View Full Version : Not something you see every day
SUBMAN1
08-02-09, 03:32 PM
2 x Indian SU-30's, 2 x IAF Mirage 2000's, and 2 x US F-15's.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/F-15_Su30_Mir2000.jpg/744px-F-15_Su30_Mir2000.jpg
Just looking at those SU-30's next to the F-15's, I get the sense that the Russians continue to copy our aircraft. Even their heavy lift AN looks like a C-5. Its like they are about 10 years behind on any aircraft development.
-S
GoldenRivet
08-02-09, 05:33 PM
What?
Russia copy Western aircraft?
not a chance!
(seen the Tupelov TU-4?)
http://www.aviation.ru/contrib/dmaiorana/Tu-4Done2.jpg
Hummm, I wonder were did they copy this from?:hmmm:
http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/9489/firefox21.jpg (http://img193.imageshack.us/i/firefox21.jpg/)
CastleBravo
08-02-09, 05:45 PM
Could never happen.......no copying here.......externally it does happen, the inards are a different story entirely. We all know that.
http://www.buran.ru/images/gif/mtkkman.gif
Russian stuff just looks cooler, honestly.
I should learn Russian one of these days.
Either that or Arabic.
I should learn Russian one of these days.
Either that or Arabic.Just wait till the next government makes it mandatory.:D
sharkbit
08-03-09, 07:57 AM
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. :D
sharkbit
08-03-09, 07:58 AM
What?
Russia copy Western aircraft?
not a chance!
(seen the Tupelov TU-4?)
http://www.aviation.ru/contrib/dmaiorana/Tu-4Done2.jpg
Small excerpt from Wikipedia:
The U.S. refused to supply the Soviet Union with B-29 heavy bombers under Lend Lease (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend_Lease), despite repeated Soviet requests.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-4#cite_note-deliv-0) However, on three occasions during 1944, individual B-29s made emergency landings in Soviet territory after bombing raids on Japanese Manchuria and Japan. In accordance with Soviet neutrality in the Pacific War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_War), the bombers were interned and kept by the Soviets, despite American demands for their return.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-4#cite_note-factsheet-1) Tupolev OKB (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev) studied them and dismantled one airframe, while Stalin ordered Tupolev and his design bureau to copy the B-29s down to their smallest details, and produce a design ready for quantity production as soon as possible. Tupolev duly copied the B-29s bolt-by-bolt where possible, reverse engineering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering) the design where necessary.
Max2147
08-03-09, 10:02 AM
The Russians do copy some stuff, but I think it's overplayed.
The Tu-4 was a straight copy. Stalin ordered that it be identical to the B-29, and Tupolev had to follow that order. Tupolev said that he could improve on the design, but Papa Joe refused and said he wanted a bolt-for-bolt copy.
For the Tu-144, they started copying the Concorde, but the British caught it pretty early. The Brits then decided to have some fun with their Russian counterparts and cooked up some fake designs and passed them off to some French designers who they knew were working for the Russians. One example was a tire compound design, which was basically jelly. The Brits amused themselves with thoughts of the poor Russian scientists pulling their hair out and poring over the data trying to figure out how their super-special tire compounds kept turning out wrong!
Buran was partly copied from the Space Shuttle, although there were some pretty key differences (no rockets on Buran). But the Space Shuttle was never classified. One NASA engineer said that NASA probably would have mailed somebody the blueprints if they had asked. It's worth noting though that Buran was actually a superior design in a lot of ways.
The Russians also tried to copy the 747. They tried to bribe the chief engineer on the project into giving them all the design requirements, but he didn't bite. There was a top-secret tech transfer with the Russians in the 1970s, where Boeing gave the Russians info on podded engines in return for Russian knowledge on titanium (Boeing was trying to build an SST out of titanium). When the next Russian airliner (the Il-86) came out with podded engines, those who didn't know about the tech transfer assumed espionage.
XabbaRus
08-03-09, 10:38 AM
I do get tired of the copying argument. Yes as Max said they copied some stuff but I can't see how you can acuse the Russians of copying the US when you put a Flanker next to an F-15. Planform is different.
The thing is if you give two independent sets of designers the same problem chances are they will come up with similar looking solutions.
The move with the Tu-4 was very smart and caught the west out. A lot of innovative development came out of that. If you take a look at the protoypes the Russians came up with and some that didn't get past the drawing board you will see that they were capable of coming up with some very advanced thinking. I also wouldn't say they are 10 years behind. No more behind than europe is from the US and I wouldn't say that is very far behind either. Just because we don't make an F-22 type plane doesn't mean we can't.
