Sens
Unfortunately, the excessive engine development time and the lack of factory availability delayed the second stage of the upgrade; as a result these modifications either remained experimental or did not go beyond the computational phase. (Just a few experimental versions, which did demonstrate the rise in range and ceiling and the records of the Ye-266M from 1975)All that could be red in the first book from 1991 in French p 291 and in the English one from 1994.
So everyone has the opportunity to proof it at the original and is not limited to doctored quotes. :cool:
By: Sens
- 10th August 2008 at 18:17Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
:D
For the benefit of the others.
On p407 is of note. "The weights and performance of the MiG-25BM were practically identical to those of the MiG-25RB. After passing its certification tests, the aircraft was produced in the Gorki factory between 1982 and 1985."
By: Levsha
- 11th August 2008 at 00:22Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The drama is just epic!!
But it's a pity about the plot (difficult to follow)!:rolleyes:
Incidently, are there any official records published as to how much time the MiG-25 spent in its flying career actually flying at speeds above Mach 2.83 or Mach 3 even?
I've seen similar data published for the SR-71...
By: Levsha
- 11th August 2008 at 00:31Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
a bit messed up translation....."Engines would be replaced after their operational life expired". How often were Migs-25 reengined during their service, what was the lifetime of the R-15B-300 engine anyway?
150 hours between overhaul for the for the R-15B-300
1000 hours between overhaul for the R-15BD-300
Р-15Б-300 - тяга 73.5 кН ( на форсаже 100.1 кН), безремонтный срок службы 150 часов. Устанавливался на МиГ-25П/ПУ/РБ/РБК/РБТ/РБВ и РУ.
Р-15БД-300 - тяга 86.24 кН ( на форсаже 110 кН), безремонтный срок службы 1000 часов. Устанавливался на МиГ-25ПД и ПДС.
Р-15БФ2-300 - тяга 107.2 кН ( на форсаже 132.3 кН) Устанавливался на Е-155М.
By: firebar
- 12th August 2008 at 08:47Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Contrary to the J-58, the time at max speed is limited to the amount of coolant for PCB.
The Mig-25 Manual says nothing about PCB. Nor OKB MIG chief designer says anything about that.
See also Yefim Gordon-Mig-25. No trace of PCB.
The fact is that the Mig-25 has no any precompressor cooling.
Its engines use technology, which I mentioned earlier, that is not familiar in the west.
By: firebar
- 12th August 2008 at 08:56Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The engine in the Foxbat is more like a J-93 in concept than a J-58.
They look similar only at the first sight. In fact is they are not.
The J-93 suffered badly from unstarts. This vice has never been overcomed in XB-70.
On the other hand, the Mig-25 never experiences unstarts. That is because it has no mixed compression engines.
A truly big advantage in combat conditions, which is often overlooked.
By: firebar
- 12th August 2008 at 09:22Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That stories about its engines is often quoted hoax. Its source is a book "Mig pilot" by John Barron, which say that the Mig-25 has max action radius of 300 km!!! and that its max range is 1200 km !!!
Obviously the book is full of lies.
He also said that: "Every time after 3.2 Mach speed it ruined its engines."
That statement is pure nonsence. Everyone familiar with aircraft design and flight mechanics knows that there is no Mach 3 aircraft which can land deadstick.
Without engines working it would crash for sure.
Even F-4 , with medium speed aerodynamics, can not land without engines working.
Pay attention that John Barron statement confirmes that the Mig-25 flew at 3.2 Mach many times. ("Every time when it flies 3.2 Mach.... )
Anyhow, the statement of OKB MIG chief designer, Belyakov, that there is no any damage when it flies at more that 3 Mach, and that there is even no need for inspection, has much higher value than that of John Barron's.
No inspection and overhaul is necessary, acording to Belyakov and many pilots.
By: sferrin
- 12th August 2008 at 13:00Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
They look similar only at the first sight. In fact is they are not.
The J-93 suffered badly from unstarts. This vice has never been overcomed in XB-70.
