Which Russian Cargo plane is bigger

[Matt308]

Hah... I remember seeing a show about that Buran. The host was walking around the periphery of the building on scaffolding and was very concerned about his life because the structural integrity of the building was in question. Rain and other elements had obviously been leaking into the building and the stairways were wobbling as they were walking. They were lamenting that the POS Buran was likely going to be destroyed if money was not found by the Russian gov't to properly fund its storage. I distinctly recall watching this and just shaking my head thinking about all the trillions of rubles that went into the reverse engineering of the US Shuttle only to have the POS Buran die an ugly death under a leaking tent.

Shame on the Russian gov't. Shame.

[Ramirezzz]

I distinctly recall watching this and just shaking my head thinking about all the trillions of rubles that went into the reverse engineering of the US Shuttle

It wasn't reverse engineered , it's actually completely different design. Ever heard about the laws of aerodynamics?

Originally Posted by Matt308

Hah... I remember seeing a show about that Buran. The host was walking around the periphery of the building on scaffolding and was very concerned about his life because the structural integrity of the building was in question. Rain and other elements had obviously been leaking into the building and the stairways were wobbling as they were walking. They were lamenting that the POS Buran was likely going to be destroyed if money was not found by the Russian gov't to properly fund its storage.
Shame on the Russian gov't. Shame.

I can only second that

[Henk]

Yes, the Buran is in certain ways better than the US space shuttle, but remember it was build a while after the US space shuttle.

The Russian gov gave the Buran to the Ukraine gov to pay for the rent of the facility.

[Matt308]

Originally Posted by Ramirezzz

It wasn't reverse engineered , it's actually completely different design. Ever heard about the laws of aerodynamics?

Don't patronize me Ramirezzz. Like the Tu-4, (pic below) the Buran was a virtual copy of the US Rockwell Space Shuttle. I don't give a flipping rip about your 'laws of aerodynamics' suposedly forcing the brilliant Russian engineers into a common airframe. BS. The Buran vehicle is virtually the same size, same mission, same etc, out of sheer expediency and laziness of novel engineering development. Certainly the mission avionics were different for obvious reasons, however, likely if Russia had those too they would also have been copied. But what is most telling is the absolute empty engineering for such a huge endeavor. All those rubles and no improvement upon design, no change in mission profile, no discussion of payload capacity/volume??? Now contrast that with the Europeans and the Japanese and you can see some real innovation.

This is especially true for those that know that the US Shuttle and its mission was absolutely shaped by the Department of Defense, and not just NASA civil needs only. That drove the Shuttle design into such large proportions for the ability to loft NSA payloads. These same deliberations occurred with the Russian Buran? Really? Even given the differences in spy satellite mission profiles between our countries?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

It sure as hell looked like a Space Shuttle. They had to copy something in there....

"The development of the Buran began in the early 1970s as a response to the U.S. Space Shuttle program. While the Soviet engineers favoured a smaller, lighter lifting body vehicle, the military leadership pushed for a direct, full scale copy of the double-delta wing Space Shuttle, in an effort to maintain the strategic parity between the superpowers."

Sorry Ramirezz but let be honest with hourselfs. The Russians had a habit of copying everything they got their hands on, just like China.

Lets just make some comparisons here:

C-47 Skytrain vs. Lisunov Li-2





Boeing B-29 vs. Tupolev Tu-4





Space Shuttle vs. Buran

[Ramirezzz]

Originally Posted by Matt308

Don't patronize me Ramirezzz. Like the Tu-4, (pic below)

Tu-4 was the ONLY russian copy of any western plane , developed at the time when USSR badly need it's own atomic bomb carrier.

the Buran was a virtual copy of the US Rockwell Space Shuttle.

before I'm gonna smash your post with some arguments, tell me Matt , do you red any book about the Buran? Or just a single godd**mn article? Or it's the same Cold War sterotypes?

I don't give a flipping rip about your 'laws of aerodynamics' suposedly forcing the brilliant Russian engineers into a common airframe.

The Buran vehicle is virtually the same size, same mission, same etc,

You have explained it by yourself. The same narrow very specialised mission profile = the same aerodynamics. Why F1 cars are looking the same? Why the a310 is hardly distinguishable from the B737? why are all SSTs, Tu-144 , Concorde and cancelled Boeing 2707 looking the same?