CastleBravo
08-03-09, 11:46 AM
The thing is if you give two independent sets of designers the same problem chances are they will come up with similar looking solutions.
Infinite monkey theorem?
FIREWALL
08-03-09, 12:11 PM
Hummm, I wonder were did they copy this from?:hmmm:
http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/9489/firefox21.jpg (http://img193.imageshack.us/i/firefox21.jpg/)
That aircraft imho is the most beautiful plane that never flew.:DL
btw Firefox is one of my favorite movies. :yeah: :rock: :woot:
Tribesman
08-03-09, 01:47 PM
The thing is if you give two independent sets of designers the same problem chances are they will come up with similar looking solutions.
Spot on, look at the two British deigns for spar decked frigates from the 1812 war.
The problems arise when you get countries like for example pre WWII America and Britain who look at Japanese designs and write them off as just copies.
That aircraft imho is the most beautiful plane that never flew.:DL
btw Firefox is one of my favorite movies. :yeah: :rock: :woot:
I only saw once, have to get it in dvd! It's so rare the channels here, even the with film channels of cable, transmit this film!
To the topic, the projects of the atomic airplane, the russians also copy those or tried to come up with a design of their owne?
CastleBravo
08-03-09, 02:19 PM
What is a really interesting exercise is to try to figure what systems of one country provoked a response from the other?
While in college I wrote a paper suggesting that the F-14 was a response to the threat of the MiG-25. My professor shot me down because I had no direct evidence. I'd love to talk about the subject with him today.
Max2147
08-03-09, 06:03 PM
The story I've heard is that the MiG-25 was a response to the B-70, and the F-15 was a response to the MiG-25.
I think the F-14 was designed to fight off the threat of long-range Soviet anti-ship missiles, not any specific fighter design. In the days before Aegis, the Navy needed a plane that could take down Soviet bombers before they got within missile range of American carriers. So they needed an interceptor with long range, high speed, and a very powerful radar. But most importantly, it had to be able to fire lots of very long-range missiles simultaneously and accurately.
The first attempt to build that plane was the F-111B. It was McNamara's baby, and it had all the qualities that I mentioned above. Unfortunately, that was all it had. It carried 6 Phoenix missiles, but no other armament. It was overweight and underpowered, and it was a lousy carrier plane (narrow landing gear, too big, etc.). With no short-range missiles, no gun, and a turning radius that almost made the B-52 look nimble, it was hopeless in a dogfight, and Vietnam was proving that Navy fighters still had to dogfight. The F-4 had proven that you could take a Navy fighter and turn it into an Air Force fighter, but the F-111B proved that you couldn't take an Air Force bomber and turn it into a Navy fighter.
When the F-111B finally got axed, the Navy got to design and build their own fighter, and the F-14 came from that program.
GoldenRivet
08-03-09, 09:17 PM
Damn russians copied my homework!!!! :stare:
SUBMAN1
08-03-09, 11:52 PM
That aircraft imho is the most beautiful plane that never flew.:DL
btw Firefox is one of my favorite movies. :yeah: :rock: :woot:
You are greatly incorrect. Firefox did fly. They made one for the movie and flew it. It was just a lot slower than the real one! :D But it did fly.
A total of nine models of the Firefox were built. Six were used as miniatures for filming, two actually flew, and one was built to full-scale specifications. Several flying shots were later reused in Back to the Future Part II (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096874/) (1989).http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/images/firefox-5.jpg
http://uk.geocities.com/hindgunship/firefox4.jpg
http://uk.geocities.com/hindgunship/firefox5.jpg
http://thinkinrussian.org/gallery/images/firefox2.jpg
http://wrench1smog.com/pictures2/firefox_loading.jpg
-S
You are greatly incorrect. Firefox did fly. They made one for the movie and flew it. It was just a lot slower than the real one! :D But it did fly.
-S
Slower? But I thought firefox was supposed to be the fastest, safest plane! Not to mention all the addons you can get to it and its open blueprints allowing pilots to modify the plane as they see fit!. :rotfl:
Tchocky
08-04-09, 02:08 AM
I do get tired of the copying argument. Yes as Max said they copied some stuff but I can't see how you can acuse the Russians of copying the US when you put a Flanker next to an F-15. Planform is different.
Yep, it looks like the Su-27 family are designed as full lifting bodies using wings and fuselage, whereas the F-15 has a massive wing to do the work, and a fairly slab-like fuselage.
Su-27 is a bit bigger, too.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.