bigphilnyc
Posts: 3874
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2002 10:43 pm

Russian Copycats

Sun Aug 03, 2003 11:12 am

I know very little about Russian planes. But it seems to me that Russians have a copy of so many other Americna made planes.

I have seen planes that with the exception of a few minor detials liek cockpit windows or a neddle here and there, are dead ringers for the MD-80, 757, 727 and so forth.

Did they do this intentionally? What's the deal?

Also, how stupid am I for not knowing?

Regards

-Phil
Phil Derner Jr.
 
bmi330
Posts: 1429
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2001 9:04 am

RE: Russian Copycats

Sun Aug 03, 2003 11:22 am

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
Posts: 4260
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2000 3:10 am

RE: Russian Copycats

Sun Aug 03, 2003 11:23 am

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.
 
VonRichtofen
Posts: 4260
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2000 3:10 am

RE: Russian Copycats

Sun Aug 03, 2003 11:27 am

"What about the A340 and IL96 that right name?"

The IL96 is based on the IL86 which was in service way before the A340. I think perhaps even the IL96 might have been before the A340 though I'm not positive.
 
N754PR
Posts: 2909
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 1999 10:03 pm

RE: Russian Copycats

Sun Aug 03, 2003 11:30 am

Well other people just steal things like the jet engine.......  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
Bush, your a sad, sad man.
 
bmi330
Posts: 1429
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2001 9:04 am

RE: Russian Copycats

Sun Aug 03, 2003 11:33 am

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.
 
bmi330
Posts: 1429
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2001 9:04 am

RE: Russian Copycats

Sun Aug 03, 2003 11:35 am

Good point If you want a copycat think this way no UK no jet engine. 1st commercial aircraft Comet UK everyone follows the British lead in technology anyways! Just a small splash of patriotism there.
 
bmi330
Posts: 1429
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2001 9:04 am

RE: Russian Copycats

Sun Aug 03, 2003 12:00 pm

How kool is the TU-204 that is one kick ass airplane it is really like the 757.
 
cancidas
Posts: 3985
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 7:34 am

RE: Russian Copycats

Sun Aug 03, 2003 12:06 pm

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."
 
Boeing4ever
Posts: 4479
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2001 12:06 pm

RE: Russian Copycats

Sun Aug 03, 2003 1:05 pm

VC-10 was copied into IL-62M. There are some copies, but there are still some differences. Cold War politiking and spying play a role.

B4e-Forever New Frontiers
 
flybynight
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Russian Copycats

Sun Aug 03, 2003 1:17 pm

Except for the winglets, I'd swear the TU 204 was a 757. It is amazing how similar they are!

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Paul Morley




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Josep Duran - IBERIAN SPOTTERS


Heia Norge!
 
bmi330
Posts: 1429
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2001 9:04 am

RE: Russian Copycats

Sun Aug 03, 2003 1:21 pm

Maybe Boeing sold them the molds etc like fiat do with there old car modles form the 757? You used airscotland well done that man.
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: Russian Copycats

Sun Aug 03, 2003 1:29 pm

The IL96 is based on the IL86 which was in service way before the A340.

The IL-86 was clearly based on the A300B. The inability of the USSR to produce reasonably efficient large high bypass turbofans meant that the IL-86 required 4 engines instead of 2.

The IL-62 was a copy of the VC-10.

The TU-154 was a copy of the 727 which itself was a copy of the Trident.

The TU-104 was a copy of the Comet.

The TU-134, while based on the TU-124, was a copy of the DC-9/BAC-111.

The TU-204 was clearly a copy of the 757 of course.

I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
Dulles
Posts: 63
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2003 11:04 am

RE: Russian Copycats

Sun Aug 03, 2003 1:32 pm

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.

Dulles
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Russian Copycats

Sun Aug 03, 2003 1:34 pm

Gues, not a single one of those aircraft is a copy of the other.

Form follows function.

If you desing aircraft for simular roles with simular requirements there will be simularities.

OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
bigphilnyc
Posts: 3874
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2002 10:43 pm

RE: Russian Copycats

Sun Aug 03, 2003 1:39 pm

their are OBVIOUS superficial similarities that can't be in any way coincidental.
Phil Derner Jr.
 
flybynight
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Russian Copycats

Sun Aug 03, 2003 1:39 pm

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!
Heia Norge!
 
DC10GUY
Posts: 2590
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2000 5:52 am

RE: Russian Copycats

Sun Aug 03, 2003 1:46 pm

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 !!!
 
bigphilnyc
Posts: 3874
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2002 10:43 pm

RE: Russian Copycats

Sun Aug 03, 2003 1:54 pm

Oh, to clarify, in no way was I trying to say that the Russians were messed up in copying, or necessarily meaning that THEY copied US. Nor was I saying that can't amke planes.

Jsut discussing similarities. Obvious ones.  Big grin
Phil Derner Jr.
 
POSITIVE RATE
Posts: 2121
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2001 11:31 am

RE: Russian Copycats

Sun Aug 03, 2003 2:14 pm

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
Posts: 2546
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2003 12:32 am

RE: Russian Copycats

Sun Aug 03, 2003 5:55 pm

Ok....
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.
 
osteogenesis
Posts: 494
Joined: Tue May 27, 2003 9:44 pm

RE: Russian Copycats

Sun Aug 03, 2003 6:02 pm

Bmi330

Good point If you want a copycat think this way no UK no jet engine. 1st commercial aircraft Comet UK everyone follows the British lead in technology anyways! Just a small splash of patriotism there.

What about the German technology that went into the US, Great Britain and the Soviet Union after the war?

This had a high impact on aviation and the space industry.

Even the Americans accept that they would not have reached the moon buy now without all the work that was done by Werner von Braun and co.

Maybe in aviation the German advantage was not so big but the F-86 and the Mig 15 used Me262 technology.

Did you saw the 2010 space Odyssey film? When the American Nasa guy tells the Russian “Our Germans are better then your Germans”.  Big grin
 
LN-KGL
Posts: 817
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 1999 6:40 am

RE: Russian Copycats

Sun Aug 03, 2003 6:22 pm

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  Big grin







Kurt
http://www.plane-spotter.com
 
GDB
Posts: 12652
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Russian Copycats

Sun Aug 03, 2003 6:56 pm

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.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Russian Copycats

Sun Aug 03, 2003 7:24 pm

The 777 and the A340 may not look alike, but compare a 330 and 777, they most certainly do.


Besides there are plently of examples of aircraft with simular looks and designed for simular missions in the west. Are they copycats too?

A-320/737
F-100/DC-9
Convair 340/Martin 440
Beechjet/Learjet
Nordatlas/C-119
CRJ/EMB-145


[Edited 2003-08-03 12:29:16]
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
ebos
Posts: 448
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2001 7:48 pm

RE: Russian Copycats

Sun Aug 03, 2003 7:31 pm

Glad the russians made some design improvements when copying Big grin
Russian stuff looks much better imho than the western 'plastic' aircraft. The design of the Tu-204 is the worst they could do.
Wonder how they copied the An-225...  Wink/being sarcastic

Sven
An-225 stalker: 1 x LUX, 1 x EIN, 1 x DXB, 2 x SHJ, 3 x CGN
 
RayPettit
Posts: 602
Joined: Sun May 26, 2002 9:04 pm

RE: Russian Copycats

Sun Aug 03, 2003 7:38 pm

Re B757 and Tu204 - well shape wise they may be similar but thats a fairly standard configuration of an aircraft for a given market.

And the Tu134 has its roots in the Tu124 which in turn came from the Tu104 which in turn came from a Tupelov bomber. No One Eleven copy there!

And should I complain about the DC9 and BAC1-11 being similar? No, for the same 757/204 reason above. T-tails and rear engines were in vogue then like the 727 and Trident.

I'm glad the German dimension was included in this thread - the influence of their engineers is often ignored, even though they may have been 'inspired' by Whittle's jet engine.

Remember the Russians designed a great many aircraft that featured brand new concepts. But in the civil field I feel they were lagging behind in this respect. Just look at the performance of their fighters today and you will see that none are 'copies' of western military jets.

