# Which Russian Cargo plane is bigger



## B-17engineer (Jul 19, 2008)

Is it the Antonov- An 224 or 225? There both very big planes. I thought it was the An-224 until I read a book called cargo aircraft around the world. I saw the AN-225 and it looked equaly as big.


----------



## ccheese (Jul 19, 2008)

The AN-225 is bigger. Wingspan is 290 feet, height is 85 feet,
length is 276 feet, and it has 24 wheels.

Charles


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 19, 2008)

Well considering that there is no such thing as a An-224 the An 225 is bigger...

There was an An-124 which looks similar to a C-5 Galaxy and it is 226 ft long and has a wingspan of 240 ft. Its max take off weight is 893,000lb.







The An-225 is the largest plane in the world and is 275 ft long and has a wingspan of 290 ft. Its max take off weight is 1,322,733lb.


----------



## Wayne Little (Jul 19, 2008)

Man, that is one big Mother!!


----------



## B-17engineer (Jul 19, 2008)

Thank you Adler.


----------



## machine shop tom (Jul 19, 2008)

Hard to believe, but Hugh's Spruce Goose had a larger wingspan at 319 feet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Giant_planes_comparison.svg

tom


----------



## B-17engineer (Jul 19, 2008)

Wow thanks for posting Tom


----------



## Henk (Jul 22, 2008)

Love the An-225. Did you guys see the pictures from the 1989 Paris airshow when the An-225 had the Buran Russian Space shuttle on it's back?


----------



## B-17engineer (Jul 22, 2008)

I made an error I ment the Antonov AN-124...not 224. My mistake.


----------



## solo (Jul 22, 2008)

An-225 with Space shuttle


----------



## B-17engineer (Jul 23, 2008)

Wow!! Nice one solo


----------



## Henk (Jul 23, 2008)

That was a great airshow when the Russians showed up with the An-225 and the Buran Space shuttle.


----------



## comiso90 (Jul 23, 2008)

Buran today:

Russian Space Shuttle Buran Transported to German Museum at Flightstory.net - Aviation Blog

Completely original design!

.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 24, 2008)

The Buran has been at the museum now for a little over a month and you can actually walk inside of it and check it out. Its pretty neat, the first true space shuttle to be on display in a museum.


----------



## Henk (Jul 24, 2008)

The original Buran was destroyed in a snow storm when the roof caved in in 2002. The one that is on the back of the An-225 was the only one to make it into space and was thus the one that was destroyed. The one that is in the museum is the test prototype to test the design.


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 24, 2008)

Hah... I remember seeing a show about that Buran. The host was walking around the periphery of the building on scaffolding and was very concerned about his life because the structural integrity of the building was in question. Rain and other elements had obviously been leaking into the building and the stairways were wobbling as they were walking. They were lamenting that the POS Buran was likely going to be destroyed if money was not found by the Russian gov't to properly fund its storage. I distinctly recall watching this and just shaking my head thinking about all the trillions of rubles that went into the reverse engineering of the US Shuttle only to have the POS Buran die an ugly death under a leaking tent.

Shame on the Russian gov't. Shame.


----------



## Ramirezzz (Jul 25, 2008)

> I distinctly recall watching this and just shaking my head thinking about all the trillions of rubles that went into the reverse engineering of the US Shuttle


It wasn't reverse engineered , it's actually completely different design. Ever heard about the laws of aerodynamics?




Matt308 said:


> Hah... I remember seeing a show about that Buran. The host was walking around the periphery of the building on scaffolding and was very concerned about his life because the structural integrity of the building was in question. Rain and other elements had obviously been leaking into the building and the stairways were wobbling as they were walking. They were lamenting that the POS Buran was likely going to be destroyed if money was not found by the Russian gov't to properly fund its storage.
> Shame on the Russian gov't. Shame.


I can only second that


----------



## Henk (Jul 25, 2008)

Yes, the Buran is in certain ways better than the US space shuttle, but remember it was build a while after the US space shuttle. 

The Russian gov gave the Buran to the Ukraine gov to pay for the rent of the facility.


