Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
TU-204 vs. B757 (Russians stupid ?)  
User currently offlineAntonov From Croatia, joined Jun 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Posted (15 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2976 times:

Why does everybody always think that the Russians copy from the Americans
or the Western countries? Couldn't it be that some plans or ideas are bought by the Americans from some Russian technicians ? Everybody always thinks that Russians are stupid and that they have to copy things.
I am convinced that some smart Russians are inventing and creating machines outside their motherland for Western factories. They are smart and cheap labour and in the Russian countries there is hardly any money to create their machines.
Anybody who thinks that I am just a X-file freak ??
Danny C

16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDC10-30 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (15 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2973 times:

Russian has a great history with famous military planes, but in civil aviation, they have to prove that it's possible to fly a plane with less than 5 pilots (my mining)
one more thing: some examples like the "concordsky" show that russian wasn't afraid of copying other aircrafts...


User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3122 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (15 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2973 times:

Ofcourse russians are not stupid.
In the begining of Space exploration (50's and 60's) the russians were always ahead of americans.
The problem is money


User currently offlineZmey Gorynich From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (15 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2973 times:

one more thing: some examples like the "concordsky" show that russian
wasn't afraid of copying other aircrafts...


WHOA!!! Tu-144 was COMPLETELY RAW design!!!! it flew EARLIER than Concorde, it flew FASTER than concorde and IT WAS CHOSEN for NASA development, not concorde!!!


User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4453 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (15 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2973 times:

The Russians aren't stupid, but they do tend to have very similar designs to those that are already in production. The B757 came out a long time before the TU-204 so I would assume that much of the design was copied from the 757. I am not sure of this because I am not an international spy. I am not sure about the Concorde and the Russian equiviant. The Russian model did come out first but it seems that their were several rumors that they were borrowing designs of the proposed Concorde. The TU-144 (I think) was chosen by Nasa because they were sitting around doing nothing while the Conocordes continue to pound the Atlantic skies between Europe and America. The TU-144 also suffered from its historic crash early in its production life.


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineA1ex From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (15 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2973 times:

...some of the models you mentioned and those that may come to your head. They're still not stupid. In fact, those who let their designs being stolen and implemented by the competititors aren't clever enough. It's a simple marketing principle. And marketing drives everything today, doesn't it??

So the question of: "Whose idea was SST?" is one thing.

And "Are Russians stupid?" is another.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29791 posts, RR: 58
Reply 6, posted (15 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2974 times:

There is a saying about designing and engineering that form follows function. Basicly if you are designing for the same type of function you are likely going to end up with something that looks simular to another persons design that is supposed to do the same thing. It is the same reason that most frying pans look about the same.

The TU-204 was designed for the same type of flights that the 757 was. By the same token so was the A-321. Therefore if the Tu-204 is a 757 knockoff then the A-321 is also a cheep 757 knockoff. I personally think the latter is more likely. HA! HA! :-)

The russians have done some butiful theoritical work. We have to remember that the concept behind the F-117 is based on a research paper done by the Soviet Union about twenty years ago. Unfortuatly they don't have a lot of experince in dealing with a free market. This has really hurt the industries over there. If I remember the IL-96 and the Tu-204 first dubued(spelling) at the Paris airshow in the Late 1980's(Somebody please check my dates) only now are we starting to see series production of these aircraft take place. This is probably done more to hurt the industry over there then any other factor including a general lack of marking experience in a free market.

By the way I was looking at a picture of a model of the Tu-214 which is the combi version of the Tu-204. That is an interesting concept. Does anybody know any more info about this aircraft? It apeared that they didn't cut a door in the side of the aircraft but rather use the standard rear lower deck door to load and an elevator to lift the containers. Can anybody confirm this. Does anybody know if Tu has any plans to attempt western certifaction of this aircraft. And finaly does anybody know where I can get more info about this airplane. All the data I have is from the 1997/1998 Janes all the Worlds aircraft.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineA1ex From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (15 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2973 times:

...I also heard of that "Form follows Function" or similar concept. And in da same way warplanes were designed for WW2.

I have no more info on Tu-214 to add to yours :(. But yes, aircraft like IL-96 and Tu-204 were proposed and developed good 10 years ago. Another Tupolev aircraft made its maiden flight pretty recently. It's Tu-334, which resembles MD-80 -90 family and is a 100-seater.