R
 
UN_B732
Posts: 3529
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2001 12:57 am

RE: Russian Copycats

Sun Aug 03, 2003 9:28 pm

The Tu-134 is also smaller than the DC-9.
-UN
What now?
 
POSITIVE RATE
Posts: 2121
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2001 11:31 am

RE: Russian Copycats

Sun Aug 03, 2003 10:00 pm

I never understood the purpose of the glass nose on Soviet planes like the TU-134. Was it supposed to be for a Navigator to look out of or something?
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Russian Copycats

Sun Aug 03, 2003 10:01 pm

Yup. 10 out of 10 for that one.

Easier to see landmarks on the ground.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: Russian Copycats

Sun Aug 03, 2003 10:20 pm

It was also capable of being fitted with a machine gun.
I don't know if that was ever done, and it would have been pretty useless but it WAS designed as a military troop transport to ferry troops to unprepared strips near the front quickly (ALL Soviet airliners up to the 1970s at least had a requirement for unprepared fields because of that).

Many Soviet designs look a lot like western designs.
In part that's because some things just work better than others, in part it's because the USSR had the largest espionage agency ever and made excellent use of them to steal large amounts of military and corporate secrets in the Americas and especially Europe.
This included not only design documents for a lot of equipment, but also quite a lot of hardware with military purposes which could not be exported to the USSR. This was purchased through several layers of shadow companies and included everything from computer chips to entire factories.
I wish I were flying
 
vafi88
Posts: 2981
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2001 10:32 am

RE: Russian Copycats

Sun Aug 03, 2003 11:15 pm

The Tu-144 was NOT a copy of the concorde. If you can remember, the reason the first one crashed at an air show was spies that got too close while in the air, the pilot swerved, and crashed. The TU-154 was not a copy of the 727, but rather a better thing than it, it is much larger, and has a completely different cockpit shape, it also has the huge main gear that allows it to land on unpaved runways if necessary, let's see if the 727 can do that  Laugh out loud

And as for Il62- there is no way that is a copy, period.
The TU204 and the 757...well, what about the A321?? it looks more similar to the 757 than a TU204.

Let's not forget the AN124 (which is not a copy of the C5) it is larger than a C-5 and has the horizontal stabilizers underneath the tail. Let's not forget the AN-225.

The IL - 86 , it is not a copy of the A300B and you know it, it's a completely different aircraft(and could put 2 engines instead of 4 if it WAS a copy) and later on evolved into the IL96 which is not a copy of the A340 since it was just a next generation kinda thing from the IL86
I'd like to elect a president that has a Higher IQ than a retarted ant.
 
flybynight
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Airbus Vs Boeing

Mon Aug 04, 2003 12:52 am

Weren't the Concorde and the TU-144 being built at the same? What I'm trying to say, wasn't there a race to see who would fly first? Sorta like the US / USSR space race. Also, a, long time ago, I remember seeing footage of a TU 144 crashing. Anyone seen that?
The 340 and the 777 look different, and it is only partially because of the engine configuration. I can still easily see the difference between a 330 and 777. Wings, for one. The rear of the plane. Basically the whole plane is different.
The 757 and the TU 204 are just strikingly similiar. If you compare a 757 and A 321, it is obvious which one is which (and please, its not just the winglets!).
I'm sure there are times when US industries have copied Russian industries, but with these two planes, there is definitely some "shared" homework!
If planes that are in the same class are destined to look the same, wouldn't a 737 look the same as a DC9? Even if you stipped off the engines, these are two very different looking planes.
Heia Norge!
 
Ilyushin96M
Posts: 2506
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 1999 3:15 am

RE: Russian Copycats

Mon Aug 04, 2003 3:27 am

The idea that the Russians copy Western aircraft today is ludicrous. The definition of "copy" is to reproduce something in an identical fashion, so that there is no difference from the original. Therefore, the only real "copy" of any Western aircraft by a Russian design bureau was of the Boeing B-29 Superfortress in the late '40s. Three B-29s made emergency landings due to fuel shortage at a Sakhalin base, and Stalin issued a directive to Andrei Tupolev that an exact copy of the aircraft be made, bolt for bolt. That is exactly what Tupolev did, right down to the "Boeing" stamps on the rudder pedals, to hear it told. That aircraft became the Tupolev TU-4 Bull. This project achieved the objective Stalin set out - to have a Russian-built intercontinental bomber capable of delivering a nuclear device.

