jynxyjoe
Queso King
Looks shoddy and worthless to me. An old friend used to tell me, if you couldn't find the time to do a good job the first time, what makes you think you'll have the time to do it right the second time around.
Russian tanker bid?!
- Thread starter fisher37
- Start date
Looks shoddy and worthless to me. An old friend used to tell me, if you couldn't find the time to do a good job the first time, what makes you think you'll have the time to do it right the second time around.
They may look shoddy and worthless to you, but after flying with guys who flew their stuff, you gotta be impressed with their theory. They said they planes may look like crap, but they flew well and the engines could suck up boulders and spit out sand.
May not look pretty, but if it does the job and is mass produced, it's a problem for the other side.
Orange Anchor
New Member
I understand your point. Well taken. However the Russians, for a long time, took a different approach to design and assembly. It was very pragmatic and they figured it wasn't going to last a long time so why build it to last a long time.
Reportedly Kurt Tank, the designer/developer/pilot at Focke Wulf, laughed in the 90s when he saw the restored FW-190. Someone asked why he was laughing and he said they expected the life of the machine to be 50 HOURS or less.. not 50 years.
And for the longest time, the Russians adopted the attitude it was going to be shot down, blown up, crashed.. so why the extra rubles? Other countries found this out when they bought MiGs and the engines were shot in a few hundred hours. Why? The Russians wanted thrust.. and to get that thrust they burned their engines at a much higher temp.. higher temps meant shorter lives. Their response, "So?"
For the Russians, there was no second time. Interesting too was the approach to maintenance. When the MiG-21 came off the line, it came with a truck, a tow bar and bolt on components that could be replaced. The truck was used to tow, refuel, rearm and carried tools for field repairs. Any big repairs and the airplane went to depot. Take a sick bird to the depot. Take home a good bird. No hangar queens. No cannibals. It wasn't a beauty pageant.
Orange Anchor
New Member
like the AK-47 and the M-16. I remember the first demo we had before leaving for Vietnam. The guy took the AK-47, threw it in a muddy puddle, stepped on it, kicked it around a bit, picked it up, slammed in a magazine and fired it. Said, "Don't even think about this with the M-16."
Different approach. Different solution.
tonyw
Well-Known Member
Question for you -- if we did things like you suggested, then you'd be fine if EADS was the only contractor allowed to provide planes to Germany, France, Italy, and Britain, right? Boeing should be excluded, as should any other American company.
Not cool? Then why is it cool for it to go the other way?
Furthermore, what would you call a Boeing plane with Rolls Royce engines, Thales avionics, and Messier components? What would you call an EADS plane with GE engines, Honeywell avionics, and Goodrich components? That's how things happen these days.
fisher37
Well-Known Member
That would be fine with me. I'm just saying, this aircraft if for the AMERICAN military...why should we have an aircraft built by another country in our military? I just don't want to have to depend 100% on another country to deliver things that are a valuable tool to our military.
Also, why not keep most of the money in the United States (I'm talking about the workers who actually assemble the planes). I think at this time with the economy the way it is we need to keep the money at home. Again: Yes, some of the money spent on the Boeing product would leave, but more would stay here if Airbus or another company built the plane.
I know I'm not getting anywhere in this debate, but this is just how I feel about it.
Also, why not keep most of the money in the United States (I'm talking about the workers who actually assemble the planes). I think at this time with the economy the way it is we need to keep the money at home. Again: Yes, some of the money spent on the Boeing product would leave, but more would stay here if Airbus or another company built the plane.
I know I'm not getting anywhere in this debate, but this is just how I feel about it.
tonyw
Well-Known Member
True dat! Check out where Boeing gets its parts for the 787.
Much of the detail design will be done by the partners who will later build the components — overseas suppliers in Japan, Italy, Korea and Britain; U.S. suppliers in Texas, South Carolina, California, Oklahoma and Kansas; and Boeing subsidiary sites in Australia, Canada and Russia.