Laters...



User currently offlineZmey Gorynich From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (15 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2973 times:

The Russians aren't stupid, but they do tend to have very similar designs to those that are already in production. The B757 came out a long time before the TU-204 so I would assume that much of the design was copied from the 757.

Demand and Ability. 777 at first was a version of 767. we needed to create twin- engine airliner with the lowest level of noise possible. tail- fixed engines would bee too loud for comfort.. Nothing really left, but to put them under the wings, making it to look like 757 and 767!

WHY, tell me, why, Fokker F-27 and F-50 look like An-24? noone says, that they copied our design, do they???

The TU-144 (I think) was chosen by Nasa because they were sitting around doing nothing

NOTHING? NASA would choose an airplane, that was GROUNDED for 20 years???
it did not sit around- it was about to die, when Nasa decided that it is better, while from logical standpoint Concorde would be better as proven and faultless design. well... where is Concorde? Pounding Skies??? they do not use it because it WORKS? hm..... ok then explain, why NASA used Hard-working airplane- MD-11 for it's PCA project? their production is stopped now! what about Constitution, Used by NASA? same airliner!

would it seem strange not to choose a proven airplane over the one, that sat in Gromov LII for 15 years and rusted? looks pretty damn strange to me!

I think that people, who made that choice had better reasons to use it and that choice well worth the plane!


*
* CTAC
* *



User currently offlineZmey Gorynich From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (15 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2973 times:

The TU-204 was designed for the same type of flights that the 757 was. By
the same token so was the A-321. Therefore if the Tu-204 is a 757 knockoff then the A-321 is also a cheep 757 knockoff. I personally think the latter is more likely. HA! HA! :-)



WONDERFUL EXPLANATION!

*
* CTAC
* *


User currently offlineDC-10 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (15 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2973 times:

No one said the Russians are stupid. They've made some great military aircraft. But the similarities are not a coincidence between the civil aircraft of Russian and Western built aircraft. The Concorde was an Anglo/French venture, when news was being leaked about it, the Russians essentially were able to take 7 years off of development and get their "concordsky" in the air first. It was faster and more efficient but the idea wasn't original

User currently offlineJohn Redmond From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (15 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2973 times:

The Russians are not stupid--just 70 years behind because of their failed history. It can't seriously be contended that a gulag society would hold its most intelligent designers if they had any choice in the matter. Can't expect them to keep up under those circumstances. But for the 70 years of tyranical communism the Russians would be as advanced as the Western world. We all hope that they catch up, now that they've come to their senses. That having been said, can anyone really deny that they copy successful designs--how about the space shuttle, for example. Sorry, but you can't convince me that the fact that they look nearly identical is a form follows function thing. Nothing wrong with that--but it's a fact.

User currently offlineAntonov From Croatia, joined Jun 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (15 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2973 times:

And still I believe that it is not about copying ! I still believe that if there is a look alike, some plans have been bought or engineers been hired who started something in one country, to finish it in another.
But everybody has his own vision.


User currently offlineZmey Gorynich From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (15 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2973 times:

>>The Russians are not stupid--just 70 years behind because of their failed history. It can't seriously be contended that a gulag society would hold its most intelligent designers if they had any choice in the matter.


now hold there a sec! I consider this as a personal insult, sir!

tyranical communism

I PROTEST TO THIS STATEMENT~!

Russians would be as advanced as the
Western world

REALLY?????? WHO SAVED YOUR BUTTS BACK IN 1200>? WHO STOPPED THE CONQUER BY MONGOLS AND HELD THEM FOR NEARLY 2 CENTURIES, ALLOWING YOU ALL TO DEVELOP? WHO?

IF YOU ASK ME, I'D TELL YOU, THAT WE HAD A DAMN GOOD DEVELOPMENT DURING THOSE YEARS AND FOR THE COUNTRY, WHO WAS BEHIND THE ENTIRE WORLD FOR 200 YEARS IT WAS A HECK OF A GOOD TIME!@!!!


SIR, YOU ARE WRONG AND I EXPECT AN APOLOGY!

If you are undereducated in that mnatter, please, blame yourself, not anybody else!


