Russian aircrafts are pure shit
ventti
former Soviet Union. They were taken to many factories and were showed
everything from the production lines to infirmaries and asked what makes
the greatest impression on them. The answer was always "babies". At last
one of the hosts asked what they mean by "babies". The head of the
delegation answered "all the goods you make by hands is PURE SHIT".
MegaShaft 4000
I didn't think so. Stick to making VCR's.
"ventti" <sta...@jurtta.net> wrote in message
news:38FBF9...@jurtta.net...
Vladimir Malukh
MegaShaft 4000 wrote:
>
> And I'm sure that Japan can design a fighter that can defeat a Su-37, right?
> I didn't think so. Stick to making VCR's.
:) In te past 50 years they probably couldn't design anything
that can outperform any soviet/russin fighter, beginning from MiG-15.
--
Vladimir Malukh Novosibirsk, Russia
-----------------------------------------
Евгений Ожогин
something new.
Ivan the Bear
=Nothing per-r-rsonal, just business=
ventti пишет в сообщении <38FBF9...@jurtta.net> ...
hjk
>
> MegaShaft 4000 wrote:
> >
> > And I'm sure that Japan can design a fighter that can defeat a Su-37, right?
> > I didn't think so. Stick to making VCR's.
>
> :) In te past 50 years they probably couldn't design anything
> that can outperform any soviet/russin fighter, beginning from MiG-15.
According to a recent issue of Flight International it was estimated
that there were 5000 Soviet systems that required US parts to operate.
Vladimir Malukh
No, this can't be - there was very strong restriction
by state low (which was followed at the time),
that prohibited usage of any western manufactured
parts in serial aircrafts, engineers have been arguing
about it but without sucess. Of course there were several
locfl-made copies (no always the same quality) and equivalents,
but never original stuff. It was very hard discussion for
example to equip Buran cockpit with french-made TFT MFD, but
finally it was prohibited. For sure in this case there
was possible to buy 10-20 kits and be sure that we
wouldn't run out of spare parts, however it didn't happend.
PS The topic was about Jpanese ability to teach russians
how to design aircrafts. In my opionon Japanese a/c designers
have no ability to do that- they simly have no idea what this
modern stuff is all about.
p_...@my-deja.com
I think it is important to mention that this is
ultimate results of US accupation of Japan. They
simply were not allowed to develop their own
technology in key military departments after the WWII.
To a bit less extent but it is also true for
Europe especialy for Germany. All those nations
had first class home made aviation stuff before
the WWII, but not any more. They are totaly depend
on US good will if it's come to a serious security
problem.
Michael
>
> Vladimir Malukh Novosibirsk, Russia
> -----------------------------------------
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Gordon
>No, this can't be - there was very strong restriction
>by state low (which was followed at the time),
>that prohibited usage of any western manufactured
>parts in serial aircrafts,
[snip]
I had the opportunity in 1983 to obtain parts out of a Soviet Mi-8 that was at
Mogadishu Somalia -- years later, I was going through the box of aircraft parts
that I took from the helicopter and I began pulling things apart to clean them.
One of the instruments was a wet compass, very well made, that I pulled from
the cockpit personally. While cleaning it, I took off the Russian- language
face plate and discovered that underneath, there was a second faceplate, in
German. On the back of the compass was a sticker with Russian information on
it that I didn't remove, but it was clearly affixed over the top of a data
plate that I suspect was not written in Russian either. All of the parts (fuel
pumps from #2 engine, various cockpit guages, flight gear, etc) have been on
display at the San Diego Aerospace Museum for over 10 years now, but that
Russian face plate over the German makes me wonder if that restriction you
mention was rigidly adhered to...
v/r
Gordon
Vladimir Malukh
Gordon wrote:
>
> >
> >No, this can't be - there was very strong restriction
> >by state low (which was followed at the time),
> >that prohibited usage of any western manufactured
> >parts in serial aircrafts,
>
> [snip]
>
> I had the opportunity in 1983 to obtain parts out of a Soviet Mi-8 that was at
> Mogadishu Somalia -- years later,
That could be different matter - very often export a/c were equipped
with different avionic, rather than a/c for internal use. Customers
could be ordering anything they want to, no problem. I repeat -
usage of western avionics on serial soviet a/c for internal use
in RuAF was prohibited by special low.
> I was going through the box of aircraft parts
> that I took from the helicopter and I began pulling things apart to clean them.
> One of the instruments was a wet compass, very well made, that I pulled from
> the cockpit personally. While cleaning it, I took off the Russian- language
> face plate and discovered that underneath, there was a second faceplate, in
> German. On the back of the compass was a sticker with Russian information on
> it that I didn't remove, but it was clearly affixed over the top of a data
> plate that I suspect was not written in Russian either. All of the parts (fuel
> pumps from #2 engine, various cockpit guages, flight gear, etc) have been on
> display at the San Diego Aerospace Museum for over 10 years now, but that
> Russian face plate over the German makes me wonder if that restriction you
> mention was rigidly adhered to...
There was such country - DDR :) "Deutsche Demokratische Republik".
With some luck you might dicover Czech or Polish too - they
were producing not just spare parts but complete a/c and
even own-designed a/c, that were used by RuAF (L-29 and L-39
for example). Or, less likely it might be West Germany made
stuff, installed on helicopters for export.
--
Vladimir Malukh
p_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > PS The topic was about Jpanese ability to teach russians
> > how to design aircrafts. In my opionon Japanese a/c designers
> > have no ability to do that- they simly have no idea what this
> > modern stuff is all about.
> >
> > --
>
> I think it is important to mention that this is
> ultimate results of US accupation of Japan. They
> simply were not allowed to develop their own
> technology in key military departments after the WWII.
Yes, this is main reason. Still - "no legs -no cartoons" :)
Ralph Savelsberg
> In article <38FC141F...@propro.ru>,
> Vladimir Malukh <b...@propro.ru> wrote:
> >
> >
> > hjk wrote:
> > >
> > > Vladimir Malukh wrote:
> > > >
> > > > MegaShaft 4000 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > And I'm sure that Japan can design a fighter that can defeat a
> Su-37, right?
> > > > > I didn't think so. Stick to making VCR's.
> > > >
> > > > :) In te past 50 years they probably couldn't design anything
> > > > that can outperform any soviet/russin fighter, beginning from MiG-
> 15.
> > >
> > > According to a recent issue of Flight International it was estimated
> > > that there were 5000 Soviet systems that required US parts to
> operate.
> >
> > No, this can't be - there was very strong restriction
> > by state low (which was followed at the time),
> > that prohibited usage of any western manufactured
> > parts in serial aircrafts, engineers have been arguing
> > about it but without sucess. Of course there were several
> > locfl-made copies (no always the same quality) and equivalents,
> > but never original stuff. It was very hard discussion for
> > example to equip Buran cockpit with french-made TFT MFD, but
> > finally it was prohibited. For sure in this case there
> > was possible to buy 10-20 kits and be sure that we
> > wouldn't run out of spare parts, however it didn't happend.
> >
> > PS The topic was about Jpanese ability to teach russians
> > how to design aircrafts. In my opionon Japanese a/c designers
> > have no ability to do that- they simly have no idea what this
> > modern stuff is all about.
> >
> > --
>
> I think it is important to mention that this is
> ultimate results of US accupation of Japan. They
> simply were not allowed to develop their own
> technology in key military departments after the WWII.
