Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Antonov And Tupolev-Are they western Airplane knockoffs?  
User currently offlineSectflyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 359 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 11256 times:

I have always wondered but are these civilian aircraft just knockoffs of Boeing 727's and such?

[Edited 2009-11-14 07:07:36 by sectflyer]

63 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlineTripleDelta From Croatia, joined Jul 2004, 1117 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 11187 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Just because they look similar and have comparable performance doesn't automatically mean they're knockoffs. In that case you can say the A320 is a knockoff of the 737 because it pretty much does the same thing, has similar range, was designed for similar operations and has a similar capacity (all depending on variant of course) - despite the underlying technology being significantly different and original.

For former Soviet aircraft, the differences are even greater, where you have:

1. the An-24, to which the only comparable aircraft was the Fokker F27 (and they really were close, though the An-24 was optimized for conditions in the Soviet Union)

2. the Il-18 predates the Lockheed Electra (by a few months, just) and is also significantly larger and heavier, with better performance and almost double the range

3. the Il-62, despite its external similarity to the VC-10, is a larger aircraft. Unlike the VC-10, it was not designed for hot-and-high short strip operations and is also slower

4. the Il-86 is a medium-range (as opposed to long-range) widebody quad which I think had no direct Western counterpart when it first flew back in 1980...

5. the Tu-134 first flew two years before the DC-9 and is based on the 1960 Tu-124, which is essentially a smaller version of the Tu-104 - itself flying two years before the first US civil jet, the 707. And, unlike the Caravelle which was designed from the outset as a short-range airliner, the Tu-124 was "shrunk" from the medium-range Tu-104

6. the Tu-154 is again longer, bigger and with greater range than the 727, designed for quite the opposite set of circumstances ("cold-and-low" on unprepared fields)

7. the only potential "knockoff" contender would be the Tu-144, but there are too many conspiracy theories in this one to give a clear answer...



No plane, no gain.
User currently offlineSectflyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 359 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 11083 times:

Interesting..... Thanks for the reply. What got me thinking about this was how the Soviet's had taken that American B17 bomber in WWII and basically made a carbon copy of it. Of course it was obsolete by the time it was in service!

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30580 posts, RR: 84
Reply 3, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 11079 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I'd argue that the Tu-204 draws more than just "aesthetic inspiration" from the Boeing 757.  Wink

User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9523 posts, RR: 42
Reply 4, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 11046 times:



Quoting Sectflyer (Reply 2):
What got me thinking about this was how the Soviet's had taken that American B17 bomber in WWII and basically made a carbon copy of it

I'm aware of a Soviet version of the B-29 (Tu-4) but not of the B-17.


User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5678 posts, RR: 45
Reply 5, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 11004 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting David L (Reply 4):
I'm aware of a Soviet version of the B-29 (Tu-4) but not of the B-17.

Which leads to an interesting point about divergent evolution and the way large Tupolev and Boeing aircraft descended from the B-29/TU-4

The USSR specialised in large turboprop engines while the USA concentrated on Turbojet/fan engines.

The B-29 ancestry can be clearly seen in the TU95/142 and to a great extent in the TU-118.
This lineage is not so evident at Boeing but I have heard it said that there is a remarkable amount of B-29 in the 707/727/737.
The large bomber concept diverged a great deal, few would compare a B-52 with a TU-95 apart perhaps from a mission perspective but it might not have been so. I have seen design studies based on large turboprop engines for what was to become the B-52 and the similarity to the TU-95 is striking.

Cheers

[Edited 2009-11-14 11:20:20]


If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 6, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 10978 times:



Quoting Sectflyer (Reply 2):
Interesting..... Thanks for the reply. What got me thinking about this was how the Soviet's had taken that American B17 bomber in WWII and basically made a carbon copy of it. Of course it was obsolete by the time it was in service!

That only happened with the B-29. What happened was that sometimes the B-29s would be damaged on raids over Japan and would make emergency landings in the Soviet Union. The USSR, being a neutral country for all but the last bit of the war, was obliged to intern the crews and confiscate the aircraft. These aircraft were copied and became the Tu-4.

An interesting note on the Tu-4 was that all of the specs had to be converted from English to metric. The closest metric equivalent for the skin was a thicker guage that the original Boeing specification. This made the Tu-4 signifcantly heavier than the B-29 and had an inferior range.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineSectflyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 359 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 10973 times:

I stand corrected on the B17.

