rikkus67 From Canada, joined Jun 2000, 1461 posts, RR: 2 Posted (2 years 10 months 4 days ago) and read 5417 times:
I read this exchange in the "Sukhoi Superjet Vs Embraer E Vs Bombardier CRJ" thread:
Quoting DeltaDawg (Reply 3):
Sukhoi has been around for a lot longer than Embraer. I realize that the Russian aviation industry is somewhat of a running joke amongst most Westerners but one has to admit that Sukhoi might have gotten it right by partnering with Boeing, Thales, Alenia Aero, Honeywell and other "Western" regulars.
Quoting Gipsy (Reply 5):
Yeah big deal if you have the blueprints of the DO728. I don't know why this is always neglected with the typical attitude: doh every plane looks similar... I KNOW that the russians where at Dornier and took all the BLUEPRINTS with them. It's a fact not imagination. 5 abreast seating is just one of the features of the 728. So sad our politicians are damn stupid. Sukhoi has none whatsoever experience in building civil aircraft and doesn't deserve the credit of the design. It's a very capable aircraft and if Sukhoi doesn't screw it up they will make money out of it.
Interesting note from Gipsy. Can anyone substantiate if this is actually the case? I looked at visual similarities, and there is a bit...but is Superjet a completely clean-sheet, or did they actually warm over the FD728?
mestrugo From Chile, joined Apr 2007, 237 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4999 times:
Look carefully and you'll realize that there are many differences. On a not-too-deep glance, I can tell flap canoes, for instance, are different. Or the placement of pitot tubes. Or the shape of the wing box (telling about a different internal configuration). And door shapes. And front gear configuration. If the plane was a clone from the Dornier, details like these wouldn't be so obvious.
The Superjet does have the same basic shape and layout than the DO728, but it seems that's about it. And, as mentioned before, it's also very similar to E-Jets and A318s.
rampkontroler From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 859 posts, RR: 7 Reply 3, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4976 times:
I see no more resemblance other than they are two similar sized aircraft designed for similar duties. A six passenger car looks like most any other car to me, just like most motorcycles look the same to me too, yet I don't think any one company is going around copying each others cars or bikes. I know these vehicles are all different from each other, but they are not my field of expertise, so superficially they all look the same. Similar duties + similar economics + finite number of planforms = similar appearances. My 2cents!
rikkus67 From Canada, joined Jun 2000, 1461 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4769 times:
So far, this pretty much confirms what I thought. Gipsy, can you substantiate your claim?
Bombardier also looked at the 728, but walked away (as they also did with Fokker). Interesting to note the Cseries also has a 5 abreast layout....hmmmm.
...I'm just sayin'.
Cessna 172; King Air 100; Twin Otter; SAAB 340; Dash 7; Dash 8-100,-200,-300,-400; CRJ-200,700,900; ERJ-170; F-28; DC 9-
gipsy From Germany, joined Mar 2009, 100 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4467 times:
The Sukhoi is not a clean sheet design. My claim is based on the fact that Dornier should have been sold to a russian consortium. They where at FD and have been granted full access to all DATA they wanted...so they downloaded everything for weeks. The SS is sure not a 100% copy but it is derived from the 928 (728) and resembles it quite remarkably (The SS is derived more from the 928 than the 728). The wings are the same and the flap canoes tough shaped slightly different seem to have the same size and position. The wing box fairings seem different but not so much. So it may be possible to share the same wingbox. As on the SS the NACA duct is missing a steeper inclined wingbox fairing is possible.Then take a look at the curvature of the engine pylons beneath the wing, it's quite the same. Altough the front is different due to an other engine. VHF Antennas have the same position. Window arrangement and positions (Frames) are the same. Tail Cone is identical. Nose section (Positioning of NLG, Shape of cockpit windows except the last side windows [take a look from the front] aerodynamical shape) is nearly 100% identical. But the most important thing are the wings, internal system arrangement, aerodynamical shape and integration of supplier components. Will have a look at how hydraulics where layed out. For example the pitot tubes may be positioned otherwise because of an other supplier and a different system set up.
mrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1645 posts, RR: 51 Reply 6, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4332 times:
Quoting gipsy (Reply 5): The SS is sure not a 100% copy but it is derived from the 928 (728)
While it may be true that Sukhoi got to look at the details of the FD design, whether they actually worked from that design or made their own (while learning from the FD) is another matter entirely. Saying the plane is "derived" is more than you can claim with the information you provided.
