KUGN From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 615 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (13 years 3 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2122 times:
An-225 instead trying to quiet critics, it would be much better if you tried to contribute discussion, perhaps informing A380 if he lacks some knowledge in your opinion.
This is becoming pedicatble - Russian aviation fans dicredit critics, otherwise active contributors on the board, rather than providing some information; it is very rude in my opinion to say to anyone to keep their mouth shut, unless they are breaking some of the discussion rules. How this A380's comment violates rules?
Try to educate, don't quiet others. Glasnost, remember? Lets talk frankly and openly.
Why do some of us believe modern russian airliners are copies of western aircraft, and why do others belive they are not.
CrewChief32 From Germany, joined exactly 14 years ago today! , 418 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (13 years 3 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2090 times:
with all respect from a non-american & non-russian participant of this forum, you can`t actually describe A380`s first sentence as critic rather than as a stupid remark. I am sure it was not made to "piss-off" our russian friends (or anybody else), it only shows lack of knowledge of aviation....
I have had (and still have) the pleasure of handling both western-built and eastern-built aircrafts on a daily basis, and I admit that both types of aircrafts have their advantages and disadvantages.
They may look like copies of western aircrafts, but you should remember that they have been built to the requirements of the Russian forces, not only for the airlines.
The TU134 looks like a DC-9, more or less, has less seats and only a smaller cargo compartment in the rear, no underfloor holds at all (=disadvantage), but you have access to that compartment in flight (=advantage), and this compartment was actually the rear gunner`s position.
The TU-154 looks quite similar to the 727, OK, and has a few seats less (Y=164), but the cargo hold floors, both in the rear and the front are much wider, making it easier to load large (wide) loads, but it requires some skill to use the entire space as the cargo hold ceilings are way lower than that of the 727.
One advantage of the Tupolews, which is rarely used, is their ability to land at unpaved airfield strips (three main gear axles vs one TU5/727).
The IL-62 looks like a "copy" of the VC-10, and the IL-18 looks quite similar to the Britannia, OK, but aren`t both aircrafts of British origin???? So much to the statement "copies of American..." (=lack of knowledge).
BTW, there are still IL-62s in civil(!) use as well as IL-18s, where are their western counterparts????
And, finally, when A380 speaks of "cramped", I assume he refers to the seat pitch; ever been onboard of a american carrier in Y-class lately, or onboard of a Britannia (no matter if BYG or BAL) 767 or any other charter carrier with the latest "state of the art" equipment?????
I almost forgot, if you really want to have a "wide-body" feeling, go into the cabin of the IL-86/-96, it IS impressive.....
While the Tu-204 seems to be a completely normal airliner, the rest of the pack are far too loud for western standards and will be banned soon from most of the big airports. The TU3 and TU5 are also heavy smokers and you can see them approaching from far in the distance. The Il-86 seems always very underpowered for its size and weight. Each take-off on runway 20 (the shorter one at BCN) is near to a disaster. Look at this pic, and you will see what I mean...