Dogsauce
I’ve got Skol but I’m not a Scholar
Trouble is, captured stinger missiles etc. would be perfect for a false flag to incriminate Ukraine and western backers, so any airline will not want to be anywhere near the current firepit.
The Russian Aviation Industry
- Thread starter steveseagull
- Start date
SpookyFrank
Float like a caterpillar, sting like a tree
Not going to be a good look for airlines wanting to lease aircraft in future either.
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
Perhaps they have a few mothballed Il-86s they could use, Iran managed for ages with 727s.
_Russ_
Never not Knowingly Misunderstood
Thread title perhaps a little misleading, you seem to be talking specifically about the Airline/travel Industry.
Re: aviation industry as a whole, Russia still has a very large market for its Military aircraft, though appreciate that may change.
I wonder about the Space side?, is the west still reliant on Russian launch vehicles for its manned space flights to the ISS?, I know Western commercial Space flight is advancing fast but not sure its there yet.
Overall I think the Future of Russia's aviation industry outside of commercial travel depends on whether India and China change their relationships, Turkey is a wildcard as ever and I think will always play both sides
Re: aviation industry as a whole, Russia still has a very large market for its Military aircraft, though appreciate that may change.
I wonder about the Space side?, is the west still reliant on Russian launch vehicles for its manned space flights to the ISS?, I know Western commercial Space flight is advancing fast but not sure its there yet.
Overall I think the Future of Russia's aviation industry outside of commercial travel depends on whether India and China change their relationships, Turkey is a wildcard as ever and I think will always play both sides
A380
How do I change this 'custom title' thing then?
You shoot down two civilian airliners murdering their passengers and crew. And somehow you’re the baddy…
Last edited:
existentialist
Things Done
I think the thread title is broad enough.
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
Fly to Qatar or Bahrain and the world's your oyster. Many long-haul travelers would choose to go via those hubs anyway
A bigger barrier for most Russians is going to be paying for the flights in the first place.
A bigger barrier for most Russians is going to be paying for the flights in the first place.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
The only other crewed vehicle flying is SpaceX's Dragon 2, which has already flown many people to the space station. Boeing's Starliner has had one uncrewed test flight which nearly failed. They're yet to return to flight. SpaceX easily has capacity to rotate all non-Russian crew to the ISS, but it's not great to only rely on one supplier.
The ISS does rely on the Russian segment, and Russian Progress cargo ships to re-boost the station's orbit, but this can be done by Northrup's Cygnus. Trouble is that it only flies on Atlas V, which is out of production and all remaining rockets booked or Antares, which uses Russian engines and the first stage is built in Ukraine. It could be modified to fly on SpaceX Falcon. There's not a tremendous rush; the orbit decays only slowly so there's time to come up with a fix.
Roscosmos posted this joke film about detaching the Russian modules and letting the rest burn up:
Last edited:
_Russ_
Never not Knowingly Misunderstood
Thats what I said.... the title is broad the discussion was not so much, I made an attempt to broaden it
NoXion
You remain unbroken, for your fight... is Eternal
It's not a completely crazy idea. At least one prototype was built and flown back in 1933: A Steam-Powered Airplane, Anyone? - FLYING Magazine
With modern materials science and design engineering, the potential performance envelope might be widened a bit. Probably not enough to compete militarily, but potentially good enough for freight and passenger work.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Is it really, or is this just your speculation?
Are you suggesting they'd be powered with coal?
2hats
Dust.
Stringfellow's aerial steam carriage and steam-powered monoplane, 1848.
Aerial steam carriage - Wikipedia
NoXion
You remain unbroken, for your fight... is Eternal
I'm not claiming any expertise, just guessing based off what I know about the performance of steam engines versus other kinds of combustion engine. Steam engines seem like they would have a disadvantage in terms of power-to-weight distribution. This disadvantage may be ameliorated to some degree by the use of lighter modern materials.
Steam engines can be powered by anything that burns. They're combustion engines after all. It doesn't have to be coal. I believe that there are some Swiss mountain railways that use oil-burning steam engines. This oil need not be petrochemical in derivation.
NoXion
You remain unbroken, for your fight... is Eternal
Stringfellow's aerial steam carriage and steam-powered monoplane, 1848.
Aerial steam carriage - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I believe that gets mentioned in the article I linked - no working example was built, unlike the 1933 design.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
I don't see how they have any advantage over other kinds of combustion engine unless they can use a fuel that the alternatives can't. A steam engine has to carry around the weight of all the water in addition to the actual fuel itself.
NoXion
You remain unbroken, for your fight... is Eternal
I didn't mention steam having any advantages over other combustion engines. Rather the opposite.
I've emboldened the relevant part, in case you were having any difficulties.
Please actually read my posts, rather than engaging in your usual fucking tedious shit troll behaviour. Thanks very much.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
I was responding to your original post which said they might be "good enough for freight and passenger work" which doesn't make any sense to me unless they are at least as good as alternatives.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
as soon ask the sun to stop shining or the dog to stop shitting
NoXion
You remain unbroken, for your fight... is Eternal
What's good depends on context. I don't know why anyone in California was working on steam planes back in the 1930s, although apparently the Soviets were looking into the matter at roughly the same period, even though internal combustion engines were already a mature technology by that point. We don't see any steam powered planes in commercial service right now, for reasons that hopefully should be obvious. But the transition to a post-fossil fuels world seems likely to be one in which highly refined aviation fuel becomes cripplingly expensive, if not non-existent (barring of course developments such as widespread fusion power, which would allow for the relatively cheap synthesis of fuel). In which case fuel flexibility might become worth the loss in performance.
2hats
Dust.
There certainly was a working model that flew.
2hats
Dust.
All going swimmingly.
Meanwhile, a little broomstick action earlier today.
SpaceX launches Starlink satellites on 'American broomstick' and lands rocket at sea
The used Falcon 9 lofted 48 Starlink satellites into orbit on its 4th trip to space.
existentialist
Things Done
There are 296,000 of them. It's just that the stealth ability is so great that even they can't see more than 4.
#obviousjokeisobvious
gosub
~#
Air Serbia still flying to Moscow.
www.theguardian.com
Russians using Serbian loophole to avoid EU flights ban
Air Serbia has doubled flights between Moscow and Belgrade as country’s planes can cross EU airspace
