Actually, the Soviets managed to get their hands on some British heavy bombers during WW2. They were given a worn out Short Stirling for evaluation, salvaged a couple of Avro Lancasters that had crashed on Soviet territory and possibly a Handley Page Halifax.
I think the important thing to remember is that the USSR and ourselves were continually creating more technologically advanced aircraft because of the threat of each other, whether real or perceived. Both made leaps in Aviation designs, and both had , and have weapons systems that are both awesome and intimidating. I appreciate aircraft in general....Flying Artwork!
The TU-4 is the only true unlicensed copy of an American design, and ever since we Americans have been smug in our self-assuredness that all Russian designs are mere inferior knock-offs of western counterparts. This is not true. Some Russian designs were influenced by western designs, but this is true of many designs in all countries (for example, the swept wings of the MiG-15 influenced the swept wings of the F86. However on the whole, each country has its own designs for its own needs.
@DandAinTac well a good 50% of there stuff is a copy of U.S and other such thing. like the havoc chopper, there first version of a close range missile was a copy of the side winder. they have a copy of a C-130. etc etc. the F-86 and the Mig-15 are almost the same cause there of German designs,
@Dogmeat1950 I must disagree. The only clear-cut unlicensed copy is the TU-4 Bull. After that, the only aviation designs that have or may have some influence include (I'll use NATO code names), the shuttle Buran, the Sukhoi PAK-FA (F-22), the Blackjack (B-1), the Fencer and Backfire (influenced by F-111), the TU-144 (Concorde), and this is a stretch, but maybe the Condor (C-5), Candid (C-141). I see no Russian copy of the C-131--please cite, and I do not think the Hokum is a copy. (continued)
@Dogmeat1950 ...on the other hand, the following appear to be unique designs, and this is just post WW2: Bear, Badger, Fagot, Fencer, Flagon, Foxbat (possibly some Vigilante influence) Fulcrum, Foxhound, Fishpot, Fitter, Frogfoot, Madge, Mallow, Mail, Forger, Flashlight, Fresco, Freestyle, Helix, Harp, Fiddler, Farmer, Blinder, Flanker, Bounder, Beagle, Fiddler, Fresco, and probably every missile except for the one copy you listed--I could go on and on with trainers, cargo, airliners, etc.
The reason the American SST didn't go ahead was that it didn't (and doesn't) make economic sense. The British and French could get it to make sense by having the development funded by the government, and by making it a premium service. By the end (and due to the fact that neither British Airways nor Air France paid the development costs), the Concorde was profitable. As for the Tu-144, it was in every sense a failure. That's why it was withdrawn so quickly.
The Americans can, and have figured out contra-rotating propellers. They aren't that complex, and are (arguably) not necessary on pretty much all propeller driven aircraft. The reason the Russians had to use turboprops to get similar range and endurance to the B-52 was that Russian jet engines were not as efficient as American engines.
Actually all three SSTs were being designed at roughly the same time, the TU-144 in USSR, Concorde in western Europe and boeing was designing one in the US. The boeing design never got beyond a full scale mock-up, maybe the writing for an SST was on the wall before anyone knew it...
Interestingly all three designs used a slightly different wing, the double delta in boeings case
What you people need to relize is that Russia had and Has best spies in the world. Hence why so many russian planes look very similar to the western Powers.
That's not quite right! It's not cheaper! The Boeing 767 costs between 127 and 173 million US$. The B-52 costs only 53 million US$. You're badly informed.
Div303: The reason Soviet aircraft look similar to Western aircraft isn't because they were spying on us, it is convergent evolution. That's what you need to realise before lecturing others on what they need to realise.
F777GUN: Tu95 isn't part american, but it probably takes some influence from an american design.
The Americans have nothing like the TU-95. Dumb Americans could not figure out the counter rotating props. Mp-44 looks the same as an AK-47 but they are completely different when you look at its components. That's why the AK is still around and the MP is not. For some one who is really misinformed, the concord was a Russian design sold to the French by the Russians. It was to expensive to produce and maintain. Everyone still uses Rus carrier rockets to put shit in space, the shuttle is a toy.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Yeah, the Russians also make lovely gems such as the IL-62 and the Tu-134, AKA flying coffins. Russians still don't have anything to compete with the F-22 raptor and that plane has been around for more than 10 years now...you have been schooled, sit down son.
The Russians don't have anything that competes with the F-22...but do they even need anything? No, because the cold war is over. You have been schooled, sit down son.
