SheikhDjibouti wrote:

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

I despair for the lack of variety with today's machines. Between Boeing and Airbus, from the A318 right up to the B777, they are all just ...so alike!

oldannyboy wrote:

Amen!

(I have brutally edited my original post, so I'm hoping the "Amen!" still applies)

Moving on...Let’s see if I can summarise the last 12 hours on this thread;

Several posters reminded us “Form follows function”
The Tu-144 was either a blatant copy of Concorde, or it borrowed ideas from the Boeing 2707 SST, or it was a unique Russian design. Take your pick!
The PS-84/ Lisunov Li-2 was a licensed copy of the DC-3, and even though it saw military service, it was not a copy of the C-47. (yes, I’m being pedantic, but I’m smiling too)

In post #24 Btblue provided us with some gorgeous photos of the visually similar Tu114 & Bae ATP. For that matter, the SAAB 340 looks like a ¾-scale model of the pair.

Going back to the three decades that the original HS748 was in production, only the YS-11 came close , and yet it seems such an “obvious” design. Up until then, Convair originally used that basic design with their piston-engined CV-240 family, but failed to follow that up with a turbine engine except for a short lived production run of CV-580/CV-640. This left an obvious gap.
In the end, the only competition was between the F27 and the HS748, and whilst nobody here would describe them as similar, from an airline operational viewpoint they fulfilled exactly the same function. When is a copy not a copy? (and yes, I know the F27 came first)

Then we have two or three posters who have a really low opinion of anything Russian. My thanks to b747400erf for his response. Xenophobia is such a lovely word!

At post #38 admanager gets the prize for noting that the DH Comet cockpit was grafted onto the SE210 Caravelle, in an era when anglo-french co-operation was a real novelty.
I'm fairly sure oldannyboy knows this too.

Patrick Z80 wrote:

“Nobody is talking about the Tu-154 here, so that's irrelevant. I was talking about the VC-10 and the IL-62”

Actually, you are wrong - several of us are