> To a bit less extent but it is also true for
> Europe especialy for Germany. All those nations
> had first class home made aviation stuff before
> the WWII, but not any more. They are totaly depend
> on US good will if it's come to a serious security
> problem.
>
> Michael
>
The same thing applies to the Eastern European countries which became
members of the Warschau pact. In fact, the armies of these countries were
almost completely standardised on Russian equipment.
Ralph
>
> >
> > Vladimir Malukh Novosibirsk, Russia
> > -----------------------------------------
> >
>
Darrell A. Larose
> And I'm sure that Japan can design a fighter that can defeat a Su-37, right?
> I didn't think so. Stick to making VCR's.
>
to go into production? Following NATO naming conventions of F-words for
Russian fighters, that means the MiG 31 would be "Fiction" and the
Su-37 "Fantasy" ;)
RazoR
from the rusty recesses of my mind) never stopped refining the damn thing,
even though it was superior to the Russian models of the time (although that
wasn't vey hard from what I've heard :)). They underplayed its versatility
and kept running from the Russians over China untill they decided it was
time to get real and then pushed past the stops - they pounded the Russians!
Then they managed to get them over to Pearl Harbour against /everyone's/
expectations and we all know what happened there. What happened to these
aerospace geniuses? are they all building winged vcrs now or something?
--
RazoR
<p_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8dh822$vpu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <38FC141F...@propro.ru>,
> Vladimir Malukh <b...@propro.ru> wrote:
> >
> >
> > hjk wrote:
> > >
> > > Vladimir Malukh wrote:
> > > >
> > > > MegaShaft 4000 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > And I'm sure that Japan can design a fighter that can defeat a
> Su-37, right?
> > > > > I didn't think so. Stick to making VCR's.
> > > >
Steve Hix
In article <38FC2F5D...@propro.ru>, Vladimir Malukh <b...@propro.ru> wrote:
> Yes, this is main reason. Still - "no legs -no cartoons" :)
Цруку вщуы ершы сщьу акщь? (Ащк ыщьу куфыщт ьн туцыкуфвук шы
фссузештп фдд ьн ензштп шт снкшддшсю Ш рфму тщ швуф црфе нщг
фку пуеештп фе нщгк утвю)
Gordon
>at
>> Mogadishu Somalia -- years later,
>
>That could be different matter - very often export a/c were equipped
>with different avionic, rather than a/c for internal use. Customers
>could be ordering anything they want to, no problem. I repeat -
>usage of western avionics on serial soviet a/c for internal use
>in RuAF was prohibited by special low.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but the Mi-8 that I helped to damage was a Soviet
Army helicopter, not an export model. Big red stars - the whole bit.
Here's the rub - the compass was not made in GDR or DDR; it had been produced
either in occupied Germany before it became DDR or was a wartime product that
was used as an expediency. The compass was indistinguishable from the standard
WWII Luftwaffe compass that I have seen in the dash of Bf-109G-10, Me-262A-1a,
and Junkers 52. "If it works, don't fix it" seems to apply! Vladimir, have
you heard of any captured equipment being used? Its possible (to me anyway)
that if a factory or supply depot was captured with thousands of
serviceable/new compasses, the Soviets would make use of them. Just a
thought...
v/r
Gordon
MegaShaft 4000
"Steve Hix" <se...@macol.net> wrote in message
news:sehix-63608B....@news.earthlink.net...
> эФЦзлилЫТ
>
> In article <38FC2F5D...@propro.ru>, Vladimir Malukh <b...@propro.ru>
wrote:
> > Yes, this is main reason. Still - "no legs -no cartoons" :)
>
> увеЫе зней Хвлй гние СЫни? (снЫ йние ЫеЦйнд иЮ деУйЫеЦзеЫ лй
> ЦггекХлда ЦФФ иЮ ХЮклда лд гЮЫлФФлгР ћ вЦЭе дн лзеЦ УвЦХ ЮнЧ
> ЦЫе аеХХлда ЦХ ЮнЧЫ едзР)
ya...@hotmail.com
ad...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Darrell A. Larose) wrote:
> "MegaShaft 4000"
(kehfnwejkbv23o84hg0923jkcbv;23lui4hgv9p823gwueytf92836thflwhefop3i4y9p8
6yrsiyhfa;odiyg;suifytgp98w6er[2164yo;wyhg;klwdugfilweutfcosdyfc;2weuiyr
> > And I'm sure that Japan can design a fighter that can defeat a
Su-37, right?
> > I didn't think so. Stick to making VCR's.
> >
> to go into production? Following NATO naming conventions of F-words
for
> Russian fighters, that means the MiG 31 would be "Fiction" and the
> Su-37 "Fantasy" ;)
>
>
Mig-31 has been in service since the middle 1980's and it code name is
"Foxhound".
Vladimir Yakubov
Keith Willshaw
RazoR <r...@webinnovators.nl> wrote in message
news:38fc9407$0$28...@reader1.casema.net...
> The M-Zero was a kick-@ss fighter: the guys who made it (Tagakashi? dug up
> from the rusty recesses of my mind) never stopped refining the damn thing,
> even though it was superior to the Russian models of the time (although
that
> wasn't vey hard from what I've heard :)). They underplayed its versatility
> and kept running from the Russians over China untill they decided it was
> time to get real and then pushed past the stops - they pounded the
Russians!
> Then they managed to get them over to Pearl Harbour against /everyone's/
> expectations and we all know what happened there. What happened to these
> aerospace geniuses? are they all building winged vcrs now or something?
>
> --
> RazoR
Reality check
When the Russian and Japanese Armies clashed in Siberia
the Russians gave them such a kicking that the Japanese
backed down faster than even the Italians could have managed.
On the Ground Georgi K. Zhukov was able to completely encircle two Japanese
infantry divisions, support troops, and a tank brigade. The Japanese
attempted a breakout on the 27th, but failed. The battle was over by Aug
31st with the near-complete destruction of the Manchukuo 23rd. By
mid-September the Japanese had lost a total of 61,000 men, and were in full
retreat. The Japanese then concluded a non-aggression pact with the USSR and
reaffirmed the pre-existing borders. (Soviet casualties were around 18,000
men, of whom about 7,000 were killed).
In the air both sides seem to have been making grossly inflated
claims For example in September Russia claimed to have shot down 70
for the loss of 14 while the Japanese claimed to have shot down 121
for the loss of 24.
Never the less by the end of the clash the Japanese were crippled
by the loss of experienced pilots having trained only 1700 in
the previous 30 years
sources
http://www.danford.net/nomonhan.htm
and
Alvin D. Coox, Nomonhan: Japan Against Russia, 1939 (Stanford Univ Press,
1985).
Keith
KDBANGLIA
<siber...@mtu-net.ru> writes:
>Poor sod, you aren't that original - it's an old Soviet joke. Go find
>something new.
>
>Ivan the Bear
>=Nothing per-r-rsonal, just business=
I would like to see this person, with only his one or two fingers or even a big
stick to wave at any Russian aircraft bearing down on him, see how shit he
thinks they are then.
Richard.
ArtKramr
>From: kdba...@aol.com (KDBANGLIA)
>Date: 4/18/00 4:05 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20000418190556...@nso-fp.aol.com>
neither flown a russian aircraft, or flown a German aircraft on the Russian
front. In fact it sounds like someone who has never flown anything against
anything.