User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4453 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (15 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2973 times:

Let's calm down. Take a deep breath and listen. Obviously Communism is a failed idea or the CIS would not be trying their hand in a democratic economy. Second, Russia is behind in many ways to other western countries due to Communism. Third, do you know where any extra Concordes are lieing around so NASA can use them? NASA used the Russian equivaliant because they were again lying around. When was the last time they did a commercial flight? Do you think BA or AF is just going to let NASA borrow one of their prized Concordes? As for Russia you only need to pick up a newspaper or watch the news just to see how far back they are.


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineJohn Redmond From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (15 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2973 times:

Zmey--Sorry--no insult intended. All countries have rough spots in their histories. My point was that now that the Russians are out from under communisim, they can have the same market incentives as Europe, Brazil, and the United States to compete to make technologically advanced civil airliners. I like Russian designed aircraft, and I hope that they don't cop out and copy Western stuff. They'll do great if they don't relapse. Thanks for saving us from the Mongol hoardes, I guess--though I'm not clear when they really threatened the United States. I suspect that your historical comment was tongue-in-cheek.

User currently offlineZmey Gorynich From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (15 years 5 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 2973 times:

: ( apology accepted.


I am very sorry on taking off on you like that. it is very hard to make me angry, but when it's done- it is hard to stop.

a little history note for you, sir:

if not for the revolution, Russia would have still been Royalist Russia and trust me- I studied this period a lot and it was even worse than Communism (1861-1917). so the revolution should be seen as a GOOD rather than BAD.

talking about mongols- it happened in eleventh- thirteen centuries A.D. America was not even discovered, so think before you say. talking about saving- we stopped them from invading further West, thus capturing entire Europe (including your predecessors, sir). so......

and.. I am not really sure about the subtheme of "tongue in a cheek" phrase, but I suspect that that mean [dry, sucked out of a finger, unproven]. well....


A+ for 9 years straight (3rd- 11th Grade) in History and it's derivatives....

hmmm.. would be hard to argue?


Sincerely,

Captain Stanislav "Angel" Strokash.

Ukhta, Komi, Russia.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
CNN's Comparison; Tu-154 Vs B757 posted Sun Jul 7 2002 01:15:18 by AirNova
TU 204 Compared To The B757 posted Tue Jan 13 2004 11:49:08 by EI A330-200
Iran Air Tours Buys Tu-204-100 posted Thu Sep 28 2006 22:24:41 by Tu204
The New TU-204 Completes Certicication Tests posted Fri Aug 11 2006 16:00:55 by EI321
Il-96 And Tu-204 Questions posted Sat May 20 2006 14:35:51 by Humberside
Cubana To Buy Three TU-204 posted Sat Feb 11 2006 09:31:55 by JoKeR
Mahan Air A330, Iran Air Tu-204? posted Sat Jan 28 2006 18:26:16 by MD90fan
Mahan Air TU-204 posted Fri Jan 6 2006 11:55:32 by Curious
Why This Derelict Tu-204? posted Sun Nov 6 2005 21:19:38 by Braybuddy
Mahan Tu 204 posted Wed Nov 2 2005 08:57:40 by Fly-K
Tu-204 Vs. 757 Vs. 737-900ER Vs. A321 posted Mon Aug 20 2007 04:57:29 by EA772LR
CNN's Comparison; Tu-154 Vs B757 posted Sun Jul 7 2002 01:15:18 by AirNova
TU 204 Compared To The B757 posted Tue Jan 13 2004 11:49:08 by EI A330-200
TU-204 At EWR posted Sat Apr 21 2012 03:53:36 by peachair
Russian Aviation - Aeroflot Skips The TU-204? posted Tue Dec 13 2011 09:33:25 by Tupolev160
Tupolev Rolls Out First Tu-204 SM posted Tue Dec 28 2010 08:56:04 by SIBILLE
TU-204 Production On The Brink Of Shutting Down posted Fri Oct 29 2010 02:26:16 by Soyuz
Tu-204 For Syria? The Last Chance? posted Tue Sep 28 2010 05:14:18 by SIBILLE
New Tu-204-100V For Air Koryo. posted Fri Jun 11 2010 11:19:17 by sibille
First Tu-204-100 For Orenburg Airlines posted Mon Apr 26 2010 09:09:49 by SIBILLE