[borism]

But what about Russian ballet?

[Philistine]

And whose rockets are transporting astronauts to the International Space Station...

[Art_Chicago]

And whose rockets are transporting astronauts to the International Space Station...

good point. apparently spacecraft stuff is not interesting to discuss. I agree with Johnny2bad's observations-- it is a rare case of unbiased and technically solid post on this forum.

[a.wayne]

London , I cant disagree with most of what you say, we have many advantages here in the west ,  but less not get carried away shall we. BTW any idea what caused 3 mile island , was it a russian reactor ? Inexperienced Russian operators ..? 




I'm really glad Musk is not using  Geico

 

[londonbarn]

Haha yep,   just kidding.. Good thing about 3 mile island was   "•Some radioactive gas was released a couple of days after the accident, but not enough to cause any dose above background levels to local residents.
•There were no injuries or adverse health effects from the Three Mile Island accident."

Never said we were failsafe.. We are just usually on the forefront of cutting edge technology and things  will most certainly happen.. AND then, you learn from them...

I'm cool, I just take issue with some "dweeb" who has no clue about an event saying he is suspicious as if I am some BS er......  Yeah, I dont think so....

[londonbarn]

Haha, yes Ballet dancers and classic composers are among the best in the world...

The russky rockets are not better,  just cheaper, since rocket technology is a well known science these days, why not use them and save money.. NASA has MUCH bigger things they want to invest in  these days like going to Mars...

[a.wayne]

Russian rockets are not better  than what ..?  Surely you cant be comparing them to our current crop of 4th of July specials ....

I have to admit , you did come off in your first response as if Russian Aircrafts are  so shitty it flew into the side of a mountain, it was only in your second response did you specify pilot error,  2bad did offer up a more balanced and reasoned  response,  his BS call was on your insinuation  it was all  plane why it went into the mountain, not pilot error,  which  is  not mutually exclusive to Russian pilots mind you ,  even the French have shown they are quite capable of flying  a perfectly functioning set of wings into the Ocean at full trust , flaps up ... 


Whats your take on them ... 

[Johnny2Bad]

I have trusted my life to Single-Engined 11-passenger * DeHavilland Canada DHC-3 Otter aircraft, not dozens, not hundreds, but a few thousand times.

Many hundred of those flights were with single-row 9-cylinder Radial engines (the only engine DeHavilland used in the 700-or so Otters manufactured) measuring 1340 cubic inches and outputting about 600 HP. **

I also spent one summer when a "Polish Otter" on Floats was based in camp, which was a single-row 9-cylinder Radial conversion with full Type Certified compliance in the US, Canada, and I'm quite sure in the Caribbean, South America, and Africa where most of these aircraft still operate in Commercial service (about 400 Otters still in the air today, manufactured from early 50's to mid 60's). This engine is larger (don't recall, but think about 1800 In2) and produces 1,000 HP, which very much wakes up this Short Takeoff Or Landing (STOL) aircraft.

The PZL aircraft manufacturing plant in Poland produced this engine which quite perfectly illustrates the Soviet-era approach to manufacturing. They are robust, "too big" and put out "too much" power according to Western thought on Aircraft design.

They are considered quite reliable (I believe they have a longer Time Between Overhaul [TBO] than the Pratt&Whitney R-1340, which is 800 hours) and PZL sells Certified engines to both Russian and Western Aircraft manufacturers today.

I'm not sure what to say about Rocket Technology and who stole what from whom. I think the Germans kind of wrote the book and made good use of their resumé(s) on both sides of the "Iron Curtain", retiring out of Jail with nice pensions.

The Space Shuttle is a remarkable US Space technology, but if you have a look at the Avro Arrow (Canada) built in the late 1950's, and in a secret deal with the US, was very abruptly shut down (the three flying prototypes cut up and destroyed) and the entire design staff at Avro were summarily hired en masse by NASA immediately afterward. Check out the resemblance, either in appearance or performance.