F/O Arthur Kramer
344th Bomb Group, 9th Air Force
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Mike McCormick
Mike McCormick
> production, I see it every week... Regarding to economy -somebody said
> Cisco is most succesfull company??? he-he...
sorry, i didn't catch that cisco remark . . . and as i am about to buy stock
in them, i was hoping you'd elaborate
Mike
Евгений Ожогин
>Vladimir Malukh wrote:
>
>> Vladimir Malukh Novosibirsk, Russia
>> -----------------------------------------
>
>Kolyma or some other more distant place.
>
>Vladimir Putin
>Moscow, Russia
Your lack of Russian environmental knowledge is outrageos as is your grasp
of Russian realities, bratok. You cannot scare a Siberian by Kolyma or
Anadyr since all these are pretty same. :-))
Vladimir Malukh
Gordon wrote:
>
>
> Here's the rub - the compass was not made in GDR or DDR; it had been produced
> either in occupied Germany before it became DDR or was a wartime product that
> was used as an expediency. The compass was indistinguishable from the standard
> WWII Luftwaffe compass that I have seen in the dash of Bf-109G-10, Me-262A-1a,
> and Junkers 52. "If it works, don't fix it" seems to apply! Vladimir, have
> you heard of any captured equipment being used?
20-30 years later? Well, I'd rather doubt it :) I'd rather
believe to DDR made stuff.
> Its possible (to me anyway)
> that if a factory or supply depot was captured with thousands of
> serviceable/new compasses, the Soviets would make use of them. Just a
> thought...
Not likely, as far as I remember soviet industry, and I do remember
it quite well...
--
Vladimir Malukh
Steve Hix wrote:
>
> Мдфвшьшкб
>
> In article <38FC2F5D...@propro.ru>, Vladimir Malukh <b...@propro.ru> wrote:
> > Yes, this is main reason. Still - "no legs -no cartoons" :)
>
> Цруку вщуы ершы сщьу акщь? (Ащк ыщьу куфыщт ьн туцыкуфвук шы
> фссузештп фдд ьн ензштп шт снкшддшсю Ш рфму тщ швуф црфе нщг
> фку пуеештп фе нщгк утвю)
Sorry- it's unreadable for me....
Vladimir Malukh
RazoR wrote:
>
> The M-Zero was a kick-@ss fighter: the guys who made it (Tagakashi? dug up
> from the rusty recesses of my mind) never stopped refining the damn thing,
> even though it was superior to the Russian models of the time (although that
> wasn't vey hard from what I've heard :)). They underplayed its versatility
> and kept running from the Russians over China untill they decided it was
> time to get real and then pushed past the stops - they pounded the Russians!
> Then they managed to get them over to Pearl Harbour
Whom?!!!! Russians???!!! Over Perl-Harbor??!!! well, well, well...
against /everyone's/
> expectations and we all know what happened there. What happened to these
> aerospace geniuses? are they all building winged vcrs now or something?
>
--
Vladimir Malukh
"Darrell A. Larose" wrote:
>
> "MegaShaft 4000" (kehfnwejkbv23o84hg0923jkcbv;23lui4hgv9p823gwueytf92836thflwhefop3i4y9p86yrsiyhfa;odiyg;suifytgp98w6er[2164yo;wyhg;klwdugfilweutfcosdyfc;2weuiyr2p...@home.com) writes:
> > And I'm sure that Japan can design a fighter that can defeat a Su-37, right?
> > I didn't think so. Stick to making VCR's.
> >
> Except with the Russian economy in it's current state, can they afford
> to go into production? Following NATO naming conventions of F-words for
> Russian fighters, that means the MiG 31 would be "Fiction" and the
> Su-37 "Fantasy" ;)
May be Su-37 is a fnatsy, but Su-34 is clear reality being in serial
production, I see it every week... Regarding to economy -somebody said
Cisco is most succesfull company??? he-he...
Vladimir Malukh
Mike McCormick wrote:
>
> "> May be Su-37 is a fnatsy, but Su-34 is clear reality being in serial
> > production, I see it every week... Regarding to economy -somebody said
> > Cisco is most succesfull company??? he-he...
>
> sorry, i didn't catch that cisco remark . . . and as i am about to buy stock
> in them, i was hoping you'd elaborate
Are you kidding - it must be on front pages of all media!
You should be reading Finansial Times :) About week or so time
ago Cosco capitalisation was about 500 milion bucks, now it
it less than 400. During last couple of weeks almost
all so called high-tech companies lost their stock,
Have a look at www.nasdaq.com or www.quicken.com for quotes...
All this high-tech internet super-puper-duper market
was blasted...
Ken Duffey
> "Darrell A. Larose" wrote:
> >
> > "MegaShaft 4000" (kehfnwejkbv23o84hg0923jkcbv;23lui4hgv9p823gwueytf92836thflwhefop3i4y9p86yrsiyhfa;odiyg;suifytgp98w6er[2164yo;wyhg;klwdugfilweutfcosdyfc;2weuiyr2p...@home.com) writes:
> > > And I'm sure that Japan can design a fighter that can defeat a Su-37, right?
> > > I didn't think so. Stick to making VCR's.
> > >
> > Except with the Russian economy in it's current state, can they afford
> > to go into production? Following NATO naming conventions of F-words for
> > Russian fighters, that means the MiG 31 would be "Fiction" and the
> > Su-37 "Fantasy" ;)
>
> May be Su-37 is a fnatsy, but Su-34 is clear reality being in serial
> production, I see it every week... Regarding to economy -somebody said
> Cisco is most succesfull company??? he-he...
>
> --
>
> Vladimir Malukh Novosibirsk, Russia
> -----------------------------------------
Darrell can't even get his sarcastic comments right !!
Doesn't he know that NATO reporting names for Russian fighters begin with the letter F and have TWO SYLLABLES !!
So FANTASY is a non-starter !
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ken Duffey - Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast
Flankers - http://www.flankerman.fsnet.co.uk/
S-37 Model - http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/5634/
Genuine E-mailers - remove the x after uk
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Vladimir Malukh
Ken Duffey wrote:
>
> Vladimir Malukh wrote:
>
> > "Darrell A. Larose" wrote:
> > >
> > > "MegaShaft 4000" (kehfnwejkbv23o84hg0923jkcbv;23lui4hgv9p823gwueytf92836thflwhefop3i4y9p86yrsiyhfa;odiyg;suifytgp98w6er[2164yo;wyhg;klwdugfilweutfcosdyfc;2weuiyr2p...@home.com) writes:
> > > > And I'm sure that Japan can design a fighter that can defeat a Su-37, right?
> > > > I didn't think so. Stick to making VCR's.
> > > >
> > > Except with the Russian economy in it's current state, can they afford
> > > to go into production? Following NATO naming conventions of F-words for
> > > Russian fighters, that means the MiG 31 would be "Fiction" and the
> > > Su-37 "Fantasy" ;)
> >
> > May be Su-37 is a fnatsy, but Su-34 is clear reality being in serial
> > production, I see it every week... Regarding to economy -somebody said
> > Cisco is most succesfull company??? he-he...
> >
> Darrell can't even get his sarcastic comments right !!
>
> Doesn't he know that NATO reporting names for Russian fighters begin with the letter F and have TWO SYLLABLES !!
>
> So FANTASY is a non-starter !
