Upgrade priorities for Russian AF aircraft.

eehnie wrote:lol, the shit about all this is outstanding. Here is a picture where we can see how Tu-22 early variants and Tu-22M variants share the exact same pieces in the cover of the tail.

https://russianplanes.net/id149933



If you see not it well enough in the enlarged picture, you can visit the link where the picture is bigger still.

Now, it is not me who must explain how "completely different designs" reach to the use of the exact same pieces in the tail, and how the exact same pieces in the tail are mounted in totally different structures coming from "completely different designs".

Im so tired of this, but I will not be forced to assume things that I see being wrong.

All the sources that that say that the Tu-22M variants were developped from the earlier Tu-22 variants are right. There are differences obviously, but there are also common parts.

That`s what you think! Leading edge of vertical stabiliser may be similar in many designs, by simple mechanical rule. Have a nice trip in your ignorance!

lol, and this is what the expert in the room has to say? lol Kumbor, prove it

Like you can see in the picture, there are variants of the early Tu-22 that share the same pieces of the fixed part of the tail with Tu-22M variants, and it means that the tail of both have only external changes minor changes.

If this would happen between aircrafts of different companies, it would mean a big demand on copy right issues. If it happens between aircrafts of the same company, then we talk about "developped from", "based on" aircrafts.

Can you explain with real examples how different aircrafts with different estructures coming from "completely different designs" can reach a very similar balance of weights and aerodinamic results to allow them to share the same tail in terms of structure only with some minor external changes?

Can you defend that almost ecqual tails sharing many common pieces have different internal structure?

PS: Flaming Phyton, the helicopter rotors, like the blades, like the engines, like the wheels and other components are not part of the specific design of an aircraft.

It is sth like F-15 and F-15E, that are different aircrafts. No matter they have quite similar designation

That is a bad example as the F-15E is directly based on the F-15C design, but is modified for air to ground roles.

The Tu-22 and Tu-22M are not related.

The Tu-22M0, Tu-22M1, Tu-22M2, and Tu-22M3 are all serious upgrades of each other comparable to the F-15C and F-15E changes, though all the Tupolevs are strike aircraft.

Every source says the Tu-22M variants are based on earlier variants of the Tu-22.

The use of the Tu-22 designation for entire the mechanical development is perfectly correct. In this case even is used in an environment where you see the:

The first Tu-22 first flew in 1948 and is based on the Tu-14, but with a swept wing and two wing mounted engines (copies of the Nene engine).

There are no photos of it that I can find but that is of course because it never entered service... much like the Tu-22m0 and Tu-22M1 of which only 9 of each were produced as test sample prototypes.

It was the Tu-22M2 and Tu-22M3 that were mass produced.

The use of the Tu-22 designation for entire the mechanical development is perfectly correct. In this case even is used in an environment where you see the:

MiG-25/31 designation for the entire mechanical development from the early variants of the MiG-25 until the MiG-31.
Su-27/30/33/35 designation for the entire mechanical development from the early variants of the Su-27 until the Su-35.
MiG-29/35 designation for the entire mechanical development from the early variants of the MiG-29 until the MiG-35

Your problems with that are only your problems.

You are contradicting yourself... you say the Tu-22 designation means all Blinders and Backfires, and then you say the MiG-31 which is clearly an evolution of the MiG-25 design uses the same designation but it clearly does not... the earlier aircraft is called MiG-25 and the later model with improved design and engines and sensors and weapons is called MiG-31...

With the next example you even miss the Fullback, Su-34 modification of the Flanker design... the Su-30 is just an Su-27UB two seat Flanker, the Su-33 has folding wings and a tail hook and structural strengthening for carrier operations, while the Su-35 is a complete redesign of the Su-27 to pretty much improve everything... and all these changes from minor to rather significant all warrant designation changes... the Su-34 has a new front fuselage which is a significant change, but nothing like the change between the Tu-22 Blinder and the Tu-22M Backfire in any model.