Quoting gipsy (Reply 5): and resembles it quite remarkably (The SS is derived more from the 928 than the 728).
Well, the FD resembles the E-Jet and the A-318. The 787 looks like them too. Modern twin jets look alike - form follows function.
Are they now? Wing design is about the profile of each station. Minute difference in these profiles make a huge difference in performance. Oh, and the russians have one of the premier aerodynamics design institutes. In fact, it is more likely that FD hired them to design the original 728 wing than that the russians would copy FD's desgin.
Quoting gipsy (Reply 5): VHF Antennas have the same position.
As they do on every small twin. Antenna position is another area where form follows function. In distributing the same antennae on an aircraft of the same basic layout with the same interference restrictions it is no surprise that the solution is the same.
And yet the vertical tail is totally different (SS has a higher aspect ratio and is mounted forward). You can't actually use the same tail structure and mount the vertical stabilizer in a different position. Different loads, different design. If you mean strictly the cone aft of the tail - well, why would anyone have to copy that.
Quoting gipsy (Reply 5): internal system arrangement
Let me see...
APU in the tail cone - check
Engines under the wing - check
Two flap surfaces per wing driven by torque tube - check
Hydraulic pumps and electric generators in the nacelle - check
Air cycle machines in the wing to fuselage fairing - check
Hot air lines to the wing deice under cabin floor - check
Main avionics bay in the cockpit and forward fuselage area - check
Fuel pumps and valves in the wing box - check
(...)
I guess every single isle twin is a copy of the 737.
rheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2061 posts, RR: 6 Reply 7, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4274 times:
Also there is a big difference of the silhouette at the front door:
The lower lobe of the DO fuselage has still an increasing circumference after the front door. The SS lower lobe reaches the final circumference before the front door.
Other differences: fuselage height above ground & engine pylon...
So you are basically saying that there are visual similarities, but that even so, there are some very obvious differences. From a technical aspect that will mean there is virtually nothing in common between the two aircraft; maybe the material type, or a few components, but that goes for every aircraft on the planet these days.
It's a bit like saying the A400M is a copy of the An-22 because its got four engines and a six bogie MLG.
gipsy From Germany, joined Mar 2009, 100 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4221 times:
Quoting mrocktor (Reply 6): And yet the vertical tail is totally different (SS has a higher aspect ratio and is mounted forward). You can't actually use the same tail structure and mount the vertical stabilizer in a different position. Different loads, different design. If you mean strictly the cone aft of the tail - well, why would anyone have to copy that.
It is fairly similar in my view. The 928 Horizontal Stabilizer is also mounted forward as is the 728 ones the 928 would have looked slightly different and even more like the SS. Thats what makes me wonder.
Show me an a/c with that amount of similarities. The E jets and 737/A320 look completely different you won't find many layout similarities as hatches etc.
I bet thet even the NLG and MLG are the same ones on the SS and the FD. Have to ask Messier-Dowty. That's what I meant with systems.
mestrugo From Chile, joined Apr 2007, 237 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4135 times:
It seems there's a prejudice against Russian planemakers. So far, the Superjet has been said to be a ripoff of :
The CS series;
The E-Jets;
The Dassault Mercure (!);
And now, the F-D 728!
That is, a copy of every modern plane in its category with engines under the wings (except the A318 or the 737-600, as it seems they don't have as much merit!)
It's nothing new, too... Almost every airliner from the former Soviet Union was said to be a ripoff of an (obviously superior and awesomely awesome) Western plane, even if they had nothing in common but a vague cosmetic resemblance.