>
Not mentioning that MiG-31 is IN SERVICE since 80-es and
has its codename for long time... :):)
Vladimir Putin
> Vladimir Malukh Novosibirsk, Russia
> -----------------------------------------
I see that you are already living in Siberia. Maybe I will move you to
Chiggie Red Baron
<artk...@aol.comnojunk> writes
>>
> I don't know who posted this originally, but I bet it is someone who has
>neither flown a russian aircraft, or flown a German aircraft on the Russian
>front. In fact it sounds like someone who has never flown anything against
>anything.
>
Ilyushin Il-18D, Antonov An-2, Antonov An-24RV and Mil Mi-8.
The Ilyushin was a grand old lady, having acted as a crew support
vehicle for the Russian Polar Survey Directorate (or near translation -
Ivan will probably be able to supply the correct title) and their
equipment laden Il-18's with strange bumps and bulges. The Il-18D
reminded me of a Viscount, with the familiar 'old airliner' smell,
fixtures and rattles. Despite flying in SSSR-75466 from Moscow across
Russia to Novosibirsk, Krasnojarsk, Bratsk, Mirnyi, Yakutsk and Irkutsk
then back, it never let us down once...
Also flew in a Ber-Line Il-18 (ex Interflug) over the Berlin Air Show in
1992 - and definitely got the feeling I was in a Viscount.
I've flown in a Hungarian An-2 from Gyor, and a Russian one from
Moscow/Myachikovo on a local flight around the city. The Hungarian one
was a paradropper, with bench seats and not much else. The Russian
machine was an ex-VIP machine, with leather armchairs inside. To be
honest, the machine reminded me of a de Havilland Dragon Rapide - that
sort of era, 'look' and performance (and the cabin door flying open,
which also happened on my last DH.89 flight...).
The Antonov An-24RV seemed well suited to the small rough and ready
strips we flew into south-west of the Mirnyi area. A basic airliner, no
frills but it got the job done, and a second An-24 managed to get us
from Yakutsk up to Cherskiy up in the Arctic by stages.
I flew in a Mi-8 from Cherskiy to reach a nearby island where several
Lisunov Li-2's and Ilyushin Il-14's had been dumped - it was a standard
polar directorate machine, extremely basic with regard to flying
controls, interior fixtures and fittings, and sported a number of gashes
and scrapes on the airframe structure. Once in the air, it was an
extremely harsh ride, worse than being in a Sea King. Obviously Gordon
is the one to ask about which helicopters gave the worst ride, but the
Mi-8 managed to set my teeth on edge.
Never flown in a German aircraft - although if anyone has a Dornier
Do335A-12 handy, I'd love a flight...! :)
--
Graeme Carrott
Currently Listening To: "Eponymous" - REM
Currently Reading: "Ensor's Endeavour" - Orange
Ken Duffey
Comrade Putin !! Welcome to the RAM NG !!!
Can you get me a ride in the back seat of a Su-27UB ??
Please Please Please !!!!
Vladimir Malukh
Vladimir Putin wrote:
>
> Vladimir Malukh wrote:
>
> > Vladimir Malukh Novosibirsk, Russia
> > -----------------------------------------
>
> I see that you are already living in Siberia. Maybe I will move you to
> Kolyma or some other more distant place.
>
Well, it perfectly away from Finland, where you hiding.
Perhaps flight on Su-27 caused sea-sikness, so you moved
away from Kremlin to have a rest?
--
Vladimir Putin
>
> Comrade Putin !! Welcome to the RAM NG !!!
>
> Can you get me a ride in the back seat of a Su-27UB ??
>
> Please Please Please !!!!
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Ken Duffey - Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast
> Flankers - http://www.flankerman.fsnet.co.uk/
> S-37 Model - http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/5634/
> Genuine E-mailers - remove the x after uk
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I can give you something better! A ride in the back seat of the new
MiG-Sukhoi 144-37 anti-gravity plasma-stealth fighter!!!
Vladimir Putin
Vladimir Putin
Sshhhh! This was supposed to be a secret intelligence gathering mission
in Finland. I gave Finland an ultimatum a few days ago in the newsgroup
sfnet.keskustelu.maanpuolustus and now I am wondering why the Finns are
laughing at me and my ultimatum.
Vladimir Putin
p_...@my-deja.com
Ken Duffey <k...@nerc.ac.ukx> wrote:
> Vladimir Putin wrote:
>
> > Vladimir Malukh wrote:
> >
> > > Vladimir Malukh Novosibirsk, Russia
> > > -----------------------------------------
> >
> > I see that you are already living in Siberia. Maybe I will move you
to
> > Kolyma or some other more distant place.
> >
> > Moscow, Russia
>
> Comrade Putin !! Welcome to the RAM NG !!!
>
> Can you get me a ride in the back seat of a Su-27UB ??
>
> Please Please Please !!!!
With him personaly in the front seat? Sure must be very
impressive!
Michael
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Ken Duffey - Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast
> Flankers - http://www.flankerman.fsnet.co.uk/
> S-37 Model - http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/5634/
> Genuine E-mailers - remove the x after uk
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
ArtKramr
>Date: 4/19/00 1:16 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <N$rqUBAHtW$4E...@airnorth1.demon.co.uk>
Russian aircraft were quite capable of getting the job done.
p_...@my-deja.com
Chiggie Red Baron <gra...@airnorth1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
I flew in all of them and did not found it particular "harsh".
You comments might be a nice illustration to old good Russian
proverb "what is death for a German is just a piece of cake
for a Russian". I guess you are not German. But anyway the
Germans here mean in facts all europeans.
Why would not you also to compare Formans or Fokkers of
WWI with F22 for instance? This might provide some really
new insight into subject.
Michael
> Currently Listening To: "Eponymous" - REM
> Currently Reading: "Ensor's Endeavour" - Orange
>
Stephen Harding
> Mike McCormick wrote:
> >
> > "> May be Su-37 is a fnatsy, but Su-34 is clear reality being in serial
> > > production, I see it every week... Regarding to economy -somebody said
> > > Cisco is most succesfull company??? he-he...
> >
> > sorry, i didn't catch that cisco remark . . . and as i am about to buy stock
> > in them, i was hoping you'd elaborate
>
> Are you kidding - it must be on front pages of all media!
> You should be reading Finansial Times :) About week or so time
> ago Cosco capitalisation was about 500 milion bucks, now it
> it less than 400. During last couple of weeks almost
> all so called high-tech companies lost their stock,
>
> Have a look at www.nasdaq.com or www.quicken.com for quotes...
> All this high-tech internet super-puper-duper market
> was blasted...
But hey, it might be a real bargain now!!!
Come on, you know the stock market isn't a place for the timid!
Be brave! It's just a "correction" (and from my understanding, Cisco
is right up there with IBM, Microsoft and Sun Microsystems and already
on the rebound)!
SMH
Stephen Harding
>
> Vladimir Putin wrote:
> >
> > Vladimir Malukh wrote:
> >
> > > Vladimir Malukh Novosibirsk, Russia
> > > -----------------------------------------
> >
> > I see that you are already living in Siberia. Maybe I will move you to
> > Kolyma or some other more distant place.
> >
>
> Perhaps flight on Su-27 caused sea-sikness, so you moved
> away from Kremlin to have a rest?
You know Vladimir that the Finns are supposed to be the "most
wired people" on earth.
Comrad Putin from Finland seems to be proof!
SMH
Steve Hix
wrote:
> Lay off the Cyrillic, dude!
> "Steve Hix" <se...@macol.net> wrote in message
> news:sehix-63608B....@news.earthlink.net...