Equally the MiG-23 and MiG-27 warrant changes because of a different role, the Su-7 and the Su-17 family of variants involve the introduction of a new fuselage and new swing wings and so new designation.

Seriously why are you opening a new thread for his stupid ideas that he keeps telling every two months ?

Now we have a place to move the discussion if it starts up in any other thread... or would you like the same discussion over and over in new threads every two months.

Only to note that like explained many times, I do not use the Tu-22 and Tu-22M designations interchangeably.

Yes, you do.

lol, the shit about all this is outstanding. Here is a picture where we can see how Tu-22 early variants and Tu-22M variants share the exact same pieces in the cover of the tail.

That image actually proves the opposite... the angle of the vertical tails is different from the Tu-22 and the Tu-22Ms shown.

All the sources that that say that the Tu-22M variants were developped from the earlier Tu-22 variants are right. There are differences obviously, but there are also common parts.

No, there are few common parts, those tails are different.

The leading edge angle of the tail is critical, and all three look slightly different to me.

Like you can see in the picture, there are variants of the early Tu-22 that share the same pieces of the fixed part of the tail with Tu-22M variants, and it means that the tail of both have only external changes minor changes.

Actually the vertical tail surfaces of the Tu-22M includes internal fuel capacity, the Tu-22 does not.

From wiki... not the best source, but whatever:

In 1962, with the introduction of the Tu-22, it became increasingly clear that the aircraft was inadequate in its role as a bomber. In addition to widespread unserviceability and maintenance issues, the Tu-22's handling characteristics proved to be dangerous. Its landing speed was some 100 km/h (60 mph) greater than previous bombers and it had a tendency to pitch up and strike its tail upon landing. It was difficult to fly, and had poor all-round visibility.[4] In 1962, Tupolev commenced work on major update of the Tu-22. Initially, the bureau planned to add a variable-sweep wing and uprated engines into the updated design. The design was tested at TsAGI's wind tunnels at Zhukovsky.[4]

During this time, Sukhoi, traditionally a designer of fighter aircraft, developed the T-4, a four-engine titanium aircraft with canards. A response to the XB-70, it was to have a cruise speed of 3,200 km/h (2,000 mph), requiring a massive research effort in order to develop the requisite technologies. Not to be outdone, Tupolev, whose expertise is with bombers, offered the Soviet Air Force (Voyenno-Vozdushnye Sily, VVS) a massively-updated version of the Tu-22.[5]

Compared to the T-4, it was an evolutionary design, and thus its appeal laid in its simplicity and low cost. However, the Soviet government was skeptical about the need to approve the development of a replacement aircraft so soon after the Tu-22 had just entered service.[6] The Air Force and Tupolev, in order to save face with regards to the Tu-22's operational deficiencies and to stave off criticisms from the ICBM lobby, agreed to pass off the design as an update of the Tu-22 in their discussions with the government. The aircraft was designated Tu-22M, given the OKB code "Aircraft 45", and an internal designation of "AM". Their effort was successful as the government approved the design on 28 November 1967, and decreed the development of the aircraft's main weapon, the Kh-22.[7]

Now why would Tupolev agree to use the Tu-22M designation so the new aircraft they designed could be passed off as an upgrade rather than what it was... a complete redesign?

As you have mentioned aircraft like the MiG-25 and MiG-31 and the various model Flankers and Fulcrums receive new designations for much less external upgrade changes... I doubt most people could tell a MiG-35 from a MiG-29 or an Su-27 from and Su-35 for that matter, yet even a layperson can see that the three crew fixed wing Tu-22 with two engines above its fuselage is not the same as the four crew Tu-22M in any model with swing wings and engines moved inside the fuselage that is completely reshaped because of that change...

Can you defend that almost ecqual tails sharing many common pieces have different internal structure?

The Tu-22M aircraft have wet tails, Tu-22s have dry ones.

