Bmi330 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 1450 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (11 years 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5123 times:
What Russian or former USSR plane looks like the 757 I wanna see that? Would be so cool. Get the 727 comareson and MD80 I think is it not just something to do with airplane design of the period e.g. quad 707 and DC8 , DC10 and L1011. What about the A340 and IL96 that right name? The idea that the Flaps at the front of the TU144 was stolen and used on the mirage fighter (think that's right)
VonRichtofen From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 4627 posts, RR: 36
Reply 2, posted (11 years 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5116 times:
Well, some of them seem to be copy cats ie: TU-204 and the 757. But MD-80?!
Also, Americans never admit this but many of the US military aircraft designs had things that were "copied" from the russians. I believe thrust vectoring was one of them (not sure though). It goes both ways.
Bmi330 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 1450 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (11 years 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5090 times:
I no that I was just making a comparison and didn't no the numbers for the IL89 proud I got the rite aircraft for IL96 but. I should have made it clear but no worries as long as the guys like you to keep me accurate I can get away with little errors thanks! IL96 was introduced early middle 90's not sure though.
Cancidas From Poland, joined Jul 2003, 4112 posts, RR: 11
Reply 8, posted (11 years 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5036 times:
phil, the us stole from the soviet union, the soviets stole from the us. it does go back and forth. the tu-154 is not the 727, its way bigger. i do not know of any other planes that are direct copies. the dc-3, yea. the tu-204, maybe. il-86/96 no, tu-134 is not a dc-9. the only plane that i am aware of that was directly copied is the b-29. do you have history and discovery wings? if so, watch that. youll definately see a history of soviet aviation on it. that should explain everything.
"...cannot the kingdom of salvation take me home."
Dulles From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 80 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (11 years 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4962 times:
I agree with those who say that it was going both ways. Like between any competing corporations. Isn't it true that the majority of the US population are now smiling at the words of the former president "Gentlemen do not spy", which were pronounced to support his decision to block (as it turned out, temporarily) the creation of what is now National Security Agency (the main wiretapping and encryption/decryption agency in the US located near Baltimore). This is a reality of life, and it would be naive to deny or ignore it, regardless of moral beliefs. Russians have had extremely good intelligence for decades, and it has been used for technological espionage in full. On the other hand, it is a fact of life that, for a variety of reasons, Russians had a superb school of physicists in the first half of the 20th century. Nothing even close to it was in chemistry or biology. That school has produced such personalities as Korolev (all the Russian successes in space), Kurchatobv, Sakharov, et al. (nuclear power/weapons), and a whole slew of aviation scientists/engineers (Typolev, Ilyushin, Antonov, Yakovlev, even Sikorsky). It is not by accident that the WWII-outsourced nation turned out to be able to get its own nuclear bomb just 2 years after the US tests, created the thermonuclear bomb before the US, scared Americans shitless with Sputnik, and led space exploration for decades afterwards despite all the von Braun's documentation and von Braun himself acquired by the US in the end of the WWII (not to mention its economic power). Therefore, it would be extremely naive to believe that Soviet planes have been just "copycated" from American prototypes (as the most primitive propagandists would like to represent it), although it would be equally incorrect to claim that Russians have not used the intelligence findings at all. Unfortunately, that generation of aviation scientists is mostly gone now, and it was somewhat symbolic that the Paris crash of TU-144 occurred shortly after Tupolev, Sr. died, handing this particular project to his son, Tupolev, Jr.
Flybynight From Norway, joined Jul 2003, 1005 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (11 years 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4945 times:
L188 - An interesting thought! But, if you look at a A340 and a B777, they really don't look much alike, yet the serve the same basic need. The TU-204 is a mirror of a 757. It's like trying to tell the difference between the Olson twins!
Dc10guy From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 2685 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (11 years 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4932 times:
Russia may have copied the concept of a lot of western airplanes, But their airplanes are designed by them and do a real good job of flying. The AN124 comes to mind. Sure it looks like a C-5 but it is a better airplane in a lot of ways. Bottom line is Russia builds great airplanes too.
Next time try the old "dirty Sanchez" She'll love it !!!