User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11614 posts, RR: 60
Reply 8, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 10919 times:



Quoting TripleDelta (Reply 1):
the Il-86 is a medium-range (as opposed to long-range) widebody quad which I think had no direct Western counterpart when it first flew back in 1980...

Although it bears very little physical resemblence to them, it's official design criteria was to be a Soviet equivilent of the DC10, L1011 and B747. The Russians wanted a widebody aircraft which was to be delivered and in service in time for the Moscow Summer Olympics of 1980, with the added ocmplication that it had to be able to operate from airstrips with little or no ammenities - even those without airstairs. The design suffered from poor engines and was late into service, meaning the prestige of this new Russian type when the world was watching had been lost. Interesting though that it's only had one crash in almost 25 years of flying - and that was only a few years back on a ferry flight.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
I'd argue that the Tu-204 draws more than just "aesthetic inspiration" from the Boeing 757.

Personally I'd say it looks more like an A321, similar specs too. It's only since the 757 has been retrofitted with winglets that the two look very similar.


Dan  Smile



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineLarshjort From Denmark, joined Dec 2007, 1434 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 10847 times:



Quoting BMI727 (Reply 6):
That only happened with the B-29. What happened was that sometimes the B-29s would be damaged on raids over Japan and would make emergency landings in the Soviet Union. The USSR, being a neutral country for all but the last bit of the war, was obliged to intern the crews and confiscate the aircraft. These aircraft were copied and became the Tu-4.

The USSR was at war longer than USA during the second world war, and was infact a US ally.

/Lars



139, 306, 319, 320, 321, 332, 34A, AN2, AT4, AT5, AT7, 733, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 146, AR1, BH2, CN1, CR2, DH1, DH3, DH4,
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30580 posts, RR: 84
Reply 10, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 10825 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Larshjort (Reply 9):
The USSR was at war longer than USA during the second world war, and was infact a US ally.

To be specific, while the Soviet Union was part of The Allies since 1941, they did not actually declare war on the Empire of Japan until August 8, 1945.


User currently offlineSkyfellow From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 10733 times:

I think we should look at the old Soviet design as independent, and not necessarily a copy of the West. This former country came up with several unique designs, and maybe the IL-76 as the best transport ever built. It could do what Western counterparts could not do. It could take off and land on gravel, mud or soft fields. In other words, something that Western counterparts could not do at the time of its launch.

User currently offlineDavidByrne From New Zealand, joined Sep 2007, 1633 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 10094 times:

Many DC3s were built in the USSR during WWII as the Lissonov (sp?) Li-2. I once read a (Soviet) claim that the DC3 was in fact a Soviet design all along . . . !!!


This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
User currently offlineMayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10351 posts, RR: 14
Reply 13, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 9920 times:



Quoting Skyfellow (Reply 11):
In other words, something that Western counterparts could not do at the time of its launch.

Nor did the Western a/c need to do this.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineSovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2577 posts, RR: 17
Reply 14, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 9371 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Ah yes the topic that comes up every once in a while here on a.net  Smile

As far as strict copies go: the B-29/Tu-4 and the DC-3/Li-2 are really the only two. The Li-2 was license built. USSR also built the Rolls Roycs Nene engine but that engine was only used in teh Mig-15.

Triple Delta pretty much covered the rest.

Don't forget the Yak-40, the original regional jet! It had no analogue when it came out.

Also interesting to talk about B-29 heritage. The B-52 and Tu-95 both used it as a jump-off but the results were vastly different. Keep in mind that the USSR was not behind on jet engines at the time. Mainly the Mikulin AM-3 which powered the Tu-16 and M-4 Bison was the most powerful jet engine of its time however it was very thirsty. The J57s powering the first B-52s were not even close which led to there being 8 of them.


User currently offlineNotLegalAdvice From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 21 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 8946 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
Quoting Larshjort (Reply 9):
The USSR was at war longer than USA during the second world war, and was infact a US ally.

To be specific, while the Soviet Union was part of The Allies since 1941, they did not actually declare war on the Empire of Japan until August 8, 1945.

What does that have to do with anything? They fought Germany with the Allies for four years. Taking on Japan at the same time would have probably been suicide, making the same mistake Germany made: Fighting a war on two fronts at once when you have limited resources.