PS: Flaming Phyton, the helicopter rotors, like the blades, like the engines, like the wheels and other components are not part of the specific design of an aircraft.

If the Mi-24 and Mi-28 were very different weights then they would use very different rotors... they are similar weights and operate at similar speeds so the same five rotor design can be used for both.

The 8 bladed rotor of the Mi-26 would not be suitable for either helo.

Actually the Mi-24s and Mi-8s airframes are more similar than the Tu-22s and Tu-22M3s. Yet you still won't say that the Mi-24 is a modernization of the Mi-8.

Mi-24 is like the Mi-14... both are adapted from the Mi-8, for specific roles that require serious changes in design.

In fact the Mi-24 had more powerful engines than the Mi-8 had for a long time too.

As FP points out everything is design choices from rotor size and design to the number and shape of the blades... you wont get a small light helo with 5 rotor blades... and with Kamov designs helos in that weight class have two sets of three rotor blades meaning 6 in total...

GarryB wrote:

Only to note that like explained many times, I do not use the Tu-22 and Tu-22M designations interchangeably.

Yes, you do.

Quote it. This is false.

GarryB wrote:

lol, the shit about all this is outstanding. Here is a picture where we can see how Tu-22 early variants and Tu-22M variants share the exact same pieces in the cover of the tail.

That image actually proves the opposite... the angle of the vertical tails is different from the Tu-22 and the Tu-22Ms shown.

The image proves how many pieces of metal that form the fixed part of the tail are exactly the same. The angles over the structure are the same, this is the alone form of assembling it correctly without need of changes in the pieces of metal. Only the view of the different aircrafts is different, different position means a different perspective of them, as every engineer knows the angles are not conserved in perspective.

GarryB wrote:

All the sources that that say that the Tu-22M variants were developped from the earlier Tu-22 variants are right. There are differences obviously, but there are also common parts.

No, there are few common parts

Then there are common parts. congratulations. In the picture you see some of them, that are part of the specific part of the design.

You are despising lots of sources confirming that the Tu-22M variants are "developped from" "based on" the Tu-22 early variants.

And then you come with wikipedia stuf...

GarryB wrote:

Can you defend that almost ecqual tails sharing many common pieces have different internal structure?

The Tu-22M aircraft have wet tails, Tu-22s have dry ones.

But the Tu-22 early variants had the engines in the rear, something that allows a structural reserve for the use of the tail for fuel storage when the engines were moved.

Despite it, the part marked in the picture is not the part that supports bigger tensions by the transport of fuel, and obviously was not necessary to change it, just following the "developped from" "based on" design philosophy.

flamming_python wrote:

eehnie wrote:
PS: Flaming Phyton, the helicopter rotors, like the blades, like the engines, like the wheels and other components are not part of the specific design of an aircraft.

Of course they are; all of those things are chosen with the rest of the design in mind - the engines to provide the necessary power for the weight, the landing gear to support the stresses of landing that weight at a given speed, the hydraulic system necessary to power ailerons of a given size at a given speed, etc...

What you mean to say is that they're not part of the airframe itself. But the airframe when compared between the Tu-22 and Tu-22M3 is clearly quite different too.
And they use different engines, and a lot of other different things.
It's an entirely different aircraft dude.

Actually the Mi-24s and Mi-8s airframes are more similar than the Tu-22s and Tu-22M3s. Yet you still won't say that the Mi-24 is a modernization of the Mi-8.

Every design has parts addapted to the use of external components, and the rotor of an helicopter is one of them, like the engines, like the blades, like the wheels and many more.

The pieces of metal marked in the picture instead are not external components, they are part of the part of the design that is specific of the aircraft.

Actually yes, I say the Mi-24 is part of the Mi-8/9/13/14/17/18/19/24/25/35/171/172/177 family of helicopters.

Quote it. This is false.