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 25, 2008)

Ramirezzz said:


> It wasn't reverse engineered , it's actually completely different design. Ever heard about the laws of aerodynamics?




Don't patronize me Ramirezzz. Like the Tu-4, (pic below) the Buran was a virtual copy of the US Rockwell Space Shuttle. I don't give a flipping rip about your 'laws of aerodynamics' suposedly forcing the brilliant Russian engineers into a common airframe. BS. The Buran vehicle is virtually the same size, same mission, same etc, out of sheer expediency and laziness of novel engineering development. Certainly the mission avionics were different for obvious reasons, however, likely if Russia had those too they would also have been copied. But what is most telling is the absolute empty engineering for such a huge endeavor. All those rubles and no improvement upon design, no change in mission profile, no discussion of payload capacity/volume??? Now contrast that with the Europeans and the Japanese and you can see some real innovation.

This is especially true for those that know that the US Shuttle and its mission was absolutely shaped by the Department of Defense, and not just NASA civil needs only. That drove the Shuttle design into such large proportions for the ability to loft NSA payloads. These same deliberations occurred with the Russian Buran? Really? Even given the differences in spy satellite mission profiles between our countries?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 26, 2008)

It sure as hell looked like a Space Shuttle. They had to copy something in there....

_"The development of the Buran began in the early 1970s as a response to the U.S. Space Shuttle program. *While the Soviet engineers favoured a smaller, lighter lifting body vehicle, the military leadership pushed for a direct, full scale copy of the double-delta wing Space Shuttle, in an effort to maintain the strategic parity between the superpowers.*"_

Sorry Ramirezz but let be honest with hourselfs. The Russians had a habit of copying everything they got their hands on, just like China.

Lets just make some comparisons here:

C-47 Skytrain vs. Lisunov Li-2











Boeing B-29 vs. Tupolev Tu-4











Space Shuttle vs. Buran


----------



## Ramirezzz (Jul 26, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Don't patronize me Ramirezzz. Like the Tu-4, (pic below)


Tu-4 was the ONLY russian copy of any western plane , developed at the time when USSR badly need it's own atomic bomb carrier. 


> the Buran was a virtual copy of the US Rockwell Space Shuttle.



before I'm gonna smash your post with some arguments, tell me Matt , do you red any book about the Buran? Or just a single godd**mn article? Or it's the same Cold War sterotypes?



> I don't give a flipping rip about your 'laws of aerodynamics' suposedly forcing the brilliant Russian engineers into a common airframe.





> The Buran vehicle is virtually the same size, same mission, same etc,


You have explained it by yourself. The same narrow very specialised mission profile = the same aerodynamics. Why F1 cars are looking the same? Why the a310 is hardly distinguishable from the B737? why are all SSTs, Tu-144 , Concorde and cancelled Boeing 2707 looking the same?



> out of sheer expediency and laziness of novel engineering development.
> 
> 
> > Certainly the mission avionics were different for obvious reasons,
> ...


----------



## Ramirezzz (Jul 26, 2008)

oops the last sentence should be read as "accuse the Canada of copying the the Sabre with their CF-86"  
those foreign languages..


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 26, 2008)

Ramirezzz said:


> This is an stereotyped and insulting Cold War minded statement Adler, and you know it.



No I disagree with you. I find that the fact that you dont see the truth very insulting and Soviet minded, and you know it. There is no way that they can look exactly the same and not be copied. I will not deny that it has different technology in it, but the basic design is the same. You can not say that it is because of aerodynamic theory. They took the idea from the Americans and made their own design, and you know it.

You see it can go both ways?



Ramierezzz said:


> lol Adler are you serious ? Li-2 was a *licensed* version of the DC-3.   To call the Russians the copycats here is virtually the same as to accuse the Canada to copy the F-18 with their CF-86



I will give you that.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 26, 2008)

Lets see Ramirezzz, here is some things that I believe. Why? because I would believe the New York Times from 1988 before I would believe Cold War Soviet information.

Pay attention to the bold sections.