[quote]
out of sheer expediency and laziness of novel engineering development.

Certainly the mission avionics were different for obvious reasons,

Laziness of novel engineering development ?Mission avionics? that explains it all.
Man, what're you talkin' about? With two or three really abysmal arguments you've just insulted about 2,5 mln people which were involved in the development of the Buran.

Ok, let's roll. Not a single system was identical to the respective of the Space Shuttle.
Are you aware of the fact there were about the 300 (three hundred) aerodynamic shape propotypes developed - no wonder TsaGI came to the same aerodynamic solution as the NASA.
Are you aware of the fact that Buran rather than Shuttle was not integrated into the Energia rocket and didn't start it's engines while launching? Because of that the Energia could carry other payload than a Shuttle rather than an American rocket. The booster and engines system was completely different, the fuel system was completely different. Even that single fact is enough to not to call the Buran a simple copy!
Are you aware of the fact the Energia rocket was reusable unlike the rocket of the Space Shuttle?
Are you aware of the fact that liquid fuel was used at least partially unlike in Space Shuttle?
Are you aware of the fact the termal ceramic tiles were completely different designed and placed?
Are you aware of the fact that a disaster similar to that of Columbia couldn't happen with Buran since it wasn't covered with foam?
Are you aware of the fact the Buran was equipped with the SAS - "sistema avarijnogo spasenija" - the unique crew resque system - rather than Shuttle?
etc etc etc etc
Still not enough?
I mentioned only the basic construction differencies and didn't mention the basic flight and payload characteristics - and here the Buran is also clearly superior.
Even the avionics of the Buran which according to your post the brainless Soviets would change to the copied one as soon as they got it made Buran capable of fully automatic mission profile.
So objectively speaking the Buran is as much similar to the Shuttle as the A310 or a320 is similar to the B737 - very similar in the aerodynamic shape but completely different design (FBW etc). I would say the Buran is rather far more different from its counterpart than the a320.
however, likely if Russia had those too they would also have been copied.

But what is most telling is the absolute empty engineering for such a huge endeavor. All those rubles and no improvement upon design, no change in mission profile, no discussion of payload capacity/volume???

you know Buran WAS developed for the SAME mission profile , both for military and civil purposes. And what about the payload ? Both Energia rocket and Buran rocket itself could carry more payload than the Space Shuttle.

Now contrast that with the Europeans and the Japanese and you can see some real innovation.

please name me any of the European or Japanese reusable spacecraft which was developed in the 70ies or 80ies.

This is especially true for those that know that the US Shuttle and its mission was absolutely shaped by the Department of Defense, and not just NASA civil needs only. That drove the Shuttle design into such large proportions for the ability to loft NSA payloads. These same deliberations occurred with the Russian Buran? Really?

absolutely correct! Buran was created as the MILITARY vehicle in the first line with roughly the same payload capability as the Space Shuttle, because the Soviets seen the Space Shuttle as the MILITARY vehicle in the first line. I'm too lasy to translate it by myself , but here's the explanation provided by the second man in the program W.M.Filin - use an automatic translator:

"Необходимость создания отечественной многоразовой космической системы как средства сдерживания потенциального противника была выявлена в ходе аналитических исследований, проведенных Институтом прикладной математики АН СССР и НПО "Энергия" в период 1971-75 гг. Было показано, что США, введя в эксплуатацию свою многоразовую систему "Space Shuttle", смогут получить решающее военное преимущество в плане нанесения превентивного ракетно-ядерного удара по жизненно-важным объектам на территории нашей страны".

conclusion:
The Buran was a marvelous piece of engineering just like the Space Shuttle , developed for the same mission profile ,what dictated the similarity in the aerodynamic shape but with completely different design. If the Europeans or Japanese could develop an reusable vehicle for the same mission profile it would probably look the same. So such comments like

I don't give a flipping rip about your 'laws of aerodynamics' suposedly forcing the brilliant Russian engineers into a common airframe.

only show, shall we say, the lackness of information and unobjectivity dictated by some Cold War stereotypes.