> > эФЦзлилЫТ
> >
> > In article <38FC2F5D...@propro.ru>, Vladimir Malukh <b...@propro.ru>
> wrote:
> > > Yes, this is main reason. Still - "no legs -no cartoons" :)
> >
> > увеЫе зней Хвлй гние СЫни? (снЫ йние ЫеЦйнд иЮ деУйЫеЦзеЫ лй
> > ЦггекХлда ЦФФ иЮ ХЮклда лд гЮЫлФФлгР ћ вЦЭе дн лзеЦ УвЦХ ЮнЧ
> > ЦЫе аеХХлда ЦХ ЮнЧЫ едзР)
>
>
Hey, it wasn't me! My newsreader did it all on its own.
(And this time, it looks like mangled katakana...)
I don't even read/write Russian.
Chiggie Red Baron
<artk...@aol.comnojunk> writes
>>
>Then I assume you were not the original poster since you seem to feel tha
>Russian aircraft were quite capable of getting the job done.
>
Mind you, some Russian aircraft probably couldn't do the job properly.
It's like most things, some aircraft can cut it, others can't. Sweeping
statements from some people on this NG don't do anyone any favours, and
merely incite flames....
Take the RAF for instance during the last war. For every Lancaster,
Mosquito and Spitfire there was a Botha, Albacore and Manchester in the
background. Granted, there's some leeway in the reasons for success and
failure, but you get my drift.
Chiggie Red Baron
>In article <N$rqUBAHtW$4E...@airnorth1.demon.co.uk>,
> Chiggie Red Baron <gra...@airnorth1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>I flew in all of them and did not found it particular "harsh".
>You comments might be a nice illustration to old good Russian
>proverb "what is death for a German is just a piece of cake
>for a Russian". I guess you are not German. But anyway the
>Germans here mean in facts all europeans.
>
I found it to be at the time.
>Why would not you also to compare Formans or Fokkers of
>WWI with F22 for instance? This might provide some really
>new insight into subject.
>
Because I've never flown in either a Farman (some seriously ugly
aircraft from that stable) or a Fokker, never mind an F-22. I don't
pretend I can judge a particular aircraft's performance objectively
against another's, if I haven't flown in them. That I leave to others
who are more knowledgeable about such matters.
What I was trying to put across was that in my experience, certain
Russian aircraft worked well, and others didn't, in an attempt to refute
the title of this thread. Nothing more.
Which US or British aircraft have you flown in? I would be interested in
hearing your views about any experiences you have had personally, just
as I have done.
p_...@my-deja.com
Chiggie Red Baron <gra...@airnorth1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <8dkds8$h0a$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, p_...@my-deja.com writes
> >In article <N$rqUBAHtW$4E...@airnorth1.demon.co.uk>,
> > Chiggie Red Baron <gra...@airnorth1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >I flew in all of them and did not found it particular "harsh".
> >You comments might be a nice illustration to old good Russian
> >proverb "what is death for a German is just a piece of cake
> >for a Russian". I guess you are not German. But anyway the
> >Germans here mean in facts all europeans.
> >
> No, I'm not German, I'm English. As for the harsh ride, I only speak
as
> I found it to be at the time.
Sure totaly legitimate.
>
> >Why would not you also to compare Formans or Fokkers of
> >WWI with F22 for instance? This might provide some really
> >new insight into subject.
> >
> Because I've never flown in either a Farman (some seriously ugly
> aircraft from that stable) or a Fokker, never mind an F-22. I don't
> pretend I can judge a particular aircraft's performance objectively
> against another's, if I haven't flown in them. That I leave to others
> who are more knowledgeable about such matters.
>
> What I was trying to put across was that in my experience, certain
> Russian aircraft worked well, and others didn't, in an attempt to
refute
> the title of this thread. Nothing more.
>
> Which US or British aircraft have you flown in? I would be interested
in
> hearing your views about any experiences you have had personally, just
> as I have done.
Well I flew in quite a number of 747s, 737s, MD10(?) or maybe
it was MD12 in Japan, also A310s. I think I flew in almost all
Soviet/Russian airliners currently in service: Tu-134,154,
Il-62/86/96 Yak-40/42 An-12/24 etc. An-2 was long ago.
Generaly my feeling with Western planes was not very bad
and I think it is pretty similar with that I had with
flights on Russsin airliners. Although as we speak
about strong impressions, I remmember one funny flight
from Washington DC to New-York city on "United" I guess.
The plane was two proppeler ingines and very very small
Unfortunately I do not remmenr its type. Anyway it was much
smaller than Yak-40 and might be of An-2 size. I had a front
seat and was very surprised that pilot cabine had no door
and he (the pilot) very kindly asked me to move a bit my
not that long legs in order he could operate the plane.
Also I would say food in many domestic US flights I cannot
consider as eatable and stuards coud be much more polite.
I can compare to European, Japanese Russian ones. I remember
the terrible landing in LA airport of our 747 when
captain sadenly switched on front TV camera probably to
impress the public how nicely he can land. The result
was totaly opposite I and many others around was scared to
death watching his terrible approch to runway. Otherwise
everything was fine but if possible I would choose Russian
plane and Russian pilot if I have to fly. To say the true
I trust them better.
Michael
joe_...@my-deja.com
> Take the RAF for instance during the last war. For every Lancaster,
> Mosquito and Spitfire there was a Botha, Albacore and Manchester in the
> background.
I think every nation that produced aircraft -- certainly every nation
that produced aircraft during times of rapid progress in a new generation
of technology -- had its misses as well as its hits. This may even be
inherently true of new technologies, not just aircraft.
The physicist Freeman Dyson's book _Disturbing the Universe_ (interesting
and controversial from other military-aviation standpoints as well) goes
into this, comparing the startling number and variety of motorcycle
designs that came out at first to the relatively small number of mostly
good ones that we see today, and then comparing this to the lack of a
similarly beneficial process in nuclear reactors. I think the chapter in
question is "Clades and Clones."
In the war, of course, the combatant nations were on the horns of... not
even a dilemma really, but a mutant three-pronged trilemma in this
regard. They needed to:
*Let machines of competitive capabilities evolve (few great machines of
any kind are perfected in the first mark -- imagine if the P-51 had been
abandoned before someone had that stroke of genius involving a different
engine),
*AND identify the bad ideas early (but not jump to conclusions -- see
previous, and note also the way that some of them prove unsatisfactory in
the intended role but succeed once they find their niche, e.g., the P-39
in Soviet hands),
*AND focus their finite resources on a sufficient quantity and
supportable (lack of) variety of machines that will do the job rather
than charging off in all directions.
...the penalty for not finding a suitable balance of these three
contradictory priorities being severe and obvious.
Cheers,
--Joe
Old_Crow
either the originals, or almost identical copies of the original. The
sources were often Western.
So I could see them using a good compass that they found/captured many
of. But, after all that time, from WW II to the Mi-8 I would not think
this likely. I could, however, see them continuing to use and produce
a good design that they "aquired".
Don't get me wrong, I believe they (the former Soviets) were very
capable of producing a first rate product from scratch. But if a good
design works, why mess with it.
Also, I have seen many Soviet items, that say "Made in USSR" in english
or in Cyrillic, that had labels in different languages. I think the
best was a unit that said "Sdelano B SSSR" (in Cyrillic) that had screw
on labels in Russian, and under the screw on labels was printed the
same exact things in German.
--
Old_Crow
You radiate,
We disseminate,
and then eliminate.