Positive rate From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 2143 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (11 years 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4886 times:
The TU-154 is a 727 copy
The IL-62 is a VC-10 copy
The TU-144 is a Concorde copy
The TU-204 is a 757 copy
The IL-76 is a C-141 Starlifter copy
In the case of the TU-144 and the IL-62 the soviets actually admitted that they sent spies over to the UK to steal blueprints from these aircraft, and thus they made pretty similar models of their own. Ok there are some differences between the TU-144 and Concorde but a lot of it was copied.
Sovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2604 posts, RR: 17
Reply 20, posted (11 years 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4794 times:
First of all why is everyone always starting these threads about Russia copying others? Why can't someone start a thread about USA copying Europe? Or the opposite? They copied the hell out of each other. I'm amazed at the number of people spitting on Soviet planes just because they have similarities with western planes. Think about it...DC-9, BAC111 and Caravelle all look similar. How is the Tu-134 a copy of the DC-9? The wings are a way different shape, it has those things on the wings where the gear retract. It certainly looks more narrow, it has a glass nose and the tail looks completely different than a DC-9. You can say that only the fuselage looks like a DC-9. In that case all narrow-body planes are copies of each other. I do agree that the Tu-144 and Il-62 took some concepts from the Concorde and VC-10. Tu-154 and 727??? Look at my description on the Tu-134 vs DC-9 above and you'll get your answer(except the glass nose plus the Tu-154 is bigger). The Il-76 was like an An-12 with jet engines and changes in the tail and wings.
Flybynight- A340 and B777 don't look much alike but A330 and B777 do.
L-188 is right. When you need to design a plane with certain characteristics the final product looks like what someone else would build. We're all human after all. The reason A340 and B777 don't look alike is because of the number of engines. The Il-86 doesn't look anything like the A300 except that it is a widebody. Wings, tail, gear, everything is different. Actually it looks like everyone copied Britain. They first made the jet engine, then 3 engines in the tail(Trident), then 2 engines in the tail(BAC111), then 4(VC-10). So what didn't they do? Introduce engines on pylons which Boeing did. Airbus copied Boeing and it can go on forever.....Look at all the original and fascinating planes Russia has that no one else does. An-22, An-72, An-225, Tu-114, Mig-25 and so on....
And lastly...Lockheed took the Yak-141 concept of VTOL and put it in the F-35....legally with the permission of the Yakovlev bureau.
Ln-kgl From Norway, joined Sep 1999, 1027 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (11 years 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4765 times:
I've made three special versions of my drawings at Plane-Spotter to suite the limitations here at Airliners.net. This should illustrate the similarities and differences between Tu-204 and B757-200 - as an extra I've also included the A321. One thing strikes me, the difference in wing design - around 4 meters greater wingspan, winglets and wing placed more forward on the fuselage for the Tu-204, but both have almost the same wing area. Another difference is the smooth curves the cockpit windows of the Tu-204 has compared to the 757. The tail then, also quite different. The fuselage then, double bubble with 757, not by Tu-204. Then we're only left with the engines, pylons different - but one version of the Tu-204 (Tu-204-120) have the same engines as some 757s - RB.211-535E4, but we can't count that as a similarity since they are British
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13192 posts, RR: 77
Reply 23, posted (11 years 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4725 times:
The Russians made aircraft to suit their needs, hence the vogue in rear mounted engines as they were seen as less vunerable to FOD than wing mounted.
(The new Russian Regional Jet project has been criticized for having wing mounted engines for this reason).
Many strips in the vast USSR were not well maintained, they needed tough aircraft to operate from them.
The VC-10 was designed for operation out of limited airfields on BOAC routes, the IL-62 was the same for Russia, no spying has ever emerged.
There was some spying on Concorde, but it only allowed Tupolev to play catch up, it did not change the fundamental problems with the TU-144.
But the Russian industry has some very capable design teams, if their products seem like crude copies that is coincidental, the exception was the TU-144 as that was for prestige and Tupolev was under extreme political pressure to 'beat' Concorde, not to design a workable aircraft for Aeroflot.