Eehnie wrote:In reality the Tu-22 M variants were based on / developed from the Tu-22. They are technologically related aircrafts as you can see in every source, and is perfectly correct to call Tu-22 to the entire technological development, since the early variants until the Tu-22 M3M. Even the Russian Ministry of Defense does it sometimes, like posted in this forum.

Repeat:

perfectly correct to call Tu-22 to the entire technological development, since the early variants until the Tu-22 M3M

PAK-DA: News thread posted: 18/07/18, 02:01 pm

https://www.russiadefence.net/t2625p800-pak-da-news#229597

post number 804.

Then there are common parts. congratulations.

Bolts, washers, fuel lines might be the same, but only because their designs don't change much.

But the Tu-22 early variants had the engines in the rear, something that allows a structural reserve for the use of the tail for fuel storage when the engines were moved.

What?

Using wet structure is a design choice and has nothing to do with the location of the engines.

The MiG-29 had dry structure, the MiG-29M had wet structures to greatly increase the amount of fuel that could be carried.

If you filled the empty spaces on a standard MiG-29 with fuel without a fuel bladder it would leak.

Internal compartments in a MiG-29M were sealed and could be used for fuel without and internal vessel to contain the fuel.

Every design has parts addapted to the use of external components, and the rotor of an helicopter is one of them, like the engines, like the blades, like the wheels and many more.

Technology moves on... when the Mi-24 was designed and made its rotors were the best they could manage.

Improvements in composite material construction and aerodynamic design has led to the rotors on the Mi-28 being lighter, stronger, more resistant to damage, and creating more lift for a given rotational speed.

The reduced area wings of the Mi-28 were also used in the late model Hinds, as they were smaller and lighter, and generated some lift in forward flight but could carry rather more weapons and reduced lift rather less in a hover.

The late model hind also got the fixed undercarriage of the Mi-28 because it was simpler, cheaper, stronger, reduced impact damage to the aircraft in the case of a forced landing, and novice crews couldn't forget to lower the undercarriage when landing. The only negative was a slight increase in drag during high speed flight, which was acceptable for all the advantages.

Actually yes, I say the Mi-24 is part of the Mi-8/9/13/14/17/18/19/24/25/35/171/172/177 family of helicopters.

Quite true... but the problem is that you are claiming that that means that the Mi-24 or Mi-14 or any other mentioned type can be labelled with the generic Mi-8 label because they are basically all the same aircraft... when they quite plainly are not.

An Mi-24 is not an Mi-8, even though the Mi-8 was the airframe the Mi-24 was developed from.

The Tu-22 and Tu-22M are not related at all except that they are both made by Tupolev and they are both attempts to make theatre bombers... the latter being much more capable and successful than the former.

The reason for the confusion is the subterfuge used to get it into production.

If it had a totally new designation like Tu-26 then its production likely would have been rejected because they had only just spent money putting the Tu-22 into service.

The fact that the new aircraft... and it is a new aircraft used a very similar designation was so the people signing the orders thought it was merely an improved model... a bit like the difference between the Tu-22M0 and the Tu-22M1 and the Tu-22M2, which actually were modifications of the same aircraft to improve performance. The Tu-22 in comparison is a totally different aircraft with different engines and wings and fuselage and number of crew... the ejections seats are not even the same...

eehnie wrote:

GarryB wrote:

eehnie wrote:Only to note that like explained many times, I do not use the Tu-22 and Tu-22M designations interchangeably.

Yes, you do.

Quote it. This is false.

GarryB wrote:

Quote it. This is false.

Eehnie wrote:In reality the Tu-22 M variants were based on / developed from the Tu-22. They are technologically related aircrafts as you can see in every source, and is perfectly correct to call Tu-22 to the entire technological development, since the early variants until the Tu-22 M3M. Even the Russian Ministry of Defense does it sometimes, like posted in this forum.

Repeat:

perfectly correct to call Tu-22 to the entire technological development, since the early variants until the Tu-22 M3M

PAK-DA: News thread posted: 18/07/18, 02:01 pm

https://www.russiadefence.net/t2625p800-pak-da-news#229597

post number 804.