What hole did you pull this little "fact" from? :rolleyes:
By: SOC
- 12th August 2008 at 14:31Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
it is well known and documented that the XB-70's engines suffered from this nasty habit badly
What, like it is well known and documented that the radomes of the YF-12s melted off? :rolleyes:
It was the Blackbird's J58 that often encountered unstarts, not the J93, but it had nothing to do with the engine and everything to do with the intake system. The unstarts were largely corrected with the addition of a computer control system to control the translating spike in the intake. Before that the spikes were controleld manually and failing to oeprate them within a very tight tolerance would lead to an unstart.
The intended BF2-300 even saw combat action with the RB version.
I don't think so, and I think I know where the confusion stems from. There was one MiG-25P and three MiG-25Rs that were refitted with the -300 under the MiG-25M test program. One of the R models refitted was one of the jets that had been deployed to Egypt. That may be what is causing some of this confusion.
By: martinez
- 12th August 2008 at 20:29Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It was the Blackbird's J58 that often encountered unstarts, not the J93, but it had nothing to do with the engine and everything to do with the intake system. .
It has indeed, to do with the J-58 engine. The unstarts were caused by compressor unstable operation (stall) what resulted in a loss of compressor/engine performance, caused either by failure to maintain proper inlet operation or compressor active control. The difference between both engines is that the J-58 was more susceptible to engine unstarts due to the 9-stage compressor with much higher compression ratio, what needed complex active control(bleed system) with precise intake operation to ensure the stable operating region of the compressor, whereas the R-15B-300 was relatively immune to unstable compressor operation due to very low compression ratio of 4.75.
I don't think so, and I think I know where the confusion stems from. There was one MiG-25P and three MiG-25Rs that were refitted with the -300 under the MiG-25M test program. One of the R models refitted was one of the jets that had been deployed to Egypt. .
I;m sorry but the article doesnt provide further explanation. What if the MiG-25R which was tracked flying over Israel at Mach 3.2 was indeed the one fitted with the R-15BF2-300 engines.;) Very good assuption, but do you have any proof for that, or is it just your personal opinion?.
P.S> Could someone provide details about the J93, no luck to find any good links
By: SOC
- 12th August 2008 at 20:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The info on the jets converted to MiG-25M testbed standard came from the recent Red Star volume on the FOXBAT family. Does anyone know what altitude the jet tracked at M3.2 was flying at?
As for the J93, the best source of info is probably the big hardcover book on the B-70 program by Jenkins and Landis. Really good read, that one.
By: martinez
- 12th August 2008 at 21:14Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The info on the jets converted to MiG-25M testbed standard came from the recent Red Star volume on the FOXBAT family. Does anyone know what altitude the jet tracked at M3.2 was flying at?.
R.Belyakov predicative statement on the Mig-25 exceeding M3 speeds...
As a matter of fact, the speed limit of M=2.83 on aircrafts Mig-25 was just theoretical. On higher speeds of flights the directional and lateral stability was reduced as well as the aircraft structure life-time, but in some cases pilot exceeded more or less the number M=3 without negative effect on the aircraft.
Of course, this statement of the OKB MIG designer should be taken with a grain of salt, as he ommited the inlet air stream and aircraft structure temperature limits, which showed pilots to slow down. Although, speeds beyond Mach3 were possible with the Foxbat if everything went right .
P.S> thanks for the info, I`ll wait till some good souls scan the B-70 book and put it on the internet.:)
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 9th August 2008 at 23:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You twist the reality in your way to stay polite. :eek:
The correct way is to say, sorry I was wrong about that. ;)
It is your personal claim that the book says "it was used to power the Ye-266M record aircraft only", which I marked in bold letters. :diablo:
Belyakov did claim experimental versions. Even by my limited English, that are more than one. :rolleyes:
Posts: 1,189
By: martinez - 10th August 2008 at 00:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You twist the reality as well. As you said before the R-15BF-2-300 were used for record examples only as the Ye-266M what is a pure lie, now suddenly became experimental aircrafts in general.