_*"Soviet Design Appears In Debt to U.S. Shuttle*_

By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD 
Published: November 16, 1988

*LEAD: American experts believe there are no fundamental differences in design, capability and function between the American space shuttle and the Soviet version that made its first test flight yesterday.* 

American experts believe there are no fundamental differences in design, capability and function between the American space shuttle and the Soviet version that made its first test flight yesterday. 

*Official photographs of the Soviet shuttle, first released in September, and drawings prepared earlier by United States intelligence analysts show a craft that is virtually identical in shape and size with the American re-usable orbiters. The similarities extend from the delta wings and vertical tail structures to cargo bays with roughly the same payload capacities. Even the paint job, white with black trim, is much the same. 

The strong resemblance has raised questions about whether Soviet engineers came up with their design for a shuttle orbiter independently or copied American plans.* 

In a report last year on Soviet military power, the Defense Department said: *''Soviet orbiter development has been heavily dependent on U.S. orbiter propulsion, computer, materials and airframe design technology. By using U.S. technology and designs, the Soviets were able to produce an orbiter years earlier, and at far less cost, than if they had depended on their own technology.''* Similar Functions Cited 

*Soviet space officials, acknowledging the similiarities, contend that they are inevitable because both shuttles were designed to serve much the same function, ferrying people and cargos into low earth orbit, then returning to a runway landing.* (This is Bullshit and you know it) 

*But American specialists in the Soviet space program question this explanation. They point out that American engineers considered several quite distinct designs, including those with marketly different wing and fuselage configurations, before settling on the one adopted in the early 1970's.* 

*''The fact that the Soviets picked a design identical to ours can't be coincidental,'' said Nicholas L. Johnson, a specialist on Soviet space technology on the staff of Brown Teledyne Engineering Corporation in Colorado Springs, Colo. ''There's no doubt they took advantage of a vast amount of engineering development that went into ours.''* 

Mr. Johnson declined to comment on whether any stolen designs or equipment might have figured in the Soviet shuttle program. 

*''I don't think stealing was necessary,'' he said. ''A lot of the information was unclassified and open, if you knew where to look.'' Differences in Boosters* 

One major difference between the American and Soviet shuttles lies in the booster rockets. The Soviet orbiter has no large rocket engines of its own but does have small maneuvering rockets that also help in reaching orbit. Almost all the propulsion is provided by the giant Energiya rocket, which can hoist at least 220,000 pounds into low earth orbit. 

The American shuttle has three main permanent hydrogen-fueled engines. They provide the final thrust toward orbit, after two solid-fuel booster rockets are jettisoned. 

The Energiya rocket, which was designed to launch both shuttles and unmanned cargo craft, has four main engines fueled by liquid hydrogen and oxygen and four strap-on rockets that burn kerosene and liquid oxygen. Only the strap-on rockets are re-usable. 

''From a capability standpoint, this doesn't make any real difference,'' Mr. Johnson said. ''The Soviets made the decision to throw the engines away. Still, having them on the Energiya rather than on the orbiter doesn't seem to give them any advantage in boost capability. They can put 100 metric tons in low earth orbit. Our shuttle can boost 100 to 110 metric tons.'' Problem in First Test 

The launching of the Soviet shuttle, named Buran, Russian for snowstorm or blizzard, is the second test of an Energiya rocket. When the rocket was first tested, in May 1987, its dummy payload failed to reach its planned orbit. The trouble lay in the payload's propulsion, not in the Energiya. 

Speculation about a possible Soviet shuttle began a decade ago. But not until last spring did Soviet officials acknowledge that such a craft would be tested ''in the nearest future.'' It was once thought that the Russians were racing to launch theirs before the redesigned American shuttle returned to service. But the Discovery flew in late September in the first American shuttle mission since the Challenger explosion in January 1986, which killed seven astronauts. 

Problems with the automated landing system may have been one reason the Soviet shuttle was not tested sooner, some American experts said. By last spring, Mr. Johnson said, the Russians had conducted at least 20 landing tests, and they ''may not have been completely successful.'' 