Not saying any of the above for any reason other than to illustrate that Space Technology, if you want it, can come from simple determination and no Space Agency anywhere on Earth, Soviet or Western, ever balked at saving a bit of time by poaching personnel, Passports be damned.

I'm pretty sure the lack of a Flight Suit was due to the hasty exit of the North Korean pilot. I could be wrong; I do know and am not wrong when I say the Russians had nothing to do with the invention of it, and neither did the US. It was developed and first used in and by Canada during WWII, to control blood flow in High-G maneuvers during combat operations, which can, if un-managed, lead to loss of consciousness of the pilot or personnel aboard.

Naturally many US pilots volunteered in large numbers to fly (mostly) for Canada starting in September 1939. All US citizens serving for Canada were summarily discharged and flown immediately to a US military base upon the US entering the war in December 1941, so that they could be re-enlisted in their own military, and providing what amounted to the very limited trained and combat experienced personnel at the outset of hostilities for the US.

My father, who was born in Diluth but moved with his parents to Canada when he was 2 years old, had to formally renounce his US Citizenship to remain in the Canadian Army. *** Prior to the late 1940's, after WWII was over, to be a Canadian Citizen you simply had to reside in Canada. There was no such thing as a Canadian Passport prior to the early 1950's.

The Russians (and Chinese) continued to manufacture Vacuum Tubes for various purposes, many of them military, simply because they use what they have to get the job done. There are many jobs today, aside from what Lunatic Fringe Audiophiles and BatShit Crazy Musicians that demand "valves"; every home has one in the Microwave Oven, every Airport uses them for Radar Transmitters, so it's definitely not something the West is averse to when there is a reason.

* At 12 or more passengers, and all flight personnel count as passengers, you need a Co-Pilot on board.

** Since parts for the R-1340 are quite scarce; for example barrels are very difficult to find, and with the short TBO and the tendency to blow jugs in the air (not unusual, very rarely fatal) most Otters now have had one or another Turbo-for-Radial Engine conversion.

The most common is the venerable Pratt & Whitney Canada PT-6A (designed and built in Montreal, and is the world's most popular PropJet) slightly derated to 600 HP for extended TBO (you can go over 4,000 Hrs with borescope inspections today) but with the Variable Pitch propeller which "comes with Reverse" they are a joy to fly in comparison with the P&W Radials. I've also flown some Walter Turbo conversions, not as popular as they fly the same but burn more fuel doing it.

The "Polish Otter" on the other hand flys about the same as the Turbo engined Otters when it comes to load and takeoff distance. The lack of Reverse comes up in windy days, but it's hardly a deal-breaker. Any pilot who can't handle that is going to be unemployed soon enough.

*** I am quite proud to say he was honourably discharged in September 1945 (a few weeks more than six years after enlisting), bound for the Pacific when Japan surrendered, rank Seargant, twice wounded and twice elected to return to service after recovery. He very rarely talked about his experience (Italy, Europe landing D-Day +3) but saved a few stories for me, which quite clearly illustrated his attitude to war (" ... after I shot him, I made may way up to the position and looked into the eyes of the most beautiful, blonde, blue-eyed boy you could imagine" was one). He made it quite clear he would do it all again exactly the same, and instilled in me the "proper" sense of duty, but he never glorified war and revealed that particular memory with tears in his eyes.

[Guy 13]

I have trusted my life to Single-Engined 11-passenger * DeHavilland Canada DHC-3 Otter aircraft, not dozens, not hundreds, but a few thousand times.

Many hundred of those flights were with single-row 9-cylinder Radial engines (the only engine DeHavilland used in the 700-or so Otters manufactured) measuring 1340 cubic inches and outputting about 600 HP. **

I also spent one summer when a "Polish Otter" on Floats was based in camp, which was a single-row 9-cylinder Radial conversion with full Type Certified compliance in the US, Canada, and I'm quite sure in the Carribbean, South America, and Africa where most of these aircraft still operate in Commercial service (about 400 Otters still in the air today, manufactured from early 50's to mid 60's). This engine is larger (don't recall, but think about 1800 In2) and produces 1,000 HP, which very much wakes up this Short Takeoff Or Landing (STOL) aircraft.

