Plane / Planes / Aircraft / Aeroplane / Airplane appreciation

Like the way this had to be posted vertically as no computer screen is W….I….D….E…. enough for it.

...then again...

That's Ukrainian, not Russian, and it's big because it has to be, not because they couldn't make it small. See also Mil 26.

Yo dawg...

225 was developed by the Antonov Design Bureau under the Soviet Union in the 80's doe.

all about the bear

1 Attachment

225 was developed by the Antonov Design Bureau under the Russian occupation in the 80's doe.

ftfy

It's still Ukrainian, airframe from Kyiv, engines from Zaporizhzhzhzhzia

Did you make that last town up? B-)

a me-too Space Shuttle clone.

Hardly.

The automated landing took place on a runway at Baikonur Cosmodrome where, despite a lateral wind speed of 61.2 kilometres per hour (38.0 mph), it landed only 3 metres (9.8 ft) laterally and 10 metres (33 ft) longitudinally from the target mark.[10] Specifically, as Buran approached Baikonur Cosmodrome and started landing, spacecraft sensors detected the strong crosswind and "the robotic system sent the huge machine for another rectangular traffic pattern approach, successfully landing the spacecraft on a second try."

(link)

Was ISS a me-too MIR clone?

Think I said before. Regardless of espionage, tis ironic that throw away Vostok prevailed...

Did you make that last town up?

No, it really exists, miss.ua's family live there. Admittedly, it's only supposed to have 2 жs, the extra ones are my little joke since I think one would be enough.

Запорі́жжя, home of Motor Sich, engine manufacturer for the An-124, An-225 and many others.

Hardly

Really? I don't think it's controversial to say that Buran was built directly as a result of Soviet concerns that the U.S. Space Shuttle was a weapons system, and they couldn't afford to be seen to be left behind.

Are the near-identical dimensions, outlines and aerodynamics a coincidence? Or did the Soviets copy what they could and reverse-engineer the rest, building something they had no real need for in order to save face? It's not as if that's not a common thread running through much of the Cold War.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it?

Were it not for the fall of the USSR, I think Buran as (a reusable automated vehicle) could have been more useful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=087sF9pfuSE

whoops

http://youtu.be/jHMmMgdcOSU

http://youtu.be/JRX2nVRZSZs

Americans not having a good week...

For the armchair analysts out there I can't help thinking the twin boom design is not suitable for supersonic flight...

http://gizmodo.com/virgin-galactic-spaceshiptwo-deployed-its-braking-syste-1653942242?utm_campaign=socialflow_gizmodo_twitter&utm_source=gizmodo_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

See Farnborough 1952

Doesn't yet seem clear whether the uncommanded feather action was caused inside the craft or by aerodynamics.

A control system error would be the least excusable cause but the most convincingly fixable.

True. Having said that I would hazard a guess that it become violently unstable approaching mach... #hearsay

Thus 'disengaging' feather lock upon disintergration.

Yo dawg...

An-124 of Volga-Dnepr Airlines transporting a Sukhoi Superjet 100 from the Komsomolsk-na-Amure factory to a structure testing facility in the Moscow region, presumably the TsAGI shop in Zhukovsky
via: http://fotografersha.livejournal.com/599018.html

1 Attachment

The A-10 is one of my favourites. With the wings clipped like that it looks kinda like the drop ship in Aliens.

Doesn't the A10 have something ridiculous like ten of everything? Redundant flight controls etc...