It sure as hell looked like a Space Shuttle.

you know Adler, it's not an argument. See above. When the Europeans create almost identical aircrafts , somehow nobody screams "copy,copy"

"The development of the Buran began in the early 1970s as a response to the U.S. Space Shuttle program. While the Soviet engineers favoured a smaller, lighter lifting body vehicle, the military leadership pushed for a direct, full scale copy of the double-delta wing Space Shuttle, in an effort to maintain the strategic parity between the superpowers."

wikipedia, I suggest? Any quote?
The truth is somehow different and not that simple. The first variant of the Buran - OS-120 ,



developed in the 1975 was indeed a complete copy of the Space Shuttle - similar engine and booster design , similar launch concept etc. But it also borrowed the same disadvantages as the Space Shuttle design like
- launch without a second stage
-poor aerodynamic coefficient of the big main engines of the vehicle itself, which causes the bigger weight of the whole construcion and the lesser weight possible (that's why the Shuttle could never lift the full payload weight)
that's why it was abandoned in the same year.
Here's the link to an outstanding article about this abandoned project ,unfortunately in Russan only . But a must-read for all those who want to dig deeper in the Buran's history and not just repeat old stereotypes:
ïÒÂÉÔÁÌØÎÙÊ ËÏÒÁÂÌØ ïC-120 (ÌÅÔÏ 1975 Ç.)

now look at the difference between the OS-120 form and the final Buran form (project OK-92):



At the same time another concept was developed , the MTK-VP




here's the complete article:
é.áÆÁÎÁÓØÅ×. íôëë Ó ×ÅÒÔÉËÁÌØÎÏÊ ÐÏÓÁÄËÏÊ
it had a lot of advantages ,but also a single but neverthless big disadvantage dictated by its aerodynamic shape - big temperature during the reentry (more than 1900 celsisus) what made the reusing almost impossible or barely thinkable.

After both projects were abandoned, another variant was developed by NPO Molniya - project 305-1


but it was abandoned as well due to unsufficient payload capability and the same reentry temperature issue.

And only then the final shape was introduced, OK-92 or Buran. So that was the story. Far from copying, right?
Here's the great article abouth the Buran , by far the best in the Web :
ëÏÓÍÉÞÅÓËÉÊ ËÏÒÁÂÌØ âõòáî

Sorry Ramirezz but let be honest with hourselfs. The Russians had a habit of copying everything they got their hands on, just like China.

This is an stereotyped and insulting Cold War minded statement Adler, and you know it. In the whole history of the Soviet aviation only a single western plane was copied - the B-29 Superfortress. Direct Stalin's order, no doubt. And the clever one I believe. Our land was ruined by the war and we simply didn't have time to construct our own strategic bomber in one year.
There was a lot of Western equipment which fell into Russian hands but only a single piece was copied. That was about it.
The Chinese instead made complete reverse-engineered models of almost all Soviet types which were in their hands - not a similar exterior but different design but virtually identical planes. Feel the difference?

C-47 Skytrain vs. Lisunov Li-2

lol Adler are you serious ? Li-2 was a licensed version of the DC-3. To call the Russians the copycats here is virtually the same as to accuse the Canada to copy the F-18 with their CF-86

[Ramirezzz]

oops the last sentence should be read as "accuse the Canada of copying the the Sabre with their CF-86"
those foreign languages..

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Ramirezzz

This is an stereotyped and insulting Cold War minded statement Adler, and you know it.

No I disagree with you. I find that the fact that you dont see the truth very insulting and Soviet minded, and you know it. There is no way that they can look exactly the same and not be copied. I will not deny that it has different technology in it, but the basic design is the same. You can not say that it is because of aerodynamic theory. They took the idea from the Americans and made their own design, and you know it.

You see it can go both ways?

Originally Posted by Ramierezzz

lol Adler are you serious ? Li-2 was a licensed version of the DC-3. To call the Russians the copycats here is virtually the same as to accuse the Canada to copy the F-18 with their CF-86

I will give you that.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Lets see Ramirezzz, here is some things that I believe. Why? because I would believe the New York Times from 1988 before I would believe Cold War Soviet information.