Certainly, there are design similarities between some Russian and Western commercial aircraft. Some systems, like those on the TU-144, WERE taken from design schematics obtained through spying. However it is plain that this was unsuccessful - the TU-144 was an engineering failure.

If true copying were going on, there would be no visual differences, correct? The IL-62 resembles the British VC-10, but only superficially, and has far outlasted the latter in service. If the IL-86 was indeed a copy of the Airbus A300, then it would have had twin turbofans, not the four which power it. The IL-96-300 preceded the Airbus A340 by several years, making its first flight in 1988 and, unlike many other aircraft at that time, it was also entirely fly-by-wire. The TU-134 is similar to the DC-9 only in its twin tail-mounted engine layout and t-tail. Otherwise, it is more similar to the TU-104, which was derived from the TU-16 Badger bomber itself. Same with the TU-114, having its base in the TU-95 Bear bomber/reconnaissance aircraft. The TU-154 and TU-204 are entirely civilian designs, having no connection with military aircraft, other than some of their more rugged components, such as landing gear. The TU-154 bearing resemblance to the Boeing 727 and the TU-204 to the 757 is more of a coincidence than a result of copying – the aircraft were all designed to fulfill similar roles, so the similarity of design is understandable. However, Russian-built aircraft have more back-up systems and are capable of operating from very primitive, poorly-equipped airfields. As a direct result of this, they have been self-contained, not needing ground equipment, for much longer than Western aircraft.

It can also be said that, unlike many Western airliners, Russian planes were designed with a dual purpose - ease of conversion for carrying troops, as well as reconnaissance, during wartime.

The one area Russian manufacturers COULD benefit from successful copying of Western designs is in engines. The IL-86 is not only powered by four engines instead of two, those Kuznetsov NK-86 engines are far inferior to any Western counterpart, in terms of thrust ratio and fuel consumption. Though powered by a new generation of higher-bypass turbofans, the IL-96 series and TU-204 have suffered numerous setbacks due to the same issues – lower-than-promised power and higher-than-expected fuel consumption of the Aviadvigatel’ PS-90A turbofan. The deal between Rolls-Royce and Tupolev for alternate TU-204 powerplants is an excellent one, bringing the performance of that aircraft more in line with its Western counterpart, the Boeing 757-200. Perhaps a joint venture between a Western company and a Russian one would resolve the shortcomings of most Russian-designed engines.

It's presumptuous to say Russian manufacturers copy things Western, and what's more, it's far from the truth. If it were, some areas of technology would have been vastly improved by now.
 
OD720
Posts: 1856
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 6:46 am

RE: Russian Copycats

Mon Aug 04, 2003 3:53 am

I can't believe that the IL-86 is considered as a copy of the A300. Are some people trying to stretch their immagination or what? Different engine configuration, different wings, different tail, different cockpit, different fuselage.

The next thing we will read is that the Russians copied the concept of the plane in the first place! Were they supposed to built spaceships instead????
 
airman99o
Posts: 871
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 1999 4:15 am

RE: Russian Copycats

Mon Aug 04, 2003 4:28 am

I am supurised that someone had mentioned that the Tu-104 was a copy of the comet. Ya sure! The Russians had used a Bomber, Cannot remember which one. i do believe that it was the Tu-95???? Correct me if I am wrong. This Aircraft was way ahead of the British. I think by a couple of years at least. I can remember reading somewhere it made a flight to LHR when it was first introduced. So no it was not a copy of the comet. for one it had two engines, comet 4, tail design, totally different. much taller aircraft, different windows compared to the comet, hence there were no problems with metal fatigue.
It is funny the stigma that is put upon russian Aircrafts.

Airman99o
Safety is Everyones Responsibility.
 