To get back at least closer to the topic at hand... I remember hearing a discussion about the Buran space shuttle and how upset the Russians were at the accusation the design was "stolen". They did the same research the United States did and determined that for the mission profile (2-6 passengers, ability to capture satellites and return them to Earth) and the resulting payload weight and space requirements, the delta-wing shuttle design was the most efficient. Both sides picked it because in both cases it was the best possible design for the technology available.

While the Buran shuttle superficially looks the same, it had significant technological differences and was actually superior in some ways:

There were no main liftoff engines on the Buran shuttle like there are on the back of the American space shuttles. All the main engines were expendable and mounted on the bottom of the boosters and external tank. This meant that all the engines were "on-axis" for the main mass of the launch stack, which minimized vibrations. This meant that their design would have far fewer problems with tiles being shaken loose and falling off the orbiter.

Also, both the external tank and side boosters used liquid propellant. This meant the engines could be powered off at any time and a proper abort was possible at any stage of the launch. The American system uses solid SRBs that cannot be shut down once ignited and must burn for a full two minutes once lit, greatly reducing safe abort options in the first two minutes of launch.

Lastly, the Buran shuttle was designed from the beginning to be operated manless if necessary. The only actual launch of the shuttle was in fact unmanned and it launched and landed safely without any pilot aboard. This was more of a choice than anything; NASA chose not to make their shuttles fully automated because their pilots feared that would cause their jobs to be eliminated.

Anyway, my point in all this is that when two groups both have the same goal in mind, they'll often do the same research and come to the same end result as to what the optimal design will be like. Thus they will often end up with aircraft that appear superficially similar as they follow the same general optimal design, but because different choices were made along the way, they will still end up very different aircraft in terms of technology and flight performance.



The preceding should not be taken as actual legal advice. If you need legal advice, please retain legal counsel.
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 16, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 8930 times:



Quoting Mayor (Reply 13):
Nor did the Western a/c need to do this.

Generally, if you compare a Russian and a western aircraft of about the same size, the Russian one will probably have larger or more numerous landing gear. This is because the Russians built their runways softer than most western airfields.

In fact, I recall reading that Air Astana had to purchase 757s to supplement their 737s because they needed the four wheel bogies on the 757 to land at the lower quality Soviet built airports.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineJayeshrulz From India, joined Apr 2007, 1027 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 8816 times:

What about the Sukhoi Superjet 100?
Isn't it a Russian aircraft?
Will it be as successful as the A320 and the B737?



Keep flying, because the sky is no limit!
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13968 posts, RR: 63
Reply 18, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 8710 times:



Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 8):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
I'd argue that the Tu-204 draws more than just "aesthetic inspiration" from the Boeing 757.

Personally I'd say it looks more like an A321, similar specs too. It's only since the 757 has been retrofitted with winglets that the two look very similar.

Some years i had an opportunity to have a real close look at a Tu-204 (I was based in CIA, minding a B757, while TNT had a chartered Tu-204 parked right beside my aircraft. The Russian techs and myself cooperated very well, helping each other). Technically the Tu-204 is more advanced than the 757. It has full fly-by-wire and a full glass cockpit. It still has a flight engineer's station, but acc. to the captain, this was a certification requirement by the Soviet authorities at the time when it was designed (and aircraft of this size was required to have a three man cockpit, even though there is practically no work for the F/E due to the electronic systems). Technically I would class the Tu-204 between the 757 and the A320.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 16):


Quoting Mayor (Reply 13):
Nor did the Western a/c need to do this.

Generally, if you compare a Russian and a western aircraft of about the same size, the Russian one will probably have larger or more numerous landing gear. This is because the Russians built their runways softer than most western airfields.

Don't forget that many Russian airfields are located in remote areas north of the Polar circle in permafrost territory. This means that the ground is always frozen and that in summer only the top layer turns into a sea of mud. It is very difficult to build concrete runways there, which will not be broken into rocks during the next winter.

Quoting NotLegalAdvice (Reply 15):
What does that have to do with anything? They fought Germany with the Allies for four years. Taking on Japan at the same time would have probably been suicide, making the same mistake Germany made: Fighting a war on two fronts at once when you have limited resources.