Pay attention to the bold sections.

"Soviet Design Appears In Debt to U.S. Shuttle

By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD
Published: November 16, 1988

LEAD: American experts believe there are no fundamental differences in design, capability and function between the American space shuttle and the Soviet version that made its first test flight yesterday.

American experts believe there are no fundamental differences in design, capability and function between the American space shuttle and the Soviet version that made its first test flight yesterday.

Official photographs of the Soviet shuttle, first released in September, and drawings prepared earlier by United States intelligence analysts show a craft that is virtually identical in shape and size with the American re-usable orbiters. The similarities extend from the delta wings and vertical tail structures to cargo bays with roughly the same payload capacities. Even the paint job, white with black trim, is much the same.

The strong resemblance has raised questions about whether Soviet engineers came up with their design for a shuttle orbiter independently or copied American plans.

In a report last year on Soviet military power, the Defense Department said: ''Soviet orbiter development has been heavily dependent on U.S. orbiter propulsion, computer, materials and airframe design technology. By using U.S. technology and designs, the Soviets were able to produce an orbiter years earlier, and at far less cost, than if they had depended on their own technology.'' Similar Functions Cited

Soviet space officials, acknowledging the similiarities, contend that they are inevitable because both shuttles were designed to serve much the same function, ferrying people and cargos into low earth orbit, then returning to a runway landing. (This is Bullshit and you know it)

But American specialists in the Soviet space program question this explanation. They point out that American engineers considered several quite distinct designs, including those with marketly different wing and fuselage configurations, before settling on the one adopted in the early 1970's.

''The fact that the Soviets picked a design identical to ours can't be coincidental,'' said Nicholas L. Johnson, a specialist on Soviet space technology on the staff of Brown Teledyne Engineering Corporation in Colorado Springs, Colo. ''There's no doubt they took advantage of a vast amount of engineering development that went into ours.''

Mr. Johnson declined to comment on whether any stolen designs or equipment might have figured in the Soviet shuttle program.

''I don't think stealing was necessary,'' he said. ''A lot of the information was unclassified and open, if you knew where to look.'' Differences in Boosters

One major difference between the American and Soviet shuttles lies in the booster rockets. The Soviet orbiter has no large rocket engines of its own but does have small maneuvering rockets that also help in reaching orbit. Almost all the propulsion is provided by the giant Energiya rocket, which can hoist at least 220,000 pounds into low earth orbit.

The American shuttle has three main permanent hydrogen-fueled engines. They provide the final thrust toward orbit, after two solid-fuel booster rockets are jettisoned.

The Energiya rocket, which was designed to launch both shuttles and unmanned cargo craft, has four main engines fueled by liquid hydrogen and oxygen and four strap-on rockets that burn kerosene and liquid oxygen. Only the strap-on rockets are re-usable.

''From a capability standpoint, this doesn't make any real difference,'' Mr. Johnson said. ''The Soviets made the decision to throw the engines away. Still, having them on the Energiya rather than on the orbiter doesn't seem to give them any advantage in boost capability. They can put 100 metric tons in low earth orbit. Our shuttle can boost 100 to 110 metric tons.'' Problem in First Test

The launching of the Soviet shuttle, named Buran, Russian for snowstorm or blizzard, is the second test of an Energiya rocket. When the rocket was first tested, in May 1987, its dummy payload failed to reach its planned orbit. The trouble lay in the payload's propulsion, not in the Energiya.

Speculation about a possible Soviet shuttle began a decade ago. But not until last spring did Soviet officials acknowledge that such a craft would be tested ''in the nearest future.'' It was once thought that the Russians were racing to launch theirs before the redesigned American shuttle returned to service. But the Discovery flew in late September in the first American shuttle mission since the Challenger explosion in January 1986, which killed seven astronauts.

Problems with the automated landing system may have been one reason the Soviet shuttle was not tested sooner, some American experts said. By last spring, Mr. Johnson said, the Russians had conducted at least 20 landing tests, and they ''may not have been completely successful.''

