RKic Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 back to changes of mind: When I came back to serious modeling in my mid 20s, I though I would never build "boring gray jets", but have recently changed tack, and have three jets currently in progress. Granted, only one of them is gray, but I'm having so much fun with it, that I may have to go out and get more. Perhaps even an F-18. Something I swore I would never build because of how obnoxious people on here used to get about the specifics of that plane, and because seemingly everybody and their dog has built at least one. I also used to tell myself that I would never build in 1/32 or the other large scales. Now I'm not so sure. I can quite honestly say that at this point, I would be willing to build just about anything. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 Wow, your eyes really deceive you ...either that or you're in denial ... Gregg PS My PAK-FA comment was clearly just a joke ... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sharkey Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 "... I would never have got the chance to sit in the front seat of a Hind or take all the closeup reference shots I wanted of Hips Hinds "WOW! Your wife lets you get away with that?! The last time I even glanced at another's "hips and hind" I was in a mess o' trouble. :) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The_Animal Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 (edited) WOW! Your wife lets you get away with that?! The last time I even glanced at another's "hips and hind" I was in a mess o' trouble. ~gasping for air~ Good one, Pete. :) In more serious terms. What makes me astonished about Russian technology is what they can achieve with a fraction of the cash outlay that US aviation tech has to put in in order to get similar results. Maybe they can't match the hi-tech gadgetry of the F-22 Raptor, but to say that the PAK-FA is missile bait is probably not going to last too long when you get into a shooting match with it in real life. Edited August 22, 2010 by The_Animal Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ross blackford Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 (edited) , To add my 2c worth, both the Russians and Amercians benefitted from the capture of German technology and scientists and engineers, so it could be said that actually both sides copied German methods and technology. The first American jets and Russian jets to go into combat both had versions of the RR Nene engine, the F-80 and MiG-15. The 35 degree wing sweep of both the F-86 and MiG-15 were developed from German information. Having had the opportunity to closely examine the undercarriages of the C-5 and the An-124 at the same airshow I can assure everyone that the An-124's set up is much simpler and lighter than that of the C-5. And another question, what was the Tu-95 and Tu-16 copied from? Or for that matter the Il-28? Can someone answer me that question? Or the An-2? I assume many would also think the An-12 is just a copy of the C-130. What was the An-8 a copy of? Just a few thoughts. , Ross. Edited August 22, 2010 by ross blackford Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 Ross, I nor most others don't think ALL Russian designs are copies ... I do believe to a large extent, Form Follows Function so there are going to be similarities ... Having said that, there are glaring examples of one looking to much like a predecessor than just being similar ... Sure, the undercarriage looks simpler on the An-124, it flew some 12 years later ... Was the C-5's undercarriage over-engineered, quite possibly also ... But, can the An-124 be in flight refueled ? Gregg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jinxter13 Posted August 22, 2010 Author Share Posted August 22, 2010 (edited) Thanx Ross, I will say this to proponents of both sides of the argument about basic airframes being copied...."Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"....If one is copying the others design(s) then the one being copied should be extremely elated that they created a design so good that their staunchest rival and adversary wants to fly something very close to it. As Ross pointed out, and there are many designs; some that flew and some that never made it past the drafters table; that were not copied. Some just plain bad designs others that for whatever reason were no feasible to take to the X or Y stage ( if you don't understand X and Y stages , you're not as geeky as most of us here) As I've found out harboring old outdated feelings can deny one from some very simple pleasures. Added: When I build my Flanker (God willing) it will be the 1/48th Y'see I'm not Geedubelyer, or Zactoman, or those other affluent modelers that can afford 1/32nd Edited August 22, 2010 by Angels49 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SBARC Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 How many ways there are to design a large strategic cargo plane? Surely you could do it very differently too, but would it be economically and technically feasible?Okay, An-124 came after C-5. So what? They look the same, at least for an untrained eye. Still they have a lot differences as well, just like most passenger planes. I really don't believe the Soviets made the tail differently just to make everyone believe it's completely their own design ("Let's take the C-5 plans but change something visible so the imperialistic pigs think it's genuinely designed by the heros of work of the Soviet Union!"). Bear in mind too that the ancestor of An-124 was An-22, which was the largest aircraft in the world before the C-5. Very genuine looking design, although by the logic that it flew after the C-133 you'll probably end up calling it a copy as well. In the end this is a pointless conversation. No one here denies the influence factor in engineering. It's been a trend since the stone ages and part of the process how people invent new things or make the existing ones better. Well Germany had some cargo planes from WW2 that I'm sure inspried the C-5 and An-124. Cargo doors opening in the nose is hardly a new idea invented for the C-5. Sure the C-5 uses a flip up front nose....but the Germans used the opening nose during WW2. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SBARC Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 What about the British Harrier......is it safe to say that the Harrier is an original design? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Fishwelding Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 What about the British Harrier......is it safe to say that the Harrier is an original design? Wings. Jet Engines. Two big intakes on either side, aft of the cockpit. Cruciform landing gear. Single tail. Nope. Shameless, pathetic copy of airplanes that came before. Burn them. They're probably witches. Witches that copy other people's airplanes. Well...but the Brits did pioneer jet engines. Still, they should pay reparations for the rest. And for other crimes, such as the Pop Music sensation of the Spice Girls, that spread like fallout across the U.S. a couple of years back. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
catfan Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 yea now we are Friends with Russia and get models and other things from them. so what i want to build is the FOX BAT because i heard a lot of cool things about that bird growing up. and i think wasn't the tomcat made to intercept the fox bat if one came in the area?? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 Well...but the Brits did pioneer jet engines. Still, they should pay reparations for the rest. And for other crimes, such as the Pop Music sensation of the Spice Girls, that spread like fallout across the U.S. a couple of years back. That was like 15 years ago, Fish ... Gregg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The_Animal Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 That was like 15 years ago, Fish ... Gregg Yeah...well...it doesn't explain why Victoria Beckham (aka Posh Spice) and her overpaid hubby (David Beckham) don't seem to GO AWAY!!!! Sheesh! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Raymond Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 because nobodys run them over....yet. :lol: Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MiG31 Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 (edited) Wow, your eyes really deceive you ...either that or you're in denial ... Ad hom aside, I really don't see your point. Sukhoi's engineers likely looked at what NorthAm did with the B-70, and compared it with many other design iterations, before settling on a similar layout to meet requirements. It doesn't mean the aircraft is a copy. PS My PAK-FA comment was clearly just a joke ... It's hard to recognize it as a joke when I've read similar comments, on this board and others, that are designed to intentionally disparage the PAK-FA or other Russian aircraft. But, can the An-124 be in flight refueled ? Does it need to? Edited August 23, 2010 by MiG31 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 Ad hom aside, I really don't see your point. Sukhoi's engineers likely looked at what NorthAm did with the B-70, and compared it with many other design iterations, before settling on a similar layout to meet requirements. It doesn't mean the aircraft is a copy. Yeah, okay ... Suuuuuuure .... whatever ... :lol: It's hard to recognize it as a joke when I've read similar comments, on this board and others, that are designed to intentionally disparage the PAK-FA or other Russian aircraft. Well, again, you need to go see an eye doctor, I put the " " smiley right after it so ... Either that or take a quarter and buy yourself a sense of humor ... Does it need to? Always handy in a pinch, adds more flexibility ... B) Gregg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wayne S Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 I don't hold too much hope for the human race if we can't solve our differences in a rational matter if we keep resorting to armed conflict. We are Animals and will always fight our species, It is the nature of "any" animal. I look at things differently then you but wish for the same thing. Thing is, your thoughts that your calling hope would make us an emotionless species and that is not something I wish upon us. Changes of mind have to go beyond "skin deep" and delve into a complete change of thinking mindset before humankind even has a glimmer of a hope of even seeing "true peace".I doubt that my grandchildren's grandchildren will see it in their lifetime. You have an Idea of what true peace is but looking at it wrong, do not worry about "Humankind" as an entity with true peace. True peace is an Individual thing as is mind set. For that matter I would rather have someone hate me for my skin colour my hair colour or even being American or English, if they hated me for any of these things, they really do not hate me since I am an Individual person. They would hate something they perceive to be yet to me is nonexistent another words they personally do not hate me so there is nothing to take personal. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Eagle21 Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 (edited) Well...but the Brits did pioneer jet engines. Still, they should pay reparations for the rest. And for other crimes, such as the Pop Music sensation of the Spice Girls, that spread like fallout across the U.S. a couple of years back. Nope, the Brits copied the idea from the Italians. (Who borrowed it from a Romanian engineer) Look up the Coanda effect. :D Just kidding, I know I am being a smarty pants! JMC Edited August 23, 2010 by Eagle21 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ross blackford Posted August 24, 2010 Share Posted August 24, 2010 , Good points about the opening nose of the Me 321 & 323 Steve. For those of you who didn't know it, the Germans also pioneered the rear loading ramp on the Kalkert glider transport which had a tricycle undercarriage and the Ju-90, Ju-290 and Ju-390 transport aircraft. The latter three were all taildraggers and had hydraulic 'Trappoklappes' or loading ramps which lifted the tail off the ground until the cargo compartment floor was horizontal allowing vehicles to be driven straight in and troops to walk up a set of airstairs built into the centre of the ramp. the swing up nose loading doors I think were a first on the British production Horsa glider (someone please correct me if I'm wrong here). Gregg, I know that often form follows function and that there are many similarities between the C-5 and An-124, but there are also many differences, the undercarriage and the way the cargo floor in the two aircraft is constructed are just two. I think it would be simple enough to convert the An-124 to enable AAR, just as the British did with their Short Belfast and C-130s, seeing as how the Russians use the probe and drogue system. Clif, I agree, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so I feel that American people should feel flattered and not offended that the Russians would want to copy their designs. It is just my take on this debate from what I've read in the forums, both here and elsewhere that many Americans feel offended by this 'copying'. Maybe I'm interpreting the situation wrongly (and if I am, again someone please correct me) but that's how I see it. A small Australian company, (on the world scale, then and now) G.M.H. gave the world its first two door fastback coupes in 1935, two full years before the VW appeared on the autobahns in Germany and thirteen years before the first Holden and thirty three years before the first Holden Monaro in 1968. Here we called them 'Slopers' a generic colloquial term for this body style regardless of manufacturer, and they are still very sought after today, particularly in the US. They were available in Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick and Vauxhall bodies, all produced by G.M.H. built on chassis imported from Canada for the American cars and Britain for the Vauxhall. Only about 9,000 total G.M.H. Slopers were built from 1935 to late 1940-early 1941. Chrysler and Ford also produced their own versions of the Sloper but G.M.H. was first out with the design, the Chrysler and Fords following in 1937. Do we Aussies feel offended that the rest of the world took our design and virtually copied it including the big US motor companies? Of course not, we feel flattered and honoured. , Ross. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted August 24, 2010 Share Posted August 24, 2010 1933 Pierce-Arrow Silver Arrow 1935 Silver Arrow Coupe 1934 Chrysler Airflow 1934 Airflow - Rear View The 'Fastback' trend was alive and well in the States at that time as well, Ross ... Gregg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SBARC Posted August 24, 2010 Share Posted August 24, 2010 You mean the Triumph GT6 was not the first fastback? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ross blackford Posted August 24, 2010 Share Posted August 24, 2010 (edited) :D Hi Gregg, Wow, I like the style of the 1935 Peirce Arrow Silver Arrow coupe. Undoubtedly a little industrial espionage occurred back then too!! I'll have to look up Peirce Arrow and see if their Australian bodies were made by G.M.H. as G.M.H made bodies for quite a number of different makes. My father once had a 1939 Austin 10 Cambridge with a Holden body. I know that GM, Ford and Chrysler Aust. drew their chassis from Canada as we had better trading terms with Canada than the US at that time and our GM bodies were a little different from their American cousins from the scuttle rearward. Thanks for putting me right Gregg and I wouldn't have known where to start looking for such things even with a search engine becasue I wouldn't know what to type into the engine. There isn't much even on Aussie sites about Aussie Slopers or American fastbacks from any of the manufacturers but there is a little bit there. Steve, Sadly I have to disappoint you there, by about 30 years, although GT6s here in Oz are very sought after when you can find one, in any condition. Cheers, Ross. Edited August 24, 2010 by ross blackford Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted August 24, 2010 Share Posted August 24, 2010 Ross, it is a beauty ... I believe all of Pierce-Arrow's body manufacturing was done at the Studebaker plant in South Bend, IN. at that time ... They were rather low in production numbers too ... Gregg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
4scourge7 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Back to Angels 49 original point, my attitude to Russia/Soviet Union (as was) dramatically altered for the better when I actually went there a loooong time ago. I learned that you can have numpties calling themselves Brits and meet some great blokes in Russia, and vice-versa, stereotypes are pointless. Take each as you find. Nice one Angels Cheers, Ian Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ross blackford Posted August 27, 2010 Share Posted August 27, 2010 :D, Right on there Ian. Russia is one place I'd love to visit (along with the UK and USA) and I hope to visit all 3 within the next 10 years. It's as Sir Peter Ustinov once said, if you're having dinner with a Russian family and you ask someone to pass the salt, they pass the salt. There are good people and clowns in every country on this planet. I prefer to hang around with the good ones but they take some weeding out from the clowns. :), Ross. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.