In article <20000418141641...@ng-fw1.aol.com>,
krzta...@aol.comMAYBENOT (Gordon) wrote:
> >> I had the opportunity in 1983 to obtain parts out of a Soviet Mi-8
that was
> >at
> >> Mogadishu Somalia -- years later,
> >
> >That could be different matter - very often export a/c were equipped
> >with different avionic, rather than a/c for internal use. Customers
> >could be ordering anything they want to, no problem. I repeat -
> >usage of western avionics on serial soviet a/c for internal use
> >in RuAF was prohibited by special low.
>
> I'm not disagreeing with you, but the Mi-8 that I helped to damage
was a Soviet
> Army helicopter, not an export model. Big red stars - the whole bit.
>
> >> I was going through the box of aircraft parts
> >> that I took from the helicopter and I began pulling things apart
to clean
> >them.
> >> One of the instruments was a wet compass, very well made, that I
pulled
> >from
> >> the cockpit personally. While cleaning it, I took off the Russian-
> >language
> >> face plate and discovered that underneath, there was a second
faceplate, in
> >> German. On the back of the compass was a sticker with Russian
information
> >on
> >> it that I didn't remove, but it was clearly affixed over the top
of a data
> >> plate that I suspect was not written in Russian either. All of
the parts
> >(fuel
> >> pumps from #2 engine, various cockpit guages, flight gear, etc)
have been
> >on
> >> display at the San Diego Aerospace Museum for over 10 years now,
but that
> >> Russian face plate over the German makes me wonder if that
restriction you
> >> mention was rigidly adhered to...
> >
> >There was such country - DDR :) "Deutsche Demokratische Republik".
> >With some luck you might dicover Czech or Polish too - they
> >were producing not just spare parts but complete a/c and
> >even own-designed a/c, that were used by RuAF (L-29 and L-39
> >for example). Or, less likely it might be West Germany made
> >stuff, installed on helicopters for export.
> >
> >--
> >
> >Vladimir
>
> Here's the rub - the compass was not made in GDR or DDR; it had been
produced
> either in occupied Germany before it became DDR or was a wartime
product that
> was used as an expediency. The compass was indistinguishable from
the standard
> WWII Luftwaffe compass that I have seen in the dash of Bf-109G-10, Me-
262A-1a,
> and Junkers 52. "If it works, don't fix it" seems to apply!
Vladimir, have
> you heard of any captured equipment being used? Its possible (to me
anyway)
> that if a factory or supply depot was captured with thousands of
> serviceable/new compasses, the Soviets would make use of them. Just a
> thought...
>
> v/r
> Gordon
Stephen Harding
> the terrible landing in LA airport of our 747 when
> captain sadenly switched on front TV camera probably to
> impress the public how nicely he can land. The result
> was totaly opposite I and many others around was scared to
> death watching his terrible approch to runway. Otherwise
I've never been on a commercial flight that had, or used, a front
TV camera for the interest of passengers during takeoff/landing or
cruise. I think it's a neat idea and always wondered why not.
Such a view could be disturbing though. I remember landing on
Cape Cod, Massachusetts and looking out the cockpit windshield
(door was open in the small plane). We were severely side-slipping
to the runway. Must have been a very strong cross wind.
> everything was fine but if possible I would choose Russian
> plane and Russian pilot if I have to fly. To say the true
> I trust them better.
I don't think it's so much an issue of nationality of pilot or
plane. It's simply how well the airline is run, and how well
the plane is flown. I think all major commercial aircraft are
good.
I do remember flying Air New England at a time they were going
bankrupt in the early 80's. Used to call them "Dare New England"
or "Scare New England". Seemed something always went wrong on
every flight I took.
On one takeoff from Hyannis, I watched the port propeller
seemingly slowing down. Sure enough, it windmilled to a stop as
the aircraft made a sudden banking turn and returned to the
airport.
This aircraft was a DH Twin Otter, which is near legendary in its
reputation. A very good reliable aircraft. But the airline in
this case wasn't up to the job of proper management and
maintenance of its aircraft. They eventually did go bankrupt after
their VP was killed co-piloting a flight that crashed.
SMH
Keith Willshaw
Stephen Harding <har...@hobart.cs.umass.edu> wrote in message
news:38FE1356...@hobart.cs.umass.edu...
> p_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > the terrible landing in LA airport of our 747 when
> > captain sadenly switched on front TV camera probably to
> > impress the public how nicely he can land. The result
> > was totaly opposite I and many others around was scared to
> > death watching his terrible approch to runway. Otherwise
>
> I've never been on a commercial flight that had, or used, a front
> TV camera for the interest of passengers during takeoff/landing or
> cruise. I think it's a neat idea and always wondered why not.
>
I fly Kuwait Airlines LHR to JFK last October and they had cockpit
and down facing camera views. It was a new 777, very Interesting
> Such a view could be disturbing though. I remember landing on
> Cape Cod, Massachusetts and looking out the cockpit windshield
> (door was open in the small plane). We were severely side-slipping
> to the runway. Must have been a very strong cross wind.
>
I used to regularly fly from Columbus Ohio to JFK on an ATR
some of those flights were interesting. I had a guy next to me
one particularly bumpy flight who didnt stop praying the
whole flight. Its a good job I'm not a nervous passenger :)
Keith
Ville Norrman
"Stephen Harding" <har...@hobart.cs.umass.edu> wrote in message
news:38FE1356...@hobart.cs.umass.edu...
> I've never been on a commercial flight that had, or used, a front
> TV camera for the interest of passengers during takeoff/landing or
> cruise. I think it's a neat idea and always wondered why not.
>
> Such a view could be disturbing though. I remember landing on
> Cape Cod, Massachusetts and looking out the cockpit windshield
> (door was open in the small plane). We were severely side-slipping
> to the runway. Must have been a very strong cross wind.
Well, at least Finnair's Airbus A321's have displays to which takeoffs and
landings are displayed. I'd think this is a standard feature
in all A321 planes. I think it was a very good idea.
// norrman, ville norrman
Stephen Harding
> I fly Kuwait Airlines LHR to JFK last October and they had cockpit
> and down facing camera views. It was a new 777, very Interesting
Bummer! No Kuwait Air service from Springfield-Hartford to Baltimore
or DC, my normal runs.
I'll keep my eyes posted for a 777 flight somewhere though. I spend
hours of long flights looking out the window, even with nothing but
ocean below and 30K feet of altitude, so a down or forward camera is
just the ticket for me!
> I used to regularly fly from Columbus Ohio to JFK on an ATR
> some of those flights were interesting. I had a guy next to me
> one particularly bumpy flight who didnt stop praying the
> whole flight. Its a good job I'm not a nervous passenger :)
Oh yeah, the nervous passenger next door experience!
BTW, I think it was an ATR that crashed outside Chicago (???) a few
years ago. Alleged problems with wing icing.
Just to keep your next flight more "interesting" (and you're not the
nervous passenger type)!
SMH
Paul J. Adam
Willshaw <keith_w...@compuserve.com> writes
>Reality check
>
>When the Russian and Japanese Armies clashed in Siberia
>the Russians gave them such a kicking that the Japanese
>backed down faster than even the Italians could have managed.
Khalkin-Gol and Nomohan (sp?), oft-neglected but crucial.
I wonder if it was Zhukov's performance there, that let him stand up so well
to Stalin in later years, to the benefit of the USSR in particular and the Allies
in general?