Japan tried in several attempts in the 1930s to cut themselves a piece of Eastern Siberia. In all cases they got their noses badly bloodied by the Soviets. Thus, when Hitler attacked the Soviet Union from the West, they refused to help the Germans by attacking the Soviet Union from the East, fearing another defeat. The Soviets on the other hand were quite happy about the status quo, since it allowed them to move badly needed reserve divisions from Siberia to the European part of Russia, where they managed to stop the German advance.
During the Yalta conference the Allies defined the priorities for each partner. The Soviet Union was to concentrate on defeating Germany first, since Germany, with it's technological advances was considered the more dangerous enemy, while the US would concentrate on the Pacific war against Japan. The British would fight on both fronts due to their colonial committments.
After the eventual defeat of Germany, the Soviet Union would move it's troops to Siberia within 3 months (considered to be the minimum time due to the logistics problems of moving millions of soldiers and their equipment over just one railway line) and then declare war on Japan, attacking the China based Japanese troops from Siberia. This is exactly what they did, using the proven tactics previously used against the Germans with massive artillery, armoured and air attacks, against the Japanese elite Kwantung army, which got smashed within days (previously the Japanese had been fighting a counter guerilla war against Chinese guerillas and had never faced massive armour and artillery before).

Jan


User currently offlineByrdluvs747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2351 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 8582 times:

Although not a passenger aircraft, let's not forget the Buran.




The 747: The hands who designed it were guided by god.
User currently onlineTripleDelta From Croatia, joined Jul 2004, 1117 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 8251 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 12):
Many DC3s were built in the USSR during WWII as the Lissonov (sp?) Li-2. I once read a (Soviet) claim that the DC3 was in fact a Soviet design all along . . . !!!



Quoting Sovietjet (Reply 14):
As far as strict copies go: the B-29/Tu-4 and the DC-3/Li-2 are really the only two. The Li-2 was license built.

An interesting tidbit about the Li-2 was that it was originally intended to be a minimum-change version of the DC-3 - however in the end Lisunov's team incorporated over 1000 changes, including swapping the DC-3s original P&W radials for a pair of less powerful indigenous ASh-62s.

In an ironic twist, the Li-3 - Li-2s produced for the Yugoslav Air Force - were refitted with the (late model) DC-3's original R-1830s   .

[Edited 2009-11-15 01:18:43]


No plane, no gain.
User currently offlineFaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1534 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 8075 times:



Quoting Sovietjet (Reply 14):
Don't forget the Yak-40, the original regional jet! It had no analogue when it came out.

Also interesting to talk about B-29 heritage. The B-52 and Tu-95 both used it as a jump-off but the results were vastly different. Keep in mind that the USSR was not behind on jet engines at the time. Mainly the Mikulin AM-3 which powered the Tu-16 and M-4 Bison was the most powerful jet engine of its time however it was very thirsty. The J57s powering the first B-52s were not even close which led to there being 8 of them.

The YAK-40 was indeed a ground-breaker, 0ver 40 years ago it was the first regional jet and easily the most prolific with over 1,000 airframes built. Along with the YAK-42, it is also one of the greatest airfield performers ever built with a very high thrust-to-weight ratio, an extremely low wing loading and a straight, unswept wing. Nothing in the West can compare to its hot-rod takeoff characteristics, which is why you find it serving places like this:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Petr Rezac



Production stopped in the early 1980's but Wiki indicates that around 400 airframes are still flying, a testament to its ruggedness.

A little off-topic but let's not forget the Kuznetsov NK-12 turboprop powering the Tu-116 airliner developed from the Tu-95 bomber which has held the title of the most powerful turboprop engine since the 1950's, and by a very, very wide margin. Finally, the tailed-delta configuration which -with varying degrees of delta tailoring/cropping- has been used in numerous Western fighters like the F-15 and F-22, was first implemented on an operational type by the Russians, with the Mig-21. Conceivably, that is the single most successful configuration used on fighter aircraft today...

Faro



The chalice not my son
User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 8019 times:



Quoting BMI727 (Reply 6):
The USSR, being a neutral country for all but the last bit of the war,

Where on earth are you getting that from????? Completely incorrect and, indeed, it was involved in the Second World War long before the US was!!


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13968 posts, RR: 63
Reply 23, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7898 times:



Quoting Faro (Reply 21):
The YAK-40 was indeed a ground-breaker, 0ver 40 years ago it was the first regional jet and easily the most prolific with over 1,000 airframes built. Along with the YAK-42, it is also one of the greatest airfield performers ever built with a very high thrust-to-weight ratio, an extremely low wing loading and a straight, unswept wing. Nothing in the West can compare to its hot-rod takeoff characteristics, which is why you find it serving places like this:

The Yak-40 was also the first soviet aircraft, which was fully certified to western standards. There existed an airline in Western Germany in the 1970s, which operated a fleet of them.