It seems the only way the Russians (and Ukranians) have to escape this stigma is by making triplane commercial planes with 14 piston engines and triangular cross-sections. Anything else, like using flaps, is obviously a ripoff!
jetlife2 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 214 posts, RR: 25 Reply 13, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4096 times:
I have worked with Sukhoi, in fact stood at the center of the runway in Zhukovsky with the chief pilot during flight tests. I can assure you that Sukhoi is not a running joke amongst Western companies.
bonusonus From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 398 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3954 times:
I've always wondered to what extent Soviet-era planes were cloned from European/American a/c. Certainly the Tu-4 was an early example of an exact replica (of the B-29). The question is whether this has persisted. Russian/Soviet companies have certainly produced unique a/c (Il-86 comes to mind), and I doubt that the replication mentality still exists today, but seeing situations like this certainly makes you consider the possibility...
gipsy From Germany, joined Mar 2009, 100 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3860 times:
Sure the curvature at the front section towards the passenger door is slightly different but I said it is derived and somewhat refined (to the positive) but not a 100% copy (more like 80% ), but the similarities are appalling. Concerning the wings: Dornier was known for their advanced out of the box designs including supercritical wings like the TNT of the 228. They didn't need the help from sukhoi and concerning civil aviation the expertise was surely a lot greater.
AirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 1906 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3857 times:
Quoting mestrugo (Reply 12):
It seems there's a prejudice against Russian planemakers. So far, the Superjet has been said to be a ripoff of :
The CS series;
The E-Jets;
The Dassault Mercure (!);
And now, the F-D 728!
That is, a copy of every modern plane in its category with engines under the wings (except the A318 or the 737-600, as it seems they don't have as much merit!)
Indeed, following that logic, the CS, E Jets, FD728 and Superjet are all copies of the aborted Shorts FJ/X, the all new regional jet proposed by Shorts, but cancelled in favour of the CRJ when Bombardier took them over!
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
mrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1645 posts, RR: 51 Reply 18, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3757 times:
Quoting gipsy (Reply 15): To be honest I have seldomly seen such a resemblance...
Interestingly enough, in those very photos you can see:
* The nose segment has several panels on the FD728 (see the cross shaped intersection behind the probes), SSJ is completely different. Notably, different panel divisions even for the same envelope shape (which this is also not), mean completely different loads, completely different fatigue characteristics. So, clearly not a derivative.
* The fuselage tube on the FD728 consists in a panel containing all the windows, plus upper and lower panels (you can see the joint lines above and below the cabin windows), SSJ is completely different (single joint line under the windows). Again, leads to totally different load distribution and fatigue - completely different design.
* The nose landing gear on the FD728 has an articulated linkage forward of the gear strut, SSJ does not. Completely different design
Granted, we are looking at opposite sides of the planes, but knowing a bit about aircraft design it is clear that the SSJ is not a warmed up 728. It is just similar because design objectives and the technology employed is similar.
rikkus67 From Canada, joined Jun 2000, 1461 posts, RR: 2 Reply 19, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days ago) and read 3660 times:
Quoting mrocktor (Reply 18): Granted, we are looking at opposite sides of the planes, but knowing a bit about aircraft design it is clear that the SSJ is not a warmed up 728. It is just similar because design objectives and the technology employed is similar.
Thanks mrocktor, your explanation certainly seems to clear things up a bit.
Although I wish the Sukhoi Superjet success, and hope that my own countries Cseries does well, it was a sad day when the 728/928 went down the drain.
Does anyone know how the two former 728 fuselages are being used (being purchased for bargain basement prices at the firesale auction)??
Cessna 172; King Air 100; Twin Otter; SAAB 340; Dash 7; Dash 8-100,-200,-300,-400; CRJ-200,700,900; ERJ-170; F-28; DC 9-
mrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1645 posts, RR: 51 Reply 20, posted (2 years 10 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3589 times:
Quoting rikkus67 (Reply 19): Does anyone know how the two former 728 fuselages are being used (being purchased for bargain basement prices at the firesale auction)??
There was talk about the design, tooling and prototypes being bought by some chinese venture (which usually means a stooge for the chinese government). Not sure what came of that.
Truth is, aircraft design is such an intricate process that picking up where someone else left off rarely (if ever) works out. Unless you are buying the brains as well as the schematics or doing changes to an actually completed (and certified) design.
Sponsor Message: 
From Canada, joined Jun 2000, 1461 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 390 posts, 
From Chile, joined Apr 2007, 237 posts, 
From Germany, joined Mar 2009, 100 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2061 posts, 
From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11113 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Nov 1999, 5264 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 1906 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