There seems to be a law of nature, that Russian soldiers struggle outside their
borders, and bleed white any enemy that tries to lop of slices of Russian
territory... the latter part of WW2 being the exception that proves it.
--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Keith Willshaw
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
>
> BTW, I think it was an ATR that crashed outside Chicago (???) a few
> years ago. Alleged problems with wing icing.
>
Roselawn Indiana
> Just to keep your next flight more "interesting" (and you're not the
> nervous passenger type)!
>
>
That on was just turbulent , the one that REALLY worried me was in Jan
1997 from JFK to CMH. They'd just got the airports open after the big storm
and we took off about 2 hours late at 11.30 pm or so
Well conditions got pretty bad and after 2 hours into what was normaly
about a two hour 20 minute flight I looked out the window and realise we
were only over Pittsburgh !
The next thing was it started snowing really hard and the pilot came
on the PA with a classic announcement
"Well Folks its pretty bad out there and there's a couple of inches
of new snow at Columbus so we'd normally divert. But since all
our diversion filds are worse I guess we'll just go in anyway "
Man I really needed to hear that :)
Keith
Some
"Paul J. Adam" <Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vqn$8PBp+i$4E...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
> In article <8dif0u$od0$1...@ssauraaa-i-1.production.compuserve.com>, Keith
> Willshaw <keith_w...@compuserve.com> writes
> >Reality check
> >
> >When the Russian and Japanese Armies clashed in Siberia
> >the Russians gave them such a kicking that the Japanese
> >backed down faster than even the Italians could have managed.
>
> Khalkin-Gol and Nomohan (sp?), oft-neglected but crucial.
>
> I wonder if it was Zhukov's performance there, that let him stand up so
well
> to Stalin in later years, to the benefit of the USSR in particular and the
Allies
> in general?
>
>
> There seems to be a law of nature, that Russian soldiers struggle outside
their
> borders, and bleed white any enemy that tries to lop of slices of Russian
> territory... the latter part of WW2 being the exception that proves it.
But hey, some time ago there was only small area around Kiev that was called
Russian territory. Somehow Russians managed to gather enemy land.
p_...@my-deja.com
Stephen Harding <har...@hobart.cs.umass.edu> wrote:
>
> I don't think it's so much an issue of nationality of pilot or
> plane. It's simply how well the airline is run, and how well
> the plane is flown. I think all major commercial aircraft are
> good.
Sure.
>
> I do remember flying Air New England at a time they were going
> bankrupt in the early 80's. Used to call them "Dare New England"
> or "Scare New England". Seemed something always went wrong on
> every flight I took.
>
> On one takeoff from Hyannis, I watched the port propeller
> seemingly slowing down. Sure enough, it windmilled to a stop as
> the aircraft made a sudden banking turn and returned to the
> airport.
>
> This aircraft was a DH Twin Otter, which is near legendary in its
> reputation. A very good reliable aircraft. But the airline in
> this case wasn't up to the job of proper management and
> maintenance of its aircraft. They eventually did go bankrupt after
> their VP was killed co-piloting a flight that crashed.
>
> SMH
That's exactly the point. During my long experience of
flying in Aeroflot in USSR and major air companies
in Russia (Aeroflot, Pulkovo, Domodedovo etc.) i never
ever had any reasons to worry about flight safety. Not a
single time. while I had quite a few in western airlines
during relatively small numbers of my flights. Based on it
I have concluded that there should be some more problems
with security there. As for statistics during last 3
years as far as I know there were no a single fatality
on the russain regular airlines. This is no unique but
rather good result. There were some terrible crashes
with commercial charter flights of small russian
aircompanies where I agree the safety is not enought.
Michael
Martin Rosenkranz
38FBF9...@jurtta.net...
> There is a story about a Japanese trade delegation which visited the
> former Soviet Union. They were taken to many factories and were showed
> everything from the production lines to infirmaries and asked what makes
> the greatest impression on them. The answer was always "babies". At last
> one of the hosts asked what they mean by "babies". The head of the
> delegation answered "all the goods you make by hands is PURE SHIT".
Oh yeah. Because of that fact i think two EJ200 are now in Russia for
thrustvector installations.
And because of that fact Malaysia who operates western and eastern fighters
want buy MiG-29 again.
And because of that fact Russian "production" - aircraft can fly maneuvers
that no western design is able to do so.
And because of that fact new western fighters get now helm-mountet targeting
systems, only with 20 jears delay.
PURE SHIT - OH YEAH - I LIKE THAT SHIT
--
Martin Rosenkranz, Editor
+43 664 35 00 411
eMail: ma...@airpower.at
----------------------------------------------
Österreichs's virtuelles Militäraviatik-Journal
http://www.airpower.at/
----------------------------------------------
Andrew McCruden
Martin Rosenkranz <mar...@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:QCCL4.27117$6X3.6...@news.chello.at...
> Oh yeah. Because of that fact i think two EJ200 are now in Russia for
> thrustvector installations.
I think not, the MOD would be going absoutely Balistic if they were.
besides Thrust vetoring is not exacly a technology thats new to the West (or
Rolls Royce), the AFTI F-16 Has flown with it, the F-15 has and the F-22
has, and oh yeah.....I almost forgot the Harrier. Russia isn't exacly the
only place where they've been developed.
> And because of that fact Malaysia who operates western and eastern
fighters
> want buy MiG-29 again.
Only Because of the Asian Economic crash having left them unable to afford
more Hornets (the model that they use being out of production anyway)
> And because of that fact Russian "production" - aircraft can fly maneuvers
> that no western design is able to do so.
And can only be flown at low Airshow display weights, rather that the much
heavier operational weights and the "unique" maneuvers are just flashy
"impress-the-crowd" tricks that are useless in a realistc air combat
situation....
> And because of that fact new western fighters get now helm-mountet
targeting
> systems, only with 20 jears delay.
>
Having demostrated them in the 1970's but not introduced them until later
when their was actaully a requirement for them......
Jussi Saari
>
> > And because of that fact Malaysia who operates western and
> > eastern fighters want buy MiG-29 again.
>
> Only Because of the Asian Economic crash having left them unable
> to afford more Hornets (the model that they use being out of
> production anyway)
Likely as much if not more because Russia sells them R-77s but USA
refuses to give AMRAAMs, and in Malaysian tests R-77 -equipped MiG-29Ns
had a clear BVR advantage against AIM-7 -carryin F/A-18Ds despite the
Hornet's better radar. When the MiG simply has vastly better AAMs than
what the Malaysians could get from USA, and when the cost is cheaper as
well, it's no big surprise that they prefer the MiG.
> And can only be flown at low Airshow display weights, rather that
> the much heavier operational weights and the "unique" maneuvers
> are just flashy "impress-the-crowd" tricks that are useless in a
> realistc air combat situation....
First, I think it was 1996 when a Su-30 (well actually it was closer to
a Su-27U with a fancy paintjob and unusual a2g ordnance, or so I've
heard) made the usual cobras and tailslides with a load of KAB-500s,
Kh-31s and Kh-29s and few AAMs. Or something like that, I'm not sure if
I remembered all the pgms right, but with a heavy ordnance load anyway.
As for the usefulness of those maneuvers, even if they're not terribly
useful in themselves, they still demonstrate better high-AoA handling
and better tolerance of not-so-smooth airflows into the intakes than
most aircraft have.
> > And because of that fact new western fighters get now
> > helm-mountet targeting systems, only with 20 jears delay.