Jan


User currently offlineOV735 From Estonia, joined Jan 2004, 909 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 7521 times:



Quoting Sectflyer (Thread starter):
I have always wondered but are these civilian aircraft just knockoffs of Boeing 727's and such?

I guess it's a modern day's problem, that people are used to judging things solely by their appearance, without bothering to study the context.

Tu-134, Tu-154 and Il-62 all get blamed for being copies of Caravelle/DC9/BAC1-11, 727/Trident and VC-10, respectively - because they look similar.

The Tu-134 was - indeed - to some degree inspired by the Caravelle, which, with its quiet cabin left a lasting impression on the Soviet leader, Nikita Hrushchov, who in turn ordered Andrei Tupolev to have the next version of the Tu-124 have the engines mounted in the rear.

The advantages of such design are, as mentioned, a quieter cabin, an aerodynamically clean wing, better engine-out performance, etc. (There are several major disadvantages as well, though leaving them out at the moment) Thus the layout was deemed useful when designing Il-62 for long-haul routes (of which there were many even within the USSR), and the Tu-154 for short/medium-haul high density routes.

For bigger aircraft, more engines were needed, both because the lack of powerful enough engines that could propel the aircraft in pairs, and because of the required higher redundancy (very important factor in Soviet designs). There are only a number of ways how to arrange 3+ engines around the aircraft's tail section, "as laid down by the International Laws of Physics". Hence, the similar looks for all the designs, despite all their differences.


