Keeping in mind that the IL 96 is a derivative of the IL 86 which first flew on the 22 December 1976...
Yes, I am aware of this.
So you're saying the IL-86 was a breakthrough? By your comparison, don't these two aircraft look strikingly similar??
1) Did I say the 86 was a breakthrough? You can debate that all you want, but don't expect me to interact with you on that one. 2) I used the 96 in comparison to the 340 b/c both aircraft were developed closer in time than the 86 and the 340 than the 707 and the 340 (as provided by your example). 3) Going with my original point, how can an aircraft be copy another aircraft if that other aircraft isn't on the drawing board yet? Nevermind the fact the older aircraft is based upon a similar company aircraft.....(as mentioned by TJCAB) 4) For all we know my sarcasm meter is busted and this was all for nil. 5) As the 707 and 340 were developed in different eras, designed for different niches, and one is a narrowbody, I fail to see your point. Similar yes, but they cannot be passed off as "copies" b/c of the aforementioned differences.
Were saying the same thing; aircraft look may similar, but the vast majority of the time they are not copies. Similar aircraft that were developed around the same time appear that way for a few reasons. Market demands and technology of the time play significant roles- engine technology, for example. Common examples of "similar" aircraft include: the DC-8 and B707, the IL
86/96 and A340, the B727 and Tu154 , the IL114 and the Saab 340, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. Whether or not anyone these examples look similar is irrelevant, as similarities and beauty are in the eye of the beholder, not to mention ambiguous. My point, same as yours, is that just b/c an aircraft looks
like another does not mean it is a copy. There are many things that must be considered if an aircraft is a copy of another aircraft. All I'm saying