Engineers familiar with the American shuttle said that an automated landing is an extremely difficult technical problem. Although computers handle most of an American shuttle's operations, astronauts take control in the final approach to landing. Sign of Advanced Computers

''If the Russians pull off a successful automated landing, my hat's off to them,'' Bill McInnis, an engineer who formerly worked for the National Aeronautincs and Space Administration, said before yesterday's flight. ''The first conclusion I would draw is that their technology is a lot more sophisticated than we have been led to believe. It means they have a much more extensive on-board computation capability than they've demonstrated in the past.''

While the Buran was designed for fully automated flight, at least one Soviet astronaut, Igor Volk, is known to be preparing to fly the shuttle on future missions and has participated in some landing tests.

By contrast, the American shuttles carried crews from the start, partly to speed up testing of the much-delayed program. Flying without astronauts would have required extensive alterations in the computer software to respond to radio beacons along the route.

Some earlier descriptions of the Soviet shuttle, based on fragmentary reports, indicated that the vehicle had jet engines that allowed greater maneuverability on landing. Early designs of the American shuttle included such engines, but they were eliminated to save weight and reduce the cost. Engines Used for Tests

But like the United States' shuttle, American experts have concluded, the Soviet craft must glide back without power. If it ever completed its re-entry without enough energy to reach the runway or was swept off-course by crosswinds, it would have no engines to correct the course or to fly around and try again.

The reports about engines originated because the Soviets had to use engines to perform some tests. Mr. Johnson said the Soviet Union has no aircraft capable of carrying the shuttle to an altitude high enough for the tests, for which the United States used a 747 jumbo jet.

A Soviet shuttle that was seen in some pictures mounted to a Bison bomber was probably not a fully equipped vehicle.

Experts say they have seen photographic evidence of four Soviet shuttles. It is not clear how they will be used, though eventually they will probably haul people and cargo to an orbiting space station being planned for the 1990's, the Soviets have indicated. The current Mir station will probably continue to rely on the expendable Soyuz spacecraft for its ferry service.

Soviet newspapers report that each shuttle could carry 6 to 10 people. At 120 feet, the Soviet craft is three feet shorter than its American counterpart. Smaller Vehicle Developed

The Pentagon has said that the Russians are also developing a class of smaller, two-person re-usable space planes for swift access to orbit. At least five small models have been tested in orbit and the full craft is expected to make its first test flight in two or three years.

As designed now, American engineers said, the Buran does not have a docking module to link with a space station. But such a connecting unit could probably be installed in a cargo bay at the aft of the crew compartment. This is where future American shuttles will be modified for docking with a space station that is being planned for the mid-1990s.

In view of the generally conservative testing philosophy of the Soviet space program, the first manned flight of Buran may not come for at least a year, experts said. Another unmanned test might come first.

In a recent article in Aerospace America, a publication of the non-Government American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, James E. Oberg, an authority on the Soviet space program at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, wrote that ''the appearance of a few cosmonauts in orbit'' aboard a shuttle ''does not mean that such vehicles will quickly supplant the tried-and-true current stable of manned hardware.''[/i]

[Ramirezzz]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

No I disagree with you. I find that the fact that you dont see the truth very insulting and Soviet minded, and you know it. There is no way that they can look exactly the same and not be copied.

define "exactly" then. Even if we're talkin' about the aerodynamic shape, I find there are enough differencies in the exterior design to not to call it a "copy".
Does the profile a310 look exactly the same as b737? Probably. they're some minor differencies but all in one it's just the same profile. It doesn't make it to a copy though.
Does the B2707 look exactly the same as Concorde or Tu-144? Probably. There're also some minor differencies but all in one it's the same shape. Guess why.
Does the Ferrari look exactly like a McLaren? Very true. Copy? Not at all.
Now you see, the same very narrow specialized purpose dictates very same a/d shapes. You need a fast race car - it's no way you can build it otherwise as Formula1 or Indy cars. You need a big fast strategic bomber? Here you are - look at the profiles of the B-1B and Tu-160.
So can we speak about a "copying" when somebody while achieving the very same task comes to the same technical conclusion? I would say no.

I will not deny that it has different technology in it, but the basic design is the same. You can not say that it is because of aerodynamic theory. They took the idea from the Americans and made their own design, and you know it.