Engineers familiar with the American shuttle said that an automated landing is an extremely difficult technical problem. Although computers handle most of an American shuttle's operations, astronauts take control in the final approach to landing. Sign of Advanced Computers 

''If the Russians pull off a successful automated landing, my hat's off to them,'' Bill McInnis, an engineer who formerly worked for the National Aeronautincs and Space Administration, said before yesterday's flight. ''The first conclusion I would draw is that their technology is a lot more sophisticated than we have been led to believe. It means they have a much more extensive on-board computation capability than they've demonstrated in the past.'' 

While the Buran was designed for fully automated flight, at least one Soviet astronaut, Igor Volk, is known to be preparing to fly the shuttle on future missions and has participated in some landing tests. 

By contrast, the American shuttles carried crews from the start, partly to speed up testing of the much-delayed program. Flying without astronauts would have required extensive alterations in the computer software to respond to radio beacons along the route. 

Some earlier descriptions of the Soviet shuttle, based on fragmentary reports, indicated that the vehicle had jet engines that allowed greater maneuverability on landing. Early designs of the American shuttle included such engines, but they were eliminated to save weight and reduce the cost. Engines Used for Tests 

But like the United States' shuttle, American experts have concluded, the Soviet craft must glide back without power. If it ever completed its re-entry without enough energy to reach the runway or was swept off-course by crosswinds, it would have no engines to correct the course or to fly around and try again. 

The reports about engines originated because the Soviets had to use engines to perform some tests. Mr. Johnson said the Soviet Union has no aircraft capable of carrying the shuttle to an altitude high enough for the tests, for which the United States used a 747 jumbo jet. 

A Soviet shuttle that was seen in some pictures mounted to a Bison bomber was probably not a fully equipped vehicle. 

Experts say they have seen photographic evidence of four Soviet shuttles. It is not clear how they will be used, though eventually they will probably haul people and cargo to an orbiting space station being planned for the 1990's, the Soviets have indicated. The current Mir station will probably continue to rely on the expendable Soyuz spacecraft for its ferry service. 

Soviet newspapers report that each shuttle could carry 6 to 10 people. At 120 feet, the Soviet craft is three feet shorter than its American counterpart. Smaller Vehicle Developed 

The Pentagon has said that the Russians are also developing a class of smaller, two-person re-usable space planes for swift access to orbit. At least five small models have been tested in orbit and the full craft is expected to make its first test flight in two or three years. 

As designed now, American engineers said, the Buran does not have a docking module to link with a space station. But such a connecting unit could probably be installed in a cargo bay at the aft of the crew compartment. This is where future American shuttles will be modified for docking with a space station that is being planned for the mid-1990s. 

In view of the generally conservative testing philosophy of the Soviet space program, the first manned flight of Buran may not come for at least a year, experts said. Another unmanned test might come first. 

In a recent article in Aerospace America, a publication of the non-Government American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, James E. Oberg, an authority on the Soviet space program at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, wrote that ''the appearance of a few cosmonauts in orbit'' aboard a shuttle ''does not mean that such vehicles will quickly supplant the tried-and-true current stable of manned hardware.''[/i]


----------



## Ramirezzz (Jul 26, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No I disagree with you. I find that the fact that you dont see the truth very insulting and Soviet minded, and you know it. There is no way that they can look exactly the same and not be copied.


define "exactly" then. Even if we're talkin' about the aerodynamic shape, I find there are enough differencies in the exterior design to not to call it a "copy". 
Does the profile a310 look exactly the same as b737? Probably. they're some minor differencies but all in one it's just the same profile. It doesn't make it to a copy though.
Does the B2707 look exactly the same as Concorde or Tu-144? Probably. There're also some minor differencies but all in one it's the same shape. Guess why.
Does the Ferrari look exactly like a McLaren? Very true. Copy? Not at all.
Now you see, the same very narrow specialized purpose dictates very same a/d shapes. You need a fast race car - it's no way you can build it otherwise as Formula1 or Indy cars. You need a big fast strategic bomber? Here you are - look at the profiles of the B-1B and Tu-160. 
So can we speak about a "copying" when somebody while achieving the very same task comes to the same technical conclusion? I would say no. 