Concorde was not designed by the Soviets. It was created by the British together with French. Although it does has similare apperence to the TU 144, it has several design differences. Deep in cold war, it is highly douptful that the Soviets would sell the French a design to a revolutionary aircraft. With all of this, it is important to remeber that the cold war wasn't the US against USSR, it was between the Warsaw Pact nations and the NATO nations.
Does anyone know the composer of the music that begins at the 1:53 mark? I love that piece and have been searching for quite some time. Any help is appreciated.
Actually, the Soviets managed to get their hands on some British heavy bombers during WW2. They were given a worn out Short Stirling for evaluation, salvaged a couple of Avro Lancasters that had crashed on Soviet territory and possibly a Handley Page Halifax.
stormwell 6 months ago
I love how they use the "Great Gate of Kiev" in the music background, it gives me goosebumps every time!
ReiAyanami4ever 11 months ago
agree
besidurshadow 1 year ago
I think the important thing to remember is that the USSR and ourselves were continually creating more technologically advanced aircraft because of the threat of each other, whether real or perceived. Both made leaps in Aviation designs, and both had , and have weapons systems that are both awesome and intimidating. I appreciate aircraft in general....Flying Artwork!
afretired04 1 year ago
3:00 what a propaganda... upside down with facts
Cathonius 1 year ago
when he went "Krush-CHOF!", he was like "I've had enough of shits pronouncing the guy's name wrong!" lol.
faokim 1 year ago
Priceless!! No modern strategic bomber has ever been able to match the sheer terror caused by 3 boing 767's.. Love it!! R&D=POS
rotorpilot82 1 year ago
The TU-4 is the only true unlicensed copy of an American design, and ever since we Americans have been smug in our self-assuredness that all Russian designs are mere inferior knock-offs of western counterparts. This is not true. Some Russian designs were influenced by western designs, but this is true of many designs in all countries (for example, the swept wings of the MiG-15 influenced the swept wings of the F86. However on the whole, each country has its own designs for its own needs.
DandAinTac 1 year ago
@DandAinTac well a good 50% of there stuff is a copy of U.S and other such thing. like the havoc chopper, there first version of a close range missile was a copy of the side winder. they have a copy of a C-130. etc etc. the F-86 and the Mig-15 are almost the same cause there of German designs,
Dogmeat1950 1 year ago
@Dogmeat1950 I must disagree. The only clear-cut unlicensed copy is the TU-4 Bull. After that, the only aviation designs that have or may have some influence include (I'll use NATO code names), the shuttle Buran, the Sukhoi PAK-FA (F-22), the Blackjack (B-1), the Fencer and Backfire (influenced by F-111), the TU-144 (Concorde), and this is a stretch, but maybe the Condor (C-5), Candid (C-141). I see no Russian copy of the C-131--please cite, and I do not think the Hokum is a copy. (continued)
DandAinTac 1 year ago
@Dogmeat1950 ...on the other hand, the following appear to be unique designs, and this is just post WW2: Bear, Badger, Fagot, Fencer, Flagon, Foxbat (possibly some Vigilante influence) Fulcrum, Foxhound, Fishpot, Fitter, Frogfoot, Madge, Mallow, Mail, Forger, Flashlight, Fresco, Freestyle, Helix, Harp, Fiddler, Farmer, Blinder, Flanker, Bounder, Beagle, Fiddler, Fresco, and probably every missile except for the one copy you listed--I could go on and on with trainers, cargo, airliners, etc.
DandAinTac 1 year ago
I'm loving that musical at 1:54!!
xTomcatsForeverVF84x 1 year ago
The reason the American SST didn't go ahead was that it didn't (and doesn't) make economic sense. The British and French could get it to make sense by having the development funded by the government, and by making it a premium service. By the end (and due to the fact that neither British Airways nor Air France paid the development costs), the Concorde was profitable. As for the Tu-144, it was in every sense a failure. That's why it was withdrawn so quickly.
Sheriff001 1 year ago
The Americans can, and have figured out contra-rotating propellers. They aren't that complex, and are (arguably) not necessary on pretty much all propeller driven aircraft. The reason the Russians had to use turboprops to get similar range and endurance to the B-52 was that Russian jet engines were not as efficient as American engines.
Sheriff001 1 year ago
I love the way he says "code named by NATO BULL!!!" 2:43
macuss87 1 year ago
Actually all three SSTs were being designed at roughly the same time, the TU-144 in USSR, Concorde in western Europe and boeing was designing one in the US. The boeing design never got beyond a full scale mock-up, maybe the writing for an SST was on the wall before anyone knew it...