Ok, here're some vaild points! If you're talkin' about the borrowing or copying the concept or the idea ,that's definitely true! Russians or Soviet army needed an exactly counterpart of the Space Shuttle - same payload, same abilities , same mission profile. So what is actually a basic design? All modern passenger jets share the same basic design , what doesn't make them to copies of each other either.

You see it can go both ways?

in that way - sure!

Lets see Ramirezzz, here is some things that I believe. Why? because I would believe the New York Times from 1988 before I would believe Cold War Soviet information.

Now THAT makes me somehow worrying How's that? What Cold War Soviet information? Do you took a look at the link at all? I provide you with the BEST online research available , all facts, all history of Buran's development from the very beginning, almost all what you need to know about it - and you call it Cold War Soviet information? The articles on this site are all written in the deep 2000ies, using open data from archives etc.
Ok, I know there's very little information about the Buran available in English - but it's not my fault. I translated some main basic points, but I give up for the rest. Try to use the automatic translator, hope it helps.
And the New York Times from the 1988 as a source about the Buran - this is ridiculous! What's is stated here - it's only suggestions! They simply didn't had a clue!
Its kinda of quoting the Daily Mail from the 1942 while discussing in the 2008 the abilities of the Fw-190. Makes no sence at all.
Just a few points:

But American specialists in the Soviet space program question this explanation. They point out that American engineers considered several quite distinct designs, including those with marketly different wing and fuselage configurations, before settling on the one adopted in the early 1970's.

of course they did! Just like the Soviets! The Sovs picked about 300 designs before setting on the OK-92!

take a look here (the photo is copyrighted so I can't post a direct link):

http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/variants.jpg - only few of them.

Official photographs of the Soviet shuttle, first released in September, and drawings prepared earlier by United States intelligence analysts show a craft that is virtually identical in shape and size with the American re-usable orbiters. The similarities extend from the delta wings and vertical tail structures to cargo bays with roughly the same payload capacities. Even the paint job, white with black trim, is much the same.

''The fact that the Soviets picked a design identical to ours can't be coincidental,''

ofcourse it wasn't. The same task= the same research =the same profile. Anyone would come to the same design.

''From a capability standpoint, this doesn't make any real difference,'' Mr. Johnson said. ''The Soviets made the decision to throw the engines away.
Still, having them on the Energiya rather than on the orbiter doesn't seem to give them any advantage in boost capability.

Well THAT'S a BS and Mr Johnson as no amateur in the spacecraft engineering knew it exactly. I already mentioned why:

- launch without a second stage
-poor aerodynamic coefficient of the big main engines of the vehicle itself, which causes the bigger weight of the whole construcion and the lesser weight possible (that's why the Shuttle could never lift the full payload weight)
-the lower LtD ratio caused by the placing the main engines on the vehicle itself - 7.0 against 5.5 of the Shuttle.
-it's no way you can travel to the Moon with that engines configuration like on the Shuttle
-I'm failing to translate this one : "необходимость передачи тягового усилия от маршевых ЖРД дополнительно нагружает фюзеляж , что увеличивает его массу и массу всего корабля в целом;"

so there're PLENTY of disadvantages when having the main engines on the vehicle , and the NASA as well as Mr. Johnson knew it exactly. But I suggest it's always easier to critisize the outdated Soviet design which is only capable of stealing from the Americans over an over again than create an explanation to the tax-payers why these poor Russians could achive another technical wonder with their shrinking budjet .

They can put 100 metric tons in low earth orbit. Our shuttle can boost 100 to 110 metric tons.''

I can't even call this a BS - they could barely knew the true abilites of the Energia. In fact it could put not 100 , but 200 tons!

Soviet space officials, acknowledging the similiarities, contend that they are inevitable because both shuttles were designed to serve much the same function, ferrying people and cargos into low earth orbit, then returning to a runway landing."

So quite objectively speaking I do believe that here we must give a point to the Soviet space officals.

[Matt308]

Your defending the novel Buran design by quoting a notional MVP-TK space craft? The Buran was so superior that is was an "abandoned" hanger queen.

Nobody's knocking the Russian space capabilities Ramirezzz. Don't get your panties in a bind.

Same mission leads to same design.

[Matt308]

...and the Russian development?