> I will not deny that it has different technology in it, but the basic design is the same. You can not say that it is because of aerodynamic theory. They took the idea from the Americans and made their own design, and you know it.


Ok, here're some vaild points! If you're talkin' about the borrowing or copying the _concept_ or the _idea _,that's definitely true! Russians or Soviet army needed an _exactly _counterpart of the Space Shuttle - same payload, same abilities , same mission profile. So what is actually a basic design? All modern passenger jets share the same basic design , what doesn't make them to copies of each other either. 




> You see it can go both ways?


in that way - sure!



> Lets see Ramirezzz, here is some things that I believe. Why? because I would believe the New York Times from 1988 before I would believe Cold War Soviet information.


Now THAT makes me somehow worrying  How's that? What Cold War Soviet information? Do you took a look at the link at all? I provide you with the BEST online research available , all facts, all history of Buran's development from the very beginning, almost all what you need to know about it - and you call it Cold War Soviet information? The articles on this site are all written in the deep 2000ies, using open data from archives etc.
Ok, I know there's very little information about the Buran available in English - but it's not my fault. I translated some main basic points, but I give up for the rest. Try to use the automatic translator, hope it helps.
And the New York Times from the 1988 as a source about the Buran - this is ridiculous! What's is stated here - it's only *suggestions*! They simply didn't had a clue! 
Its kinda of quoting the Daily Mail from the 1942 while discussing in the 2008 the abilities of the Fw-190. Makes no sence at all.
Just a few points:




> But American specialists in the Soviet space program question this explanation. They point out that American engineers considered several quite distinct designs, including those with marketly different wing and fuselage configurations, before settling on the one adopted in the early 1970's.



of course they did! Just like the Soviets! The Sovs picked about 300 designs before setting on the OK-92! 

take a look here (the photo is copyrighted so I can't post a direct link):

http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/variants.jpg - only few of them.




> Official photographs of the Soviet shuttle, first released in September, and drawings prepared earlier by United States intelligence analysts show a craft that is virtually identical in shape and size with the American re-usable orbiters. The similarities extend from the delta wings and vertical tail structures to cargo bays with roughly the same payload capacities. Even the paint job, white with black trim, is much the same.






> ''The fact that the Soviets picked a design identical to ours can't be coincidental,''



ofcourse it wasn't. The same task= the same research =the same profile. Anyone would come to the same design.




> ''From a capability standpoint, this doesn't make any real difference,'' Mr. Johnson said. ''The Soviets made the decision to throw the engines away.
> Still, having them on the Energiya rather than on the orbiter doesn't seem to give them any advantage in boost capability.


Well THAT'S a BS and Mr Johnson as no amateur in the spacecraft engineering knew it exactly. I already mentioned why:

- launch without a second stage 
-poor aerodynamic coefficient of the big main engines of the vehicle itself, which causes the bigger weight of the whole construcion and the lesser weight possible (that's why the Shuttle could never lift the full payload weight)
-the lower LtD ratio caused by the placing the main engines on the vehicle itself - 7.0 against 5.5 of the Shuttle.
-it's no way you can travel to the Moon with that engines configuration like on the Shuttle
-I'm failing to translate this one  : "необходимость передачи тягового усилия от маршевых ЖРД дополнительно нагружает фюзеляж , что увеличивает его массу и массу всего корабля в целом;"

so there're PLENTY of disadvantages when having the main engines on the vehicle , and the NASA as well as Mr. Johnson knew it exactly. But I suggest it's always easier to critisize the outdated Soviet design which is only capable of stealing from the Americans over an over again than create an explanation to the tax-payers why these poor Russians could achive another technical wonder with their shrinking budjet . 


> They can put 100 metric tons in low earth orbit. Our shuttle can boost 100 to 110 metric tons.''



I can't even call this a BS - they could barely knew the true abilites of the Energia. In fact it could put not 100 , but 200 tons! 



> Soviet space officials, acknowledging the similiarities, contend that they are inevitable because both shuttles were designed to serve much the same function, ferrying people and cargos into low earth orbit, then returning to a runway landing."


So quite objectively speaking I do believe that here we must give a point to the Soviet space officals.