The PZL aircraft manufacturing plant in Poland produced this engine which quite perfectly illustrates the Soviet-era approach to manufacturing. They are considered quite reliable (I believe they have a longer Time Between Overhaul [TBO] than the Pratt&Whitney R-1340, which is 800 hours) and PZL sells Certified engines to both Russian and Western Aircraft manufacturers today.

I'm not sure what to say about Rocket Technology and who stole what from whom. I think the Germans kind of wrote the book and made good use of their resumè(s) on both sides of the "Iron Curtain", retiring out of Jail with nice pensions.

* At 12 passengers you need a Co-Pilot on board.

** Since parts for the R-1340 are quite scarce; for example barrels are very difficult to find, and with the short TBO and the tendency to blow jugs in the air (not unusual, very rarely fatal) most Otters now have had one or another Turbo-for-Radial Engine conversion.

The most common is the venerable Pratt & Whitney Canada PT-6A (designed and built in Montreal, and is the world's most popular PropJet) slightly derated to 600 HP for extended TBO (you can go over 4,000 Hrs with borescope inspections today) but with the Variable Pitch propeller which "comes with Reverse" they are a joy to fly in comparison with the P&W Radials. I've also flown some Walter Turbo conversions, not as popular as they fly the same but burn more fuel doing it.

The "Polish Otter" on the other hand flys about the same as the Turbo engined Otters when it comes to load and takeoff distance. The lack of Reverse comes up in windy days, but it's hardly a deal-breaker. Any pilot who can't handle that is going to be unemployed soon enough.

Hi Johnny2Bad,
very interesting and informative your little long write-up.
(Thanks)
When I was working in the field of industrial combustion (Gas burners)
I had the privilege to go in the jet engine testing lab of Pratt & Withney in Longueuil (Montreal)
that's where they push the jet engine to their limits under -40C to +50C (Approximately)
The walls of the room are 3 feet thick in case the jet engine blow up...
Just wanted to share...

Guy 13
 

[Bob in St. Louis]

The Russians working in the Kirov area at the Molot factory building the VEPR12 are on my list of fellas I'd like to shake hands with.
They're some pretty cool dudes in my book. 
Suffice it to say that anything more posted by me would be a "no-no" due to forum policy.
If you're curious, have your big boy pants on, and you can handle something mean looking that society thinks is "too scary", then Google some videos of "VEPR 12".

Have a nice day. Comrade.   

[Philistine]

Coming full circle on Guy 13's OP here's a US response to out stupid the Russian's:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35516211?post_id=10152948306532791_10153265738557791

[Bob in St. Louis]

https://youtu.be/MHambDDVhFQ

[Johnny2Bad]

RE: Bob in St. Louis' video

That is one thing that always surprises me about the Russians (and to a certain extent, the Chinese who also have territory in [other than Panda] Bear Country).

They are quite frankly awesome at the Trained Bear thing. Not that I agree with such a magnificent animal reduced to a Circus Act, but still.

I have great respect for bears, and have had many encounters with Black Bears.

Hot Tip for Black Bear ... if you hit them on the nose, they wail like you've killed their first born, and run away, not to return. Normally a Black Bear that you chase away will try to sneak back, usually on a slightly different path. If you chase him away the second time he will come back on the first path, and then keep alternating until either you leave or you hit him on the nose

I once had to write an exam for a Wilderness Survival Certification and one of the questions was about what to do in a Bear encounter when you were unarmed.

The problem was they didn't specify which species of Bear. What you do in a Black Bear encounter is very different from what you would do in a Grizzly Bear encounter, so as written, every multiple-choice answer was correct but only one was graded as such.