Fisher, your feelings are your own and nobody can criticize you for them. However, they are a lot more logical if you have facts to back them up. Again, you could have a Boeing plane with Rolls Royce engines, Thales avionics, and Messier components. And you could have an EADS plane with GE engines, Honeywell avionics, and Goodrich components. Which one is "American?"
fisher37
Well-Known Member
Valid point. I'll stick to my guns though. Getting the Boeing contract could help the town to the south of me (Wichita) tremendously. It'll be an interesting race, hopefully it will all be figured out soon so this debate can start all over again.
But getting back to the main point of the thread..What's the Russian plane going to entail? Anything American?
But getting back to the main point of the thread..What's the Russian plane going to entail? Anything American?
If Im not mistaken, the Airbus would be built at a plant in Alabama, so now it becomes which American town is your loyalty towards.
ppragman
No pasa nada.
Russian concrete isn't that good either (I have no idea why, but it sucked all over Ukraine, even in places where it was only put in a year ago). I'd bet their runways are the same way. You've got to be able to suck up rocks and spit out sand. The russians build good equipment. Think about it. We're past the Apollo program, the shuttle, and now we've essentially scuddled the Orion program, and what are the Russians using? The venerable Soyuz. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
kiloalpha
Well-Known Member
Speaking of which, didn't they build a sarcophagus around Chernobyl which is falling apart and didn't they bury a lot of radioactive debris where there's forest pulling all the radioactivity back out?
Interesting... but while we're on the topic of "American" corporations... You can't really find 100% American anymore, unless you buy Amish. My point is, we living in a global economy now. Everything is connected in someway or another. Sure, Honeywell, GE, Goodrich may be based in the US, but how much of their company is outsourced? It's all to save money. If you were in charge of a multi-billion company I'm sure you would go the cheapest route to save money and collect more profit.
Orange Anchor
New Member
From what I saw during my 2 weeks with Aeroflot, their runways and ramps are constructed of large concrete blocks. That way, if a section is bombed, it can be easily replaced. It does, however, make for bone rattling runways. When we landed at St. Petersburg, I though the gear was going to separate.
But they have had some serious problems in space, not the least of which was the onboard fire on Mir. Fire in space? WOW.. and their moon rocket blew up taking lots of engineers with it. And their Buran never made it into space (it showed up in Paris on top of the An-225 which was its first time out of Russia).
In some ways, it is like Ford/Chevy or Boeing/Airbus. Each group approaches a problem and derives its onw solutions. And each group has to make compromises that occur because of those solutions.
Underestimating one's potential competitor/adversary is risky business. Ivan is no dummy. His equipment is not trash. Or at least it appears that way from my perspective. I could be wrong...
SurferLucas
Southern Gentleman
I thought Buran did make one flight in 1988 that was unmanned, but I could be wrong...I just thought I remembered reading that somewhere.
I agree wholeheartedly about underestimating the Russians, they're very ingenious people. It's amazing what kinda work gets done when you've got a threat of a gulag or death...
Orange Anchor
New Member
My error. Buran did fly 1 unmanned sortie with 2 orbits and then an autoland. This shot shows some major differences between the Shuttle and Buran including the jet engines for a go-around and ability to land on short grass fields.
KSCessnaDriver
Well-Known Member
My error. Buran did fly 1 unmanned sortie with 2 orbits and then an autoland. This shot shows some major differences between the Shuttle and Buran including the jet engines for a go-around and ability to land on short grass fields.
Nope. That's the atmospheric flight test model, that didn't fly in space. Rather than taking it up on a 747 (ala Enterprise OV-101), they put jet's on the thing to test glide capability. The space flown vehicle was capable of more than 2 orbits, but the Russian computer's at the time only had the RAM capability to operate for 2 orbits. Plus, it didn't have any sort of environmental systems in the thing, so human flight wasn't possible. But, they landed automated in like a 20 knot direct crosswind, which is impressive, at least to me.
The Buran was genius. Much more payload in the orbiter, due to the lack of engines (and thus weight) in the orbiter itself. All the thrust came from the boosters. But, in the end, money killed it, which is a shame. At least they still use the boosters in other vehicles
Orange Anchor
New Member
jokes just don't translate well. Or maybe it was the way I told it.
KSCessnaDriver
Well-Known Member
Haha, its ok. I was just looking for a means to use the vast knowledge I got in a Russian Space Operations class I took. Best 3 grand in tuition I've ever spent.