So stop acting like a dickhead, and show where Marmain and Belyakov say about those several Mig-25RB aircrafts equipped with R-15BF2-300 engines, actually one of them flew real combat missions.
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 10th August 2008 at 00:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I did mark in bold letters for all to see. I am still in wait for your sorry, my fault or error and no further twisting. :rolleyes:
You claim the Russian issue of Belyakov, so you can not have missed that too!
Posts: 1,189
By: martinez - 10th August 2008 at 08:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
geeez....I will repeat it again for you.
I UPLOADED BOTH PAGES FROM THE BELYAKOV/MARMAIN BOOK, SHOW ME WHERE IS WRITTEN ABOUT THOSE SEVERAL MIG-25RB EQUIPPED WITH R-15BF2-300 OR AT LEAST WHERE THEY CLAIM ABOUT SEVERAL EXPERIMENTAL VERSIONS WITH R-15BF2-300.
The text content in the French, English and Russian book should be almost the same, so I do not believe what you fabricated in last seconds and then marked with bold.:rolleyes:
I`m also waiting for sorry for this lie....:D
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 10th August 2008 at 12:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
:D
"so I do not believe what you fabricated in last seconds and then marked with bold.:rolleyes:" Do you speak of yourself? :diablo:
For all to see:
9th August 2008 23:01
martinez
:D
For all to see:
8th August 2008 22:06
Sens
Unfortunately, the excessive engine development time and the lack of factory availability delayed the second stage of the upgrade; as a result these modifications either remained experimental or did not go beyond the computational phase. (Just a few experimental versions, which did demonstrate the rise in range and ceiling and the records of the Ye-266M from 1975)All that could be red in the first book from 1991 in French p 291 and in the English one from 1994.
So everyone has the opportunity to proof it at the original and is not limited to doctored quotes. :cool:
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 10th August 2008 at 13:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
;)
Similar topic at p 405 in English issue.
For the French see the topic lower right on the scan.
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 10th August 2008 at 18:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
:D
For the benefit of the others.
On p407 is of note. "The weights and performance of the MiG-25BM were practically identical to those of the MiG-25RB. After passing its certification tests, the aircraft was produced in the Gorki factory between 1982 and 1985."
Posts: 2,814
By: Levsha - 11th August 2008 at 00:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
But it's a pity about the plot (difficult to follow)!:rolleyes:
Incidently, are there any official records published as to how much time the MiG-25 spent in its flying career actually flying at speeds above Mach 2.83 or Mach 3 even?
I've seen similar data published for the SR-71...
Posts: 2,814
By: Levsha - 11th August 2008 at 00:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
150 hours between overhaul for the for the R-15B-300
1000 hours between overhaul for the R-15BD-300
From:
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/engines/r15.html
Posts: 875
By: firebar - 12th August 2008 at 08:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Mig-25 Manual says nothing about PCB. Nor OKB MIG chief designer says anything about that.
See also Yefim Gordon-Mig-25. No trace of PCB.
The fact is that the Mig-25 has no any precompressor cooling.
Its engines use technology, which I mentioned earlier, that is not familiar in the west.
Posts: 875
By: firebar - 12th August 2008 at 08:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
They look similar only at the first sight. In fact is they are not.
The J-93 suffered badly from unstarts. This vice has never been overcomed in XB-70.
On the other hand, the Mig-25 never experiences unstarts. That is because it has no mixed compression engines.
A truly big advantage in combat conditions, which is often overlooked.
Posts: 875
By: firebar - 12th August 2008 at 09:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That stories about its engines is often quoted hoax. Its source is a book "Mig pilot" by John Barron, which say that the Mig-25 has max action radius of 300 km!!! and that its max range is 1200 km !!!
Obviously the book is full of lies.
He also said that: "Every time after 3.2 Mach speed it ruined its engines."
That statement is pure nonsence. Everyone familiar with aircraft design and flight mechanics knows that there is no Mach 3 aircraft which can land deadstick.
Without engines working it would crash for sure.