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 26, 2008)

Your defending the novel Buran design by quoting a notional MVP-TK space craft? The Buran was so superior that is was an "abandoned" hanger queen.

Nobody's knocking the Russian space capabilities Ramirezzz. Don't get your panties in a bind.

Same mission leads to same design.


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 26, 2008)

...and the Russian development?


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 26, 2008)

But I have to admit that is a poor copy of a Shackleton.


----------



## Ramirezzz (Jul 26, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Your defending the novel Buran design by quoting a notional MVP-TK space craft?


I quoted it to show you and Adler the development line of the Buran.


> The Buran was so superior that is was an "abandoned" hanger queen.


it was abandoned not because of the technical ,but of financial and political reasons. Both Shuttle and Buran are great technical achievments, but misleading concepts.


> Nobody's knocking the Russian space capabilities Ramirezzz. Don't get your panties in a bind.


You've talked about a reverse-engineering. I pointed out that there wasn't any. That was my one and only intention. 



> Same mission leads to same design.





> ...and the Russian development?


missed again man. Il-38 was developed directly from the Ilyushin Il-18 turboprop which has nothing to do with the P-3 Orion whatsoever. Another try?


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 26, 2008)

No you got me. The Il-18 and L-188 are night and day.


----------



## Ramirezzz (Jul 26, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> No you got me. The Il-18 and L-188 are night and day.



lol you've made my day!   Checked the wikipedia, right?  
Now you' re really the first one who suggests THAT. They're so god***mn similar! They both have 4 turboprop engines and are about the same size (actually I believe the Il-18 is about 10 meters longer). A copy ,for sure , although the maiden flight was some six or seven months earlier. These treacherous Russians copied at the same time the Lockheed Electra, Bristol Britannia and a Vickers Viscount! Shame on them! 
Now really this discussion looses somehow in its seriousness


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 26, 2008)

On the last sentence we agree.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 26, 2008)

I am sorry Ramirezzz, but anyone who thinks the Buran was not a copy of the Space Shuttle is living a dream. There are just to many similiarities.


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 26, 2008)

Ramirezzz, where in Russia do you live? Did you get to see the Russian Knights celebration this year?


----------



## B-17engineer (Jul 26, 2008)

I would think he lives in Russia......


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 26, 2008)

.


----------



## B-17engineer (Jul 26, 2008)

He thinks all of Russias planes that are very similar....not saying complete copies are supeior to US planes but I am just gonna stop saying anything...lol all I wanted to know was is the Antonov 124 smaller then the Antonov 225


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 26, 2008)

No you didn't you asked if the An-224 was smaller than the An-225.  We have long memories here Engineer.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 27, 2008)

B-17engineer said:


> He thinks all of Russias planes that are very similar....not saying complete copies are supeior to US planes but I am just gonna stop saying anything...lol all I wanted to know was is the Antonov 124 smaller then the Antonov 225



Yes in this case, that would probably be wise...


----------



## Ramirezzz (Jul 27, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I am sorry Ramirezzz, but anyone who thinks the Buran was not a copy of the Space Shuttle is living a dream. There are just to many similiarities.




ok Adler I've provided about 20 or more arguments why it's not a copy. I've provided you with some of the best literature ever available online which contradicts your statement. of some The most serious Soviet space history researchers , both Russian and foreign, do not consider it as a copy as well. I've pointed out that there're enough vehicles out there which are very similar to their counterpart as well - Boeing 2707 as the best example of that.
But we couldn't agree even on what should be considered as a copy - a vehicle itself or a concept/idea.
I believe though your opinion as well as mine in a certain degree is somehow poisoned by some "ideological" unobjectivity, so the consensus is virtually impossible regardless how many arguments I'll provide. Dann belassn wir's dabei  




> Ramirezzz, where in Russia do you live?


Moscow city.


> Did you get to see the Russian Knights celebration this year?



Yeah I saw them overflyin' the Red Square at 9. of May on the Victory Day and last year at MAKS-2007 airshow in Ramenskoe , some 15 kilometers from Moscow 



> He thinks all of Russias planes that are very similar....
> 
> not saying complete copies


oh nooo, another one..