No man no, the quotes do not fit with what you said before.

I use the Tu-22M designation for the Tu-22Msomething variants, and Tu-22 for the entire development including Tu-22 eairly variants and Tu-22M variants, like I said in the quotes.

I do not use the terms interchangeably, this is not interchangeable use of the designation.

It is a perfectly correct use of the term, taking into account how the sources are saying that there is a relation between them of "developped from" "based on".

I use the Tu-22M designation for the Tu-22Msomething variants, and Tu-22 for the entire development including Tu-22 eairly variants and Tu-22M variants, like I said in the quotes.

Which is still wrong... apply it to the helicopter example you agree that calling an Mi-24 an Mi-8 is wrong because although the Mi-24 used the Mi-8 design as a starting point, pretty much everything was changed including much more powerful engines... later it got even more radically different when it adopted two separate canopies for the weapons officer and pilot.

In this claim you state you call the Tu-22 the Tu-22, while you call the Tu-22M the Tu-22M or Tu-22, and that that is OK because the Tu-22M is based on the Tu-22.

The problem is that it isn't, but even if it was that is like calling the Mi-24 an Mi-8 because by your logic they belong to the same line of development.

I guess calling the Su-34 an Su-27 would be OK, but using that logic why differentiate at all.... just call them all Su-1, Tu-1, MiG-1 because there must be certain components that are still used.

The Tu-22M3M is a designation that identifies a specific aircraft... if you just want a generic term for the aircraft just call it a twin engined Tu bomber if you are too lazy to put the correct designation.

It is a perfectly correct use of the term, taking into account how the sources are saying that there is a relation between them of "developped from" "based on".

Then why stop at Tu-22?

Why not call it a Tu-2 because that was the twin engine Tupolev bomber that is what the Tu-22M3M ultimately evolved from...

If that is going to be your logic I look forward to reading your comments about the Bear bomber, or as you would refer to it... the B-29... or should I say the Wright Flyer.

GarryB wrote:

I use the Tu-22M designation for the Tu-22Msomething variants, and Tu-22 for the entire development including Tu-22 eairly variants and Tu-22M variants, like I said in the quotes.

Which is still wrong... apply it to the helicopter example you agree that calling an Mi-24 an Mi-8 is wrong because although the Mi-24 used the Mi-8 design as a starting point, pretty much everything was changed including much more powerful engines... later it got even more radically different when it adopted two separate canopies for the weapons officer and pilot.

In this claim you state you call the Tu-22 the Tu-22, while you call the Tu-22M the Tu-22M or Tu-22, and that that is OK because the Tu-22M is based on the Tu-22.

The problem is that it isn't, but even if it was that is like calling the Mi-24 an Mi-8 because by your logic they belong to the same line of development.

I guess calling the Su-34 an Su-27 would be OK, but using that logic why differentiate at all.... just call them all Su-1, Tu-1, MiG-1 because there must be certain components that are still used.

The Tu-22M3M is a designation that identifies a specific aircraft... if you just want a generic term for the aircraft just call it a twin engined Tu bomber if you are too lazy to put the correct designation.

It is a perfectly correct use of the term, taking into account how the sources are saying that there is a relation between them of "developped from" "based on".

Then why stop at Tu-22?

Why not call it a Tu-2 because that was the twin engine Tupolev bomber that is what the Tu-22M3M ultimately evolved from...

If that is going to be your logic I look forward to reading your comments about the Bear bomber, or as you would refer to it... the B-29... or should I say the Wright Flyer.

Why do you discuss with an ignorant who thinks he`s right! He`s mocking us all!

kumbor wrote:Why do you discuss with an ignorant who thinks he`s right! He`s mocking us all!

Afraid of showing your real knowledge? Try man try.

You will not be calling the people ignorant without passing yourself the exam.