>
> Having demostrated them in the 1970's but not introduced them
> until later when their was actaully a requirement for them......
So you're saying that ability to shoot 45-60 degrees off-boresight
wasn't a useful ability in 70's, but becomes useful only in about 200x,
when the AIM-9X enters service? Would this also mean that Israel and
USSR were really quite silly in introducing their HMS+R-73/Python combos
before there was a requirement for them?
Jussi
Ken Duffey
> Andrew McCruden wrote:
> >
> > >
snip....
> > And can only be flown at low Airshow display weights, rather that
> > the much heavier operational weights and the "unique" maneuvers
> > are just flashy "impress-the-crowd" tricks that are useless in a
> > realistc air combat situation....
>
> First, I think it was 1996 when a Su-30 (well actually it was closer to
> a Su-27U with a fancy paintjob and unusual a2g ordnance, or so I've
> heard) made the usual cobras and tailslides with a load of KAB-500s,
> Kh-31s and Kh-29s and few AAMs. Or something like that, I'm not sure if
> I remembered all the pgms right, but with a heavy ordnance load anyway.?
>
> Jussi
Pictures of the Su-30MK with full ordnance load is at :-
http://www.flankerman.fsnet.co.uk/su-30mk.htm
Martin Rosenkranz
Newsbeitrag: 38fefc42$0$5...@news.zetnet.co.uk...
> I think not, the MOD would be going absoutely Balistic if they were.
I know yes - from different sources.
Two brand new EJ200 are there because the consortium can design that thing
but is unable to finance this ultra long test phase.
> Only Because of the Asian Economic crash having left them unable to afford
> more Hornets (the model that they use being out of production anyway)
I understand, but in fact the Malasian MiG's have "virtually" killed the
Austalian Hornets in combat training.
> And can only be flown at low Airshow display weights, rather that the much
> heavier operational weights and the "unique" maneuvers are just flashy
> "impress-the-crowd" tricks that are useless in a realistc air combat
> situation....
Agree in bvr battle but if a airbattle goes slower and lower and nearer
MiG-29 and Su-27 will eat up all western fighters in service. And you must
think about the fact that there was no aircombat between western and eastern
fighters under equal conditions - we don not know what is going on if top
russian pilots with Mainstay Support are in the game.
Until today there was only 2nd and 3rd class pilots of foreign countrys with
ageing aircraft versions and without support against massive forces of well
trained western airteams with a complete support package of AWACS, aerial
refueling, electronic countermeasures and so on.
> Having demostrated them in the 1970's but not introduced them until later
> when their was actaully a requirement for them......
Demonstrated, demonstrated, demonstrated....they dont have it. They dont
have it in the 70's, they dont have it in the 80's, they dont have it in the
90's and they dont have it today. No helmet in service, no missile for that
system in service, no trained fighter pilot in service. What anybody maybe
can produce counts nothing - what anybody have now makes the difference.
We no more get any war where we can make r&d for a weaponsystem for that
war - any new fighter design today needs at least 10 years before production
can start. Also a part of a system, like the AMRAAM, needs that time to
produce a software version what is able to do the job. How many manyears of
codewriting and testing needs a fly-by-wire aircraft today to get a capable
fighter? 100yrs? 500yrs? How many software versions where made until today
for an aircraft like Eurofighter Typhoon, Gripen, F-22 ? And how long is the
testphase for such a fighter to make it able to fly save an AOA like an
F-18, an F-16 or a Mirage 2000 ?
matto
distribute capital....buy low, sell high; stop orders, margin calls,
zombies and all that.... god bless capitalism
Vladimir Malukh wrote:
>
> Mike McCormick wrote:
>
>
> Are you kidding - it must be on front pages of all media!
> You should be reading Finansial Times :) About week or so time
> ago Cosco capitalisation was about 500 milion bucks, now it
> it less than 400. During last couple of weeks almost
> all so called high-tech companies lost their stock,
>
> Have a look at www.nasdaq.com or www.quicken.com for quotes...
> All this high-tech internet super-puper-duper market
> was blasted...
>
> --
>
> Vladimir Malukh Novosibirsk, Russia
> -----------------------------------------
--
"It takes just as much time to be nice as it does to be an asshole, so
you
might as well be nice." -- Jimmy Buffet
anlushac11
aircraft.
Germans thought that they had best fighters in war right up until the YaK-3,
YaK-9, and La-5fn. Yak-9 was an exceptional fighter with performance comparable
to a late model Spitfire. I have always wondered if it is a coincidence that
the nose of a YaK looks alot like a Spitfire, as if the Russians copied the
Merlin and put it into production. If you had to copy a piston engine, I
couldnt think of a better one to do. Russians have always had a reputation of
building to do the job, not to make it look good. Migs are designed to have
major work done in field that Americans would only do at rear area repair
centers. The new Migs, Sukhois, and YaK's should remind us once again that the
Russians are very resourceful and talented people.
In article <38FBF9...@jurtta.net>, sta...@jurtta.net says...
ya...@hotmail.com
anlus...@home.com (anlushac11) wrote:
> While I am abig fan of Western aircraft, I also have a love of the
Russaian
> aircraft.
>
> Germans thought that they had best fighters in war right up until the
YaK-3,
> YaK-9, and La-5fn. Yak-9 was an exceptional fighter with performance
comparable
> to a late model Spitfire. I have always wondered if it is a
coincidence that
> the nose of a YaK looks alot like a Spitfire, as if the Russians
copied the
> Merlin and put it into production.
No, it was a developlment (many times removed) of the Hispano-Suiza Y12.
That's what it started out as in the late 1930, since then is had been
improved several times and went trough ceveral incarnations.
Vladimir Yakubov
Vladimir Malukh
anlushac11 wrote:
> I have always wondered if it is a coincidence that
> the nose of a YaK looks alot like a Spitfire, as if the Russians copied the
> Merlin and put it into production.
Yaks engine (VK-105 and later)was modified copy of Hispano-Suiza,
but not Merlin. In fact it just looked similar to Spitfire, but
was very different inside, it has gun, shooting through
propellor.
Emmanuel.Gustin
: to a late model Spitfire. I have always wondered if it is a coincidence that
: the nose of a YaK looks alot like a Spitfire, as if the Russians copied the
: Merlin and put it into production.
No, the Klimov VK-105 was a developed copy of the Hispano-Suiza 12Y, still
close enough to it to be interchangable, more or less, in the nose of
Finnish Morane-Saulniers MS.405s. The 12Y was not as good as the Merlin,
and slow engine development and lack of power troubled the Yak-family
fighters throughout the war. Yakovlev achieved a lot with a comparatively
low-powered engine, but at some cost -- basically specialisation; a Yak-9
could carry fuel or bombs or heavy gun armament, but not all at the same
time. Engine development was probably the Achilles' heel of the wartime
soviet aviation industry; they had copied a lot before the war and had
learnt much, but they were not yet entirely up-to-date.
The main similarity between the 12Y and the Merlin was that they were both
upright V-12s. If you are seeking a family relationship between the
two: The Merlin owed much to the Kestrel, which was strongly inspired by
the Curtiss D-12, which owed much to post-WWI Hispano-Suiza engines. But
it doesn't get any closer than that.
Emmanuel Gustin <gus...@NoSpam.uia.ac.be>
Military Aircraft Database: http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/
(Delete NoSpam. from my address. If you can't reach me, your host
may be on our spam filter list. Check http://www.uia.ac.be/cc/spam.html.)