> are supeior to US planes


where did I say that? 

Gents, I do suggest we'll close our discussion regarding alleged Soviet copying of Buran and some other planes by now unless you'll come with some serious arguments.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 27, 2008)

Ramirezzz said:


> Gents, I do suggest we'll close our discussion regarding alleged Soviet copying of Buran and some other planes by now unless you'll come with some serious arguments.



Just like you, we have posted info from our side of the world that says differently. You consider it propoganda, we consider your info propoganda. It is a dead issue.


----------



## Ramirezzz (Jul 27, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Just like you, we have posted info from our side of the world that says differently. You consider it propoganda, we consider your info propoganda. It is a dead issue.



negative, I didn't say a NY Times article from 1988 is a propaganda. It's only a incompetent article from some mass media which lacks both of any useful information and comptence. No way a historical research could be done with the help of some newspaper article even from such solid newspaper like NY Times. 
Now on the other side you've a internet site with a compilation of some latest researches done in Russia on that issue, updated , very detailed ond very informative - and you call it a propaganda, probably without translating a word. How's that Adler? Only because it was written by some Russian autors? It's kind of a strange approach..


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 27, 2008)

Ramirezzz said:


> negative, I didn't say a NY Times article from 1988 is a propaganda. It's only a incompetent article from some mass media which lacks both of any useful information and comptence. No way a historical research could be done with the help of some newspaper article even from such solid newspaper like NY Times.
> Now on the other side you've a internet site with a compilation of some latest researches done in Russia on that issue, updated , very detailed ond very informative - and you call it a propaganda, probably without translating a word. How's that Adler? Only because it was written by some Russian autors? It's kind of a strange approach..



The artical had quotes from American scientist and aviation officials from that time.

As for the Soviet articals. I happen to be very skeptical about anything from the Soviets during that time. Sorry but I dont take a lot of their stuff with a grain of salt.


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 27, 2008)

Trust the internet. I like that one.


----------



## The Basket (Jul 27, 2008)

NASA favoured an air-launched vehicle but the Space Shuttle was favoured because it was big and expensive and secured jobs!

The Soviets would have also known that an air-launched vehicle would also be superior but they copied it anyway.

Air launched X-15 style if you were wondering.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 27, 2008)

The Basket said:


> The Soviets would have also known that an air-launched vehicle would also be superior but they copied it anyway.



Exactly and Russian's who worked on the project even stated that they did not prefer the Space Shuttle idea, however the military pushed for it to stay on parity with the United States.

As Matt pointed out it is all about "You have it, so do I".

The Russians are not the only ones guilty of it. Everyone during the Cold War: USA, Russia, England, NATO, Warsaw Pact. Everyone...


----------



## Ramirezzz (Jul 28, 2008)

> As for the Soviet articals. I happen to be very skeptical about anything from the Soviets during that time. Sorry but I dont take a lot of their stuff with a grain of salt.



Nor do I but particulary here it's NOT a Soviet articels Adler! I already told you they're written in 2000ies using open archives data. 



> The artical had quotes from American scientist and aviation officials from that time.


there're some suggestions and nothing more. And as we see, they couldn't hit even a 50 percent quote! No history of development, no design description, no historical background, no nothing. That's NOT a research!



> Trust the internet. I like that one.


they're are NOT internet articles - they were written in some Russian science magazines like Aviacija i Kosmonavtika etc and in some books, in that one for example :






WHat you see on the internet site is just a compilation from some of them. Look at the literature used on this site:
âÉÂÌÉÏÇÒÁÆÉÑ

solid enough I guess? THAT's what you need for a cerious research! Most of the sources are already scanned and clickable , so take your time while using an automatic translator and start some serious research, if you wish. there're TONS and TONS of information.



> NASA favoured an air-launched vehicle but the Space Shuttle was favoured because it was big and expensive and secured jobs!


exactly , no way you can put 200 tons or even 100 tons into orbit from an air launch. Not with today's technology I mean, and sure not with the 70ies technology.


> Exactly and Russian's who worked on the project even stated that they did not prefer the Space Shuttle idea, however the military pushed for it to stay on parity with the United States.