USAFHummer
Posts: 10261
Joined: Thu May 18, 2000 12:22 pm

RE: Russian Copycats

Mon Aug 04, 2003 5:08 am

The Tu-104 was a civilian spinoff of the Tu-16 Badger strategic bomber...I cant see how it could possibly be a Comet ripoff...IMO the two bear very little visual resemblance to each other...

Greg
Chief A.net college football stadium self-pic guru
 
ben
Posts: 1369
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 1999 9:27 pm

RE: Russian Copycats

Mon Aug 04, 2003 5:48 pm

Im not going to repeat what a lot of you have already said.... but it's great to see so many posts on here putting down the idea that the USSR copied 'the west'.

Anyone who thinks Russian/etc. aircraft are carbon copies is just plain wrong. Look deeper and you will see just how different these aircraft are.

As for the Tu-16 / Tu-104 / Comet...

At the time they were designed, jet engines were much less reliable than they are now and there was virtually no operational experience with them. By placing the engines so close together on either side of the fuselage, they were attempting to minimise the problems of asymetric thrust if one failed.

As L188 said, form follows function.

The Tu-134 design is deeply rooted in the Tu-104, the original difference was relocating the engines to the tail. The story of it's development is a very interesting read (hint: nowhere in the story does the word 'espionage' appear).

Another interesting note about the Tu-134, is that only one day (as I remember) separated the crash of the Trident and Tu-134 prototypes, both of them suffered a deep-stall... similar modifications were later incorporated into both designs.

Similar solutions to similar requirements....
 
keesje
Posts: 8610
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Russian Copycats, Cold War Urban Legends

Mon Aug 04, 2003 6:38 pm

Aircraft looking broadly similar in configurations are copies only for rookies.

Below the skin the aircraft are totally different.

The Russian copying everything is an Urban Legend out of the cold war.

Russian aircraft were designed to requirements by skilled and creative designers. It was unpatriotic to admit this 20 yrs ago, but these days a more realistic approach is allowed.

TU144 "concordski" is a totally different aircraft then the Concord even from a distance.

It also flew earlier then Concord too ... people continue to forget this, it just doesn't fit in...

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
megatop
Posts: 336
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 9:52 pm

RE: Russian Copycats

Mon Aug 04, 2003 6:49 pm

I don't like this copycat thing. Remember that a plane is just a fuselage, wings, engines ect.

But would some of you also state that the B767 or B777 is a copy of A300, which was the first wide-body twin engine ?

What about all the twin rear-engine planes. Are they copies of the French Caravelle, which was the first rear-engine plane ?


Megatop
 
RIX
Posts: 1589
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2000 4:46 am

RE: Russian Copycats

Wed Aug 06, 2003 3:51 am

"This Aircraft [Tu104] was way ahead of the British. I think by a couple of years at least." - oh, no. Comet made its first flight in 1949, first passenger flight in 1952. It was already out of service (before Comet 4 appeared) when Tu104 first landed in LHR. But you are absolutely right: Tu104 is no way a copy of Comet.

"If you can remember, the reason the first one [Tu144] crashed at an air show was spies that got too close while in the air, the pilot swerved, and crashed." - actually, it was the first one that crashed but not the first one... and you can't call the Mirage "a spy" since there was nothing illegal in watching and making pictures of an aircraft on airshow. What was wrong - the two airplanes went too close to each other. But it was 100% fault of Tu144 crew, they were supposed to land at this time but instead they continued to fly, not even saying a word to the show organizers (or, at least, not informing them in advance)...
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Russian Copycats

Wed Aug 06, 2003 4:27 am

I find it interesting that the members here who know the facts and figures on different aircraft are know that the Russians are not copy cats.
Yet those who say the Russians were copying are baseing there opinions by looking at photos in the database.

I think it is foolish to paint the Russians as "copycats".
A lot of Airbus and Boeing 'twins' look the same too. Whos' the copycat there?
Bring back the Concorde
 
cancidas
Posts: 3985
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 7:34 am

RE: Russian Copycats

Wed Aug 06, 2003 4:35 am

the only american plane that was copied was the B-29! that's is people, now can we please stop knocking the russians? they're not copycats.

mc
"...cannot the kingdom of salvation take me home."
 