Interestingly all three designs used a slightly different wing, the double delta in boeings case
KimmurielBaenre 2 years ago 2
What you people need to relize is that Russia had and Has best spies in the world. Hence why so many russian planes look very similar to the western Powers.
Div303 2 years ago
vulcan bomber for the win
MrBrick2theface 2 years ago 2
The Americans have built the best bombers of all time! B-29, B-52, B-1 and B-2 are unequaled!
cyberarmy007 2 years ago
If what this video says is true. Then the tu-95 is part american!
G777GUN 2 years ago
The Soviets took the Tu-4 (captured American B-29) design
and modified it considerably
ironroad18 2 years ago
congratulations...
rotorpilot82 2 years ago
@rotorpilot82
Thank you!
cyberarmy007 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
i prefer the damage a 767 does hitting a few buildings... much cheaper... more effective...
rotorpilot82 2 years ago
That's not quite right! It's not cheaper! The Boeing 767 costs between 127 and 173 million US$. The B-52 costs only 53 million US$. You're badly informed.
cyberarmy007 2 years ago
Correction...
Flights to the US - $1200
Flying Lessons in the US - $500
Cross Country Flights - $400
Box Cutter - $1.25
Crashing a stolen 767 into your enemies heartland - Priceless!!
rotorpilot82 2 years ago
Lol, I like your style.
Div303: The reason Soviet aircraft look similar to Western aircraft isn't because they were spying on us, it is convergent evolution. That's what you need to realise before lecturing others on what they need to realise.
F777GUN: Tu95 isn't part american, but it probably takes some influence from an american design.
vodkasvictim 1 year ago
@rotorpilot82 is that some kind of sick joke?
Dogmeat1950 1 year ago
@rotorpilot82 non linear thinking, but I think now NSA will be on your ass....at least electronically.
52111centrumcz 9 months ago
God you people are stupid. Arguing over whose country's technology is better.
beerbeastredux 2 years ago 43
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Man, what DIDN'T Russians copy?
Tu-95 = B-29
AK-47 = MP-44
Tu-144("Concordski") = Concord
Buran = American Shuttle
the list goes on.
Amerikaner25 3 years ago
The Americans have nothing like the TU-95. Dumb Americans could not figure out the counter rotating props. Mp-44 looks the same as an AK-47 but they are completely different when you look at its components. That's why the AK is still around and the MP is not. For some one who is really misinformed, the concord was a Russian design sold to the French by the Russians. It was to expensive to produce and maintain. Everyone still uses Rus carrier rockets to put shit in space, the shuttle is a toy.
Supafly1st 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Yeah, the Russians also make lovely gems such as the IL-62 and the Tu-134, AKA flying coffins. Russians still don't have anything to compete with the F-22 raptor and that plane has been around for more than 10 years now...you have been schooled, sit down son.
AdamJLemon 2 years ago
The Russians don't have anything that competes with the F-22...but do they even need anything? No, because the cold war is over. You have been schooled, sit down son.
nicck 2 years ago 3
pakfa?
RussianGanster255 2 years ago
Concorde was not designed by the Soviets. It was created by the British together with French. Although it does has similare apperence to the TU 144, it has several design differences. Deep in cold war, it is highly douptful that the Soviets would sell the French a design to a revolutionary aircraft. With all of this, it is important to remeber that the cold war wasn't the US against USSR, it was between the Warsaw Pact nations and the NATO nations.
eversdavid777 2 years ago 14
The TU 144 did come first though
Supafly1st 2 years ago
It may have come first, but that doesn't mean that Concorde was of Soviet design.
eversdavid777 2 years ago
Holla, so i can shoot you down again. I had to hold back due to the word limit.
Supafly1st 3 years ago
list of things not copied by the russians:
T-34, T-55, T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80
dejawolf 3 years ago
ignorance is bliss eh...... lol
Sulley420 3 years ago
No it is not red october. It is Mussorgsky's Promenade just in a different key.
jaredgrau 3 years ago
correct its in D minor, this is the 4th Promenade, that follows Bydlo
Tarv1 2 years ago
Very good job done on this video and the explanation that it showed us. Thank you for this video!
NUSRPKINA 3 years ago
Does anyone know the composer of the music that begins at the 1:53 mark? I love that piece and have been searching for quite some time. Any help is appreciated.
jericoone 3 years ago
Music is Red October
prototype747 3 years ago