Yes, but the Ministry of Defence never spoked about a copying of the Shuttle unlike Stalins' order to copy the Tu-4. Here's the quote from the requirements specification from 1973:

"исключить возможную техническую и военную внезапность, связанную с появлением у потенциального противника многоразовой транспортной космической системы "Space Shuttle" - принципиально нового технического средства доставки на околоземные орбиты и возвращения на Землю значительных масс полезных грузов"."

it's the only part of the document where the Space Shuttle is mentioned.


Buran in Tushino, Moscow, picture made several days ago, 56K warning:
ru_aviation: Ð‘ÑƒÑ€Ð°Ð½ Ð² Ð¢ÑƒÑˆÐ¸Ð½Ð¾


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 28, 2008)

Ramirezzz said:


> The Buran was a marvelous piece of engineering just like the Space Shuttle , developed for the same mission profile ,what dictated the similarity in the aerodynamic shape but with completely different design.The first variant of the Buran - OS-120 ,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


.


----------



## Henk (Jul 28, 2008)

Phew, what a discussion. 

One thing I must say is that the Buran was the first to make a Automated flight into space and back without a crew. The tiles is also a bit better than the US one, but yes the Soviets did copy the US space shuttle, but it does have it's differences from the US space shuttle.

The Soviet Union did copy a sh!t load of things from the rest of the world. Look at the Copy's of the Me-163, Me-262 and the B-29 bomber just to use some examples.


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 28, 2008)

Agreed Henk. Nobody ever argued that it was a one-to-one copy like the Tu-4. The Tu-4/B-29 example was only used to support the premise that copies were not beyond Russian engineering. But the Buran was a blatant copy nonetheless. Arguments otherwise are superfluous.


----------



## Henk (Jul 28, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Agreed Henk. Nobody ever argued that it was a one-to-one copy like the Tu-4. The Tu-4/B-29 example was only used to support the premise that copies were not beyond Russian engineering. But the Buran was a blatant copy nonetheless. Arguments otherwise are superfluous.



I agree with you.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 28, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Agreed Henk. Nobody ever argued that it was a one-to-one copy like the Tu-4. The Tu-4/B-29 example was only used to support the premise that copies were not beyond Russian engineering. But the Buran was a blatant copy nonetheless. Arguments otherwise are superfluous.



Exactly.


----------



## solo (Jul 28, 2008)

Are we talking about An-225 or The Buran?
(it seem that I get more info of Buran than An-225)


----------



## Henk (Jul 28, 2008)

He he he... The An-225 was designed to piggy back the Buran like NASA's B-747. So they go can actually go under the same topic. Antonov plan to build some more An-225 in the future.


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 28, 2008)

solo said:


> Are we talking about An-225 or The Buran?
> (it seem that I get more info of Buran than An-225)



Solo, go back to page 1, my friend. The original question of which was bigger An-124 vs An-225 was answered.

So what "info" do you want to know?


----------



## yardbird78 (Jul 29, 2008)

The biggest difference between the US Space Shuttle and the Russian Buran is that the Space Shuttle works. The Buran doesn't. The USSR stopped funding the Buran because they knew it was a dead end project.

Darwin, O.F.


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 29, 2008)

I don't recall that Buran was a technical failure. Rather is was a development for which there was no clear purpose other than political expediency. Too much cost too little benefit.


----------



## solo (Jul 29, 2008)

Henk said:


> He he he... The An-225 was designed to piggy back the Buran like NASA's B-747. So they go can actually go under the same topic. Antonov plan to build some more An-225 in the future.



Thank you for info. This is what I want to know. 

P.S. Don't worry Matt my question was answered.(so far...)


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 29, 2008)

Lucky me...


----------



## Henk (Jul 30, 2008)

solo said:


> Thank you for info. This is what I want to know.
> 
> P.S. Don't worry Matt my question was answered.(so far...)



Pleasure mate.

The Buran did work, but like Matt said it was just something the Soviets wanted to show off to the world and had no purpose at all, just a lot of money wasted on nothing.


----------

