Russian aircraft

bmc · Post by **bmc** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 9:44 pm

Enjoy

http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/ ... index.html

looproll · Post by **looproll** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:20 pm

nice find!

Rudder Bug · Post by **Rudder Bug** » Tue Apr 17, 2007 7:57 am

Very interesting, great site Bmc, thanks!

Shiny Side Up · Post by **Shiny Side Up** » Tue Apr 17, 2007 3:07 pm

There is nothing more spectacular than when you put russians and aviation together.

ei ei owe · Post by **ei ei owe** » Tue Apr 17, 2007 8:00 pm

Still though, they're all just Russian. Meh.

Big Pratt · Post by **Big Pratt** » Tue Apr 17, 2007 8:08 pm

Thanks bmc for the interesting read.

Still though, they're all just Russian. Meh.

ei ei owe, care to elaborate? I'm not sure I catch your drift.

ei ei owe · Post by **ei ei owe** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 3:07 am

Yeah sure there's an element of looking good and being innovative but anything in that class would. My line of thinking with that comment is that those planes are rolled out the factory brand new with the scrap heap not far away in their future. Materials are cheap, workmanship is lousy, fit and finish is non existant. They're built to be used, beat up and left for scrap and that timeline isn't very long.

Westrules · Post by **Westrules** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 8:04 am

I guess you have never flown on a russian aircraft.

rd1331 · Post by **rd1331** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 12:37 pm

How many non-russian aircraft have you seen land with both mains in ditches and the nose wheel on the middle of the road. Ditches where only 1/2-1ft deep but still. And NO damage. Towed it out and it was all good. Wasn't much use since it was a drug running airplane, no books. But how many non-russian aircraft would do that and not fold the gear up. Yeah ei ei.....you might need a little more experience before you call them scrap heaps.

bandit1 · Post by **bandit1** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 12:46 pm

what kind of plane are you talking about?

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 1:26 pm

People that crap on russian engineering just don't "get it".

The AK-47, for example. You can toss it in water, toss it in the sand, drive a truck over it, and it will still shoot. That's incredible engineering - ask anyone in Vietnam who had an M-16.

In Korea, the cheaply-made MiG-15 flew much higher than the much more expensive F-86.

rd1331 · Post by **rd1331** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 4:33 pm

AN-26

hazatude · Post by **hazatude** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 4:58 pm

I'm not really a big fan of airplanes but those were pretty cool.

Shiny Side Up · Post by **Shiny Side Up** » Thu Apr 19, 2007 10:56 am

The fact that the MIG-29 has doors that close off its main inlets to keep mud out of them speaks volumes about the abuse these aircraft are expected to put up with. The Fact that the MIG-21 (and its variants)is still the most numerous aircraft in service in the world and the only other aircraft to come close to the infamous Bf-109 for production numbers - despite being over 40 years old. While we have the Otter they have the AN-2, which like the Otter still sees service world wide, except that the AN-2 is a freakin' BIPLANE. They have the biggest airplanes in the world (and helicopters!) and the fastest. Best yet, for the right amount of money you can buy rides in them!

Big Pratt · Post by **Big Pratt** » Thu Apr 19, 2007 11:00 am

Is that a Bear in your avatar?

app flap · Post by **app flap** » Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:11 pm

ei ei owe,

you care to back up your statements or are you just taking a shot at something that you don't know sfa about? nimrod.

the only reason you don't see more russian machines over this way is uncle sam, politics control everything.

pilotdreams · Post by **pilotdreams** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 7:26 pm

Awesome pics!! Too bad this forum is full of little kids that cant appreciate something nice.

ei ei owe · Post by **ei ei owe** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:24 pm

app flap wrote:ei ei owe,

you care to back up your statements or are you just taking a shot at something that you don't know sfa about? nimrod.

the only reason you don't see more russian machines over this way is uncle sam, politics control everything.

Jesus. Seems like I've stirred up a bunch of pro-pinko sentiment here! All I stated was the obvious. The commies built stuff quickly, cheaply and disposable. I never said anything about them being lame, slow or poorly thought of. Yeah sure you can get one in the ditch and tow it out. Shit, you can do that with a metro. They built planes with a goal in mind. If it were damaged too much, just leave it. The yanks will rebuild to the point where one cannot even recognize the original airframe. Either that or use the same platform until the alphabet runs out (Hercs, F-18s, B-52s). You really can't legitimately tell me Russian engineerine is as polished as American. That's what I was getting at.

Nimrod? Christ, that powerhouse word brings me back to grade 3! Sorry it took so long for you AppFlap. I work long days and don't have the chance to nerd out on AvCanada like you

.

dutch-roller · Post by **dutch-roller** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 9:27 pm

"Yeah sure you can get one in the ditch and tow it out. Shit, you can do that with a metro. "

really?? got any pics?

Big Pratt · Post by **Big Pratt** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 10:28 pm

Not in the ditch but just after they pulled it out. he he

Bookem Lou · Post by **Bookem Lou** » Sun Apr 22, 2007 12:32 am

Russian aircraft might not be the prettiest things you've ever seen depending on your definition of pretty but airframes don't come any tougher than them. Also, the paint on those things is almost as tough as the fuselage is. Thats from 6 years of experience working on them.

app flap · Post by **app flap** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 5:30 pm

ei ei owe wrote:
app flap wrote:ei ei owe,

you care to back up your statements or are you just taking a shot at something that you don't know sfa about? nimrod.

the only reason you don't see more russian machines over this way is uncle sam, politics control everything.
Jesus. Seems like I've stirred up a bunch of pro-pinko sentiment here! All I stated was the obvious. The commies built stuff quickly, cheaply and disposable. I never said anything about them being lame, slow or poorly thought of. Yeah sure you can get one in the ditch and tow it out. Shit, you can do that with a metro. They built planes with a goal in mind. If it were damaged too much, just leave it. The yanks will rebuild to the point where one cannot even recognize the original airframe. Either that or use the same platform until the alphabet runs out (Hercs, F-18s, B-52s). You really can't legitimately tell me Russian engineerine is as polished as American. That's what I was getting at.

Nimrod? Christ, that powerhouse word brings me back to grade 3! Sorry it took so long for you AppFlap. I work long days and don't have the chance to nerd out on AvCanada like you .

so are you actually going to backup your statements or just continue believeing what daddy told you about Russia? typical close-minded, everything that i don't know about is bad. russian aircraft have, and will continue to be right alongside the rest of the world in aerospace engineering. just because they do it a little differently then the US does not make it wrong.

don't worry about taking so long to reply, i know that winners like you aren't let out very often...

ei ei owe · Post by **ei ei owe** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 7:54 pm

linecrew · Post by **linecrew** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 8:09 pm

ei ei owe wrote:You really can't legitimately tell me Russian engineerin(g) is as polished as American. That's what I was getting at.

Click the link and read... http://www.cdi.org/russia/313-9.cfm

g5 · Post by g5 » Wed Apr 25, 2007 12:22 pm

dude, russian shit kicks ass.

need i show more?