Which Russian Cargo plane is bigger

Matt308 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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,

Click to expand...

Laziness of novel engineering development ?Mission avionics? that explains it all.
Man, what're you talkin' about? With two or three really abysmal arguments you've just insulted about 2,5 mln people which were involved in the development of the Buran.

Ok, let's roll. Not a single system was identical to the respective of the Space Shuttle.
Are you aware of the fact there were about the 300 (three hundred) aerodynamic shape propotypes developed - no wonder TsaGI came to the same aerodynamic solution as the NASA.
Are you aware of the fact that Buran rather than Shuttle was not integrated into the Energia rocket and didn't start it's engines while launching? Because of that the Energia could carry other payload than a Shuttle rather than an American rocket. The booster and engines system was completely different, the fuel system was completely different. Even that single fact is enough to not to call the Buran a simple copy!
Are you aware of the fact the Energia rocket was reusable unlike the rocket of the Space Shuttle?
Are you aware of the fact that liquid fuel was used at least partially unlike in Space Shuttle?
Are you aware of the fact the termal ceramic tiles were completely different designed and placed?
Are you aware of the fact that a disaster similar to that of Columbia couldn't happen with Buran since it wasn't covered with foam?
Are you aware of the fact the Buran was equipped with the SAS - "sistema avarijnogo spasenija" - the unique crew resque system - rather than Shuttle?
etc etc etc etc
Still not enough?
I mentioned only the basic construction differencies and didn't mention the basic flight and payload characteristics - and here the Buran is also clearly superior.
Even the avionics of the Buran which according to your post the brainless Soviets would change to the copied one as soon as they got it made Buran capable of fully automatic mission profile.
So objectively speaking the Buran is as much similar to the Shuttle as the A310 or a320 is similar to the B737 - very similar in the aerodynamic shape but completely different design (FBW etc). I would say the Buran is rather far more different from its counterpart than the a320.
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???

Click to expand...

you know Buran WAS developed for the SAME mission profile , both for military and civil purposes. And what about the payload ? Both Energia rocket and Buran rocket itself could carry more payload than the Space Shuttle.

Now contrast that with the Europeans and the Japanese and you can see some real innovation.

Click to expand...

please name me any of the European or Japanese reusable spacecraft which was developed in the 70ies or 80ies.

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?

Click to expand...

absolutely correct! Buran was created as the MILITARY vehicle in the first line with roughly the same payload capability as the Space Shuttle, because the Soviets seen the Space Shuttle as the MILITARY vehicle in the first line. I'm too lasy to translate it by myself , but here's the explanation provided by the second man in the program W.M.Filin - use an automatic translator:

"Необходимость создания отечественной многоразовой космической системы как средства сдерживания потенциального противника была выявлена в ходе аналитических исследований, проведенных Институтом прикладной математики АН СССР и НПО "Энергия" в период 1971-75 гг. Было показано, что США, введя в эксплуатацию свою многоразовую систему "Space Shuttle", смогут получить решающее военное преимущество в плане нанесения превентивного ракетно-ядерного удара по жизненно-важным объектам на территории нашей страны".

conclusion:
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. If the Europeans or Japanese could develop an reusable vehicle for the same mission profile it would probably look the same. So such comments like

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

Click to expand...

only show, shall we say, the lackness of information and unobjectivity dictated by some Cold War stereotypes.

It sure as hell looked like a Space Shuttle.

Click to expand...

you know Adler, it's not an argument. See above. When the Europeans create almost identical aircrafts , somehow nobody screams "copy,copy"

"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."

Click to expand...

wikipedia, I suggest? Any quote?
The truth is somehow different and not that simple. The first variant of the Buran - OS-120 ,



developed in the 1975 was indeed a complete copy of the Space Shuttle - similar engine and booster design , similar launch concept etc. But it also borrowed the same disadvantages as the Space Shuttle design like
- 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)
that's why it was abandoned in the same year.
Here's the link to an outstanding article about this abandoned project ,unfortunately in Russan only . But a must-read for all those who want to dig deeper in the Buran's history and not just repeat old stereotypes:
ïÒÂÉÔÁÌØÎÙÊ ËÏÒÁÂÌØ ïC-120 (ÌÅÔÏ 1975 Ç.)

now look at the difference between the OS-120 form and the final Buran form (project OK-92):



At the same time another concept was developed , the MTK-VP




here's the complete article:
é.áÆÁÎÁÓØÅ×. íôëë Ó ×ÅÒÔÉËÁÌØÎÏÊ ÐÏÓÁÄËÏÊ
it had a lot of advantages ,but also a single but neverthless big disadvantage dictated by its aerodynamic shape - big temperature during the reentry (more than 1900 celsisus) what made the reusing almost impossible or barely thinkable.

After both projects were abandoned, another variant was developed by NPO Molniya - project 305-1


but it was abandoned as well due to unsufficient payload capability and the same reentry temperature issue.

And only then the final shape was introduced, OK-92 or Buran. So that was the story. Far from copying, right?
Here's the great article abouth the Buran , by far the best in the Web :
ëÏÓÍÉÞÅÓËÉÊ ËÏÒÁÂÌØ âõòáî

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

Click to expand...

This is an stereotyped and insulting Cold War minded statement Adler, and you know it. In the whole history of the Soviet aviation only a single western plane was copied - the B-29 Superfortress. Direct Stalin's order, no doubt. And the clever one I believe. Our land was ruined by the war and we simply didn't have time to construct our own strategic bomber in one year.
There was a lot of Western equipment which fell into Russian hands but only a single piece was copied. That was about it.
The Chinese instead made complete reverse-engineered models of almost all Soviet types which were in their hands - not a similar exterior but different design but virtually identical planes. Feel the difference?

C-47 Skytrain vs. Lisunov Li-2

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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

Ramirezzz said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

I will give you that.

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]

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.''

Click to expand...

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."

Click to expand...

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

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.

...and the Russian development?

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

Matt308 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

...and the Russian development?

Click to expand...

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?

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

Matt308 said:

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

Click to expand...

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

On the last sentence we agree.

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.

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

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

.

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

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

Moscow city.

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

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

oh nooo, another one..

are supeior to US planes

Click to expand...

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.