Even F-4 , with medium speed aerodynamics, can not land without engines working.
Pay attention that John Barron statement confirmes that the Mig-25 flew at 3.2 Mach many times. ("Every time when it flies 3.2 Mach.... )
Anyhow, the statement of OKB MIG chief designer, Belyakov, that there is no any damage when it flies at more that 3 Mach, and that there is even no need for inspection, has much higher value than that of John Barron's.
No inspection and overhaul is necessary, acording to Belyakov and many pilots.
Posts: 875
By: firebar - 12th August 2008 at 10:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Indian Air Force knows nothing about supposed engines damages at 3.2 Mach.
Mig-25 at Pune Air Force Academy.
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 12th August 2008 at 13:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What hole did you pull this little "fact" from? :rolleyes:
Posts: 875
By: firebar - 12th August 2008 at 14:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Have you ever heard or read that Mig-25 suffered from engine unstarts?
Of course not. Its engines are not mixed compression type.
On the other hand, it is well known and documented that the XB-70's engines suffered from this nasty habit badly, which is not surprise.
Posts: 12,009
By: SOC - 12th August 2008 at 14:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What, like it is well known and documented that the radomes of the YF-12s melted off? :rolleyes:
It was the Blackbird's J58 that often encountered unstarts, not the J93, but it had nothing to do with the engine and everything to do with the intake system. The unstarts were largely corrected with the addition of a computer control system to control the translating spike in the intake. Before that the spikes were controleld manually and failing to oeprate them within a very tight tolerance would lead to an unstart.
I don't think so, and I think I know where the confusion stems from. There was one MiG-25P and three MiG-25Rs that were refitted with the -300 under the MiG-25M test program. One of the R models refitted was one of the jets that had been deployed to Egypt. That may be what is causing some of this confusion.
Posts: 1,189
By: martinez - 12th August 2008 at 20:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It has indeed, to do with the J-58 engine. The unstarts were caused by compressor unstable operation (stall) what resulted in a loss of compressor/engine performance, caused either by failure to maintain proper inlet operation or compressor active control. The difference between both engines is that the J-58 was more susceptible to engine unstarts due to the 9-stage compressor with much higher compression ratio, what needed complex active control(bleed system) with precise intake operation to ensure the stable operating region of the compressor, whereas the R-15B-300 was relatively immune to unstable compressor operation due to very low compression ratio of 4.75.
I;m sorry but the article doesnt provide further explanation. What if the MiG-25R which was tracked flying over Israel at Mach 3.2 was indeed the one fitted with the R-15BF2-300 engines.;) Very good assuption, but do you have any proof for that, or is it just your personal opinion?.
P.S> Could someone provide details about the J93, no luck to find any good links
Posts: 12,009
By: SOC - 12th August 2008 at 20:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The info on the jets converted to MiG-25M testbed standard came from the recent Red Star volume on the FOXBAT family. Does anyone know what altitude the jet tracked at M3.2 was flying at?
As for the J93, the best source of info is probably the big hardcover book on the B-70 program by Jenkins and Landis. Really good read, that one.
Posts: 911
By: LmRaptor - 12th August 2008 at 20:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Probably 20 km up.
________
MERCURY MOUNTAINEER SPECIFICATIONS
Posts: 1,189
By: martinez - 12th August 2008 at 21:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
R.Belyakov predicative statement on the Mig-25 exceeding M3 speeds...
As a matter of fact, the speed limit of M=2.83 on aircrafts Mig-25 was just theoretical. On higher speeds of flights the directional and lateral stability was reduced as well as the aircraft structure life-time, but in some cases pilot exceeded more or less the number M=3 without negative effect on the aircraft.
Of course, this statement of the OKB MIG designer should be taken with a grain of salt, as he ommited the inlet air stream and aircraft structure temperature limits, which showed pilots to slow down. Although, speeds beyond Mach3 were possible with the Foxbat if everything went right .
P.S> thanks for the info, I`ll wait till some good souls scan the B-70 book and put it on the internet.:)