An-225
Posts: 3859
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2000 2:55 am

RE: Russian Copycats

Wed Aug 06, 2003 4:43 am

By the way, originally, IL-86 was supposed to have 4 rear-mounted engines, just like IL-62. Ilyushin Bureau decided to do away with the design and go ahead with a more conventional one, which we see today.

By the way, what's An-124 a copy of? What about An-225 or 22? Hercules maybe?

Alex.
Money does not bring you happiness. But it's better to cry in your own private limo than on a cold bus stop.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Russian Copycats

Wed Aug 06, 2003 5:36 am

An-225:
Good point, I forgot about IL-86 initially having 4 rear-mounted engine design before they build the existing one.

Can anyone tell us what the AN-72 is supposed to copy?  Insane


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Peter Pontoppidan


Bring back the Concorde
 
User avatar
Heavierthanair
Posts: 830
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2000 11:20 pm

RE: Copycats

Wed Aug 06, 2003 5:46 am

G'day

The nature of any business is to remain competitive, if you are a newcomer the goal is to become a recognized and serious player. In the first case, you keep looking left and right, see what your competitors are up to, react appropriately with the aim to remain the leader of the pack, even if that involves the occasional patent infringement, all do it, nothing wrong with that.

As a newcomer more life is a bit more difficult. Either you arrange for means to obtain blueprints of a competing design, as did Tupolev with the 144 Concordsky and IAI with the Kfir, an improved copy of the Mirage III. Not very admirable, but in most cases politics largely ignore the facts.

You can also try to cooperate in the marketing and local manufacture of an existing design, and then decide to do it all yourself as Douglas Commercial did with the DC 9, a somewhat improved Sud Aviation Caravelle.

Third, hire people to teach you all you need to know, get started with something basic and keep improving it. The Asian electronics and automotive industries got started that way, aviation may just lag slightly behind. But then again, someone wants to have plastic wings built in Japan, with just about all other plane bits and pieces being built there too for various existing A/C models - minus the engines. I'm sure someone will be pleased to offer a helping hand for those too. Maybe next time around it is not going to be a NAMC YS 11 alias BAC 748, but a J oh J of sorts.

Just some thoughts.

Cheers

Peter
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." (Albert Einstein, 1879 - 1955)
 
Boeing4ever
Posts: 4479
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2001 12:06 pm

RE: Russian Copycats

Wed Aug 06, 2003 1:29 pm

Can anyone tell us what the AN-72 is supposed to copy?

Actually An72 looks like a copy of the Boeing YC-14.



From: http://www.aerosite.net/yc14.htm

B4e-Forever New Frontiers
 
OD720
Posts: 1856
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 6:46 am

RE: Russian Copycats

Wed Aug 06, 2003 4:57 pm

Hi B4E,

We come back to the same place as we started, if a plane looks similar from the outside doesn't mean that it is a copy.
Does this mean that the Tornado is a copy of the MiG-23?

Or is the 7E7 a copy of currently exsisting types since it will have two wing mounted engines?
 
keesje
Posts: 8610
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Russian Copycats

Wed Aug 06, 2003 8:16 pm

Either you arrange for means to obtain blueprints of a competing design, as did Tupolev with the 144 Concordsky and IAI with the Kfir

I guess If you are a firm believer the Tu144 is a concord copy, reality / what you see no longer matters ...





As I said it an cold war Urban legend.

The TU144 was to good to be through from those damn commies, it had to be a copy ...
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
luzezito
Posts: 250
Joined: Mon May 07, 2001 11:46 pm

RE: Russian Copycats

Wed Aug 06, 2003 8:27 pm

To go beyond what has been said in this thread, and in many other before: aren't many if not all western manufacturers not using CATIA computer software for their aeronautical projects. Could this be a reason why a/c tend to resemble each other? If I am not mistaken, this software was originally developed by Dassault in France for military purposes.
Quoniam Vita Brevis Est, Propera!