Putin destroyed the Antonov world's largest plane...

31uufr0h4ljv.png
 
I was in E. PDX when the An 124-100 landed about 5 years ago. Amazing aircraft to see in the air and it was the "smaller" one.
 
The AN225 had flown into Boeing at Paine Field - should have taken a picture but was too dumb, I looked on-line and did not find any. The AN124 or whatever used to be there all the tim.
Another odd one is the Dreamlifter - kind of lopsided, bldg I worked in had a view of the north approach to Paine Field and watching all the planes come in was a treat. The adjustment for wind direction made the Dreamlifter look like it was coming right into our building.

oixb7bo46ua1.jpeg
 
The AN225 had flown into Boeing at Paine Field - should have taken a picture but was too dumb, I looked on-line and did not find any. The AN124 or whatever used to be there all the tim.
Another odd one is the Dreamlifter - kind of lopsided, bldg I worked in had a view of the north approach to Paine Field and watching all the planes come in was a treat. The adjustment for wind direction made the Dreamlifter look like it was coming right into our building.

View attachment 48372
Click to expand...

Looks like it flew into Paine in 1990 and Boeing Field in 2007.
 
I know in the grand scheme of things it’s just a stupid plane, but it’s destruction made me sad.

This thing was a marvel, a specimen of the human ability to create. One of my dads was an Air Force pilot in his younger days and obviously liked planes. We had a Cessna when I was a kid and we’d fly that thing for mini-vacations, so I got to appreciate aviation. As an engineer and a pilot he loved both that thing and the fraud that is the Spruce Goose.

There’s the An-124 which has a few dozen out there being used to ferry Atlas rockets, Space X rockets, NATO has a few they lease from the Ukrainians. It comes to Portland sometimes, I’m not sure if it’s for Precision Castparts or whoever. That one is impressive when it kneels down to swallow whatever load is waiting for it, and crazy to think it’s the little one in comparison. The Antonov An-2 is still around, a little biplane that I’ve gone skydiving out of. Manufactured for 60 years because it needs so little runway to take off, and it can land in hell.

The An-225 was originally intended to give piggyback rides to the Soviet space shuttle, before they realized that shuttles are an expensive death trap. The AN-225 was undergoing maintenance, and the Russians began taking out all civilian and military airports. The Antonov Airport was a target because of it’s military import, long runway, and proximity to Kyiv. The Russians love paratroopers and any kind of airborne death squads, they even have a holiday dedicated to them. It’s the most dangerous day of the year, because they get free booze everywhere.
4rhb9thn69p4.jpeg
 
For some reason the Soviet shuttle looked just like the US space shuttle and the Soviet supersonic passenger jet looked just like the Concorde. Good thing that Biden killed the US program to combat Chicom industrial espionage. Just like voter fraud, commie intelligence targeted at Western military and industrial secrets is just a myth.

PS The Rosenbergs say hi.

jemq5stcfbio.png

 
Last edited:
For some reason the Soviet shuttle looked just like the US space shuttle[/b] and the Soviet supersonic passenger jet looked just like the Concorde. Good thing that Biden killed the US program to combat Chicom industrial espionage. Just like voter fraud, commie intelligence targeted at Western military and industrial secrets is just a myth.

PS The Rosenbergs say hi.

View attachment 48379
Click to expand...

That “some reason” of similarity is that the laws of physics are the same at Baikonur as they are at Cape Canaveral.

The Space Shuttle wasn’t classified info, so it would be pretty stupid of the Soviets to not throw it in a wind tunnel and see that if you’re using a reusable space plane this is what it should look like. NASA did the basic fuselage work for them. The Soviet version was quite different; simpler thrusters, just used a bigger rocket.

One of the few things the USSR deserves credit for is they looked at technology as something that should be as simple as possible to get the desired result. They came up with a way to get three times the payload into space. Documents from the time have long since been declassified or leaked, they didn’t reverse engineer what NASA made, because they didn’t know. They didn’t think Americans were wasting that much time and money on something that wasn’t a space weapon, because it’s use for scientific purposes is less efficient and more expensive compared to what was used before and after. But if you wanted to fire off a nuke or take out a space station, it made sense.

Kind of curious on what you would expect a supersonic passenger jet to look like and how it would be different from the Concorde. You really thing the English and French pulled that shit out of thin air? Do you mean the slim fuselage, pointy nose, and delta wing? The MIG-19 and Su-9 were operational and in use years prior to the start of the Concorde project, and which it resembles much more so than American supersonic jets of the time.
 
Sometimes the ruler dictates to copy the original exactly as stolen as was the case for the TU-4 copying the B-29.
great job of reverse engineering but to include external repair patches was kind of funny.

When having the time to design and build, yes engineering and physics work the same on each side of Earth. But when Stalin threatens Gulag, you ignore science.

Like here in the States and Covid
 
RE the Concorde, the American XB 70 could pass for the Concorde. Which came almost two decades after the Su-9 and years after the rocket like Su-11, and the Su-9 was inspired by the German Me-244 the first jet fighter. Of course, the Germans didn’t invent the jet, that was the Brits.

It’s almost like aviation builds on the achievements of others and the laws of physics lead to the same eventual conclusion. My apologies for the nerd out. I don’t even like planes other than as a means to take me places.
 
Sometimes the ruler dictates to copy the original exactly as stolen as was the case for the TU-4 copying the B-29.
great job of reverse engineering but to include external repair patches was kind of funny.

When having the time to design and build, yes engineering and physics work the same on each side of Earth. But when Stalin threatens Gulag, you ignore science.

Like here in the States and Covid
Click to expand...

The Tupolev 4 was definitely an attempt at an exact copy, as were others. They even got the reinforced plate from damage that particular captured B-29 had taken previously. When Stalin asked you gave him what was asked for, literally.

As for physics reaching the same conclusion if given time, we see that in the successors to the Tu-4 and B-29. The Tu-95 and B-52 are independently developed, both are serving in their 60s, and minus the prop/jet difference are similar. A shame to see Boeing go from designing a plane, in under five years, that will serve for 100 years versus now not being able to make an airliner that works.
 
A shame to see Boeing go from designing a plane, in under five years, that will serve for 100 years versus now not being able to make an airliner that works. [/i]

and the part that does not work?
Software - one of the things pilots liked about Boeing planes over Airbus was the lack of software flight operations. Boeing buckled under and can't make it right. They rushed the 737MAX into service.
The Feds put the blame on the use of DERs - thinking it is a conflict of interest. The DERs I knew were the most stubborn SOBs I ever dealt with - they kept the short cut takers in line for the most part. Don't look at the 747 crashing into Mt Fuji, that is the exception
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top