25 GST : As in neutral towards Japan. If the USSR had gifted back to the US its patched up bombers and crews, they risked being seen as fighting against japan
26 Kaiarahi : Got it now?
27 Kaiarahi : From accurate history. USSR declared war on Japan on August 8, 1945. Prior to that, they were neutral. It would be a good thing to check your facts b
28 Skyfellow : A matter of opinion more so than a factual statement. While the old Soviet designs compensated for primitive airfields and the lack of ground handlin
29 Mandala499 : If I remember correctly from the Boeing manuals, the 757 even with the 4-wheel bogies still require a stronger pavement for the same payload and rang
30 Mayor : I still stand by my assertion that Western a/c, did not need this capability, especially commercial a/c. Military is a different story, but then agai
31 Diesel1 : The 727 being a 'knockoff' of the Trident...
32 Skyfellow : Once again, a matter of opinion. I respect yours and will leave it at that. Civil aircraft also has military applications, and vica versa. It is no s
33 Mayor : But the C-141 was never designed for the same operational roles that the IL-76 was because it was not necessary. You're comparing apples and oranges,
34 Skyfellow : Not entirly wrong, but you're too hung up in just wanting to be right about all of this. And I'm sure we can argue until the cows come home. Like I s
35 NotLegalAdvice : No, still don't understand what point there is in saying the Soviets didn't "actually declare war" on Japan until 1945. It's not relevant to anything
36 Fabo : Is it that hard to understand? USSR was formally a neutral nation, thus could not return B-29s to the US. See?
37 NotLegalAdvice : My apologies, international law was never a real strong interest of mine. I wasn't seeing the impact of Russia's lack of declaration against Japan on
38 Mayor : I never said that the IL-76 wasn't a magnificent airplane, but, then again, I wasn't comparing two a/c that were designed with different operational p
39 StealthZ : You are right, a complete answer is better addressed in another forum but in brief... There are many detailed explanations regarding tripartite treat
40 RIX : - interestingly, there was B17 "captured" by Soviets, I read about it in memoirs by famous Soviet polar pilot/navigator Valentin Akkuratov. The story
41 BMI727 : The only thing like that on the B-17 that I am aware of was the themite to destroy the Norden bombsight. But I don't know if that was actually a red
42 MD11Engineer : Don´t forget that all commercial airliners in the USSR had a secondary role as troop transports in case of war. Jan
43 BMI727 : Many commercial airliners in the US have a secondary role of troop transport as well - even when not at war. I don't think that there were too many s
44 474218 : However, the USSR was an allied with the West in the war against Germany. You seem to discount the fact that in 1980 the USAF also had a fleet of C-5
45 Kaiarahi : I know that. The discussion was about B-29s damaged in raids over JAPAN which landed in the USSR and could not be returned to the U.S. because the US
46 ScrubbsYWG : I find this difficult to believe. If they were going to the trouble of copying the airplane, they would have figured out a way to get the correct thi
47 YVRLTN : No mention of the AN-124 vs C5 yet...
48 XT6Wagon : Tooling is tooling. My guess is that they were hit with issues matching the alloy, the quality of the alloy, and tooling to nail the thickness. The B
49 BMI727 : I convert things too, but you have to remember that these are Russians we are talking about. These people built the MiG-21 with panel gaps that would
50 MogandoCI : although not a quad, wouldn't one say the original A300 (non-600) is a comparable competitor? Both WB, *rather* short-range, and carries up to ~400 i
51 EA772LR : Caught up?? You mean greatly surpassed the Il-76 in almost every mission profile. As it should. It's much newer technology. Slightly larger, better p
52 Ha763 : Tupolev was told to copy the B-29 down to the smallest detail by Stalin and was give a short time frame to complete the job. The B-29 skin was 1/16 i
53 AirFrnt : Air Power did not play the same role in the Soviet conflict that it did everywhere else in the world. For example, at the time of D-Day, 80% of the L
54 BMI727 : All it takes to be friends is a common enemy. And remember that Patton wanted to march on to Moscow.
55 474218 : I know the Russians were our alley during WWII because they took all those P-39's off our hands and didn't demand any additional money.
56 Skyfellow : Take "caught up" with a grain of salt. Not "caught up" in terms of technology, but more so in terms of the intended purpose and deployment of this ai
57 Mayor : So, what's your point? The C-141 was developed in the late 50s, early 60s and flew in '66, I believe. Like I said before, this a/c was not developed
58 Skyfellow : True when it comes to the C-130, but this aircraft did not have sufficient range, speed and nor the payload capacity compared to the IL-76 when IL-76
59 YVRLTN : And Russia had the AN12 as a C130 equivalent (and the AN10 & AN8 before it).
60 NotLegalAdvice : That's why I said "when you have limited resources". The United States was in an enviable position thanks to its geography and resources. The US was
61 AirFrnt : Outside of Churchill's colorful "Uncle Joe" propaganda, I don't think you could characterize the relationship between Churchill, Stalin and FDR as fr
62 Mayor : It may have not been a possibilty, but it surely wasn't a necessity, with the way airlift was set up, at the time. All thru the Vietnam war, they wer
63 Skyfellow : Was it your intention to say that it was a possibility, but not a necessity? Maybe I did not understand you correctly. Feel free to clarify. Real sor
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...
Antonov: Question And General Comment posted Sat Oct 20 2001 20:22:08 by Mirrodie
US Airways Flight Information Question posted Wed Nov 11 2009 16:39:36 by SXDFC
Philippine Airlines' 777-300ER Question posted Sun Nov 8 2009 15:27:00 by JetBlue777
Denied Boarding Compensation Question posted Fri Nov 6 2009 03:58:36 by Sankaps
Obscure 1987 Western Airlines Question posted Mon Oct 26 2009 17:35:43 by CatIII
AF Miami Flight Question posted Fri Oct 23 2009 03:39:52 by LY777
Quick Question On US 3656 10/18 posted Mon Oct 19 2009 09:40:23 by Soxfan
QF History At CAI, CCU And DEL (question) posted Sun Oct 18 2009 09:19:40 by 28L28L
MCO History Question (1995-ish) posted Sat Oct 17 2009 22:06:58 by Airport
Hawaiian Airlines Movie Charge Question posted Wed Oct 14 2009 20:24:48 by Soxfan
757's And DCA... Are They Allowed Again? posted Sun Jun 9 2002 03:25:41 by Fly_emirates
Canadair And Bombardier, Are They Same? posted Wed Apr 18 2001 10:51:47 by Salsa
Antonov And Tupolev Question posted Mon Jun 26 2000 11:43:45 by Flying-Tiger
Aebal...who And Where Are They? posted Wed Jun 14 2000 02:21:32 by TWA717_200
Vapour Trails - Why And How Are They Formed? posted Thu Feb 3 2000 22:54:10 by Bizclass
Meridiana And Eurofly: How Are They Doing? posted Thu Sep 24 2009 23:07:03 by Jana
Mexicana YEG And YYC Routes..how Are They Doing posted Fri Jul 4 2008 11:54:42 by Yegbey01
AKL And BNE - How Are They Going For BR? posted Fri Dec 22 2006 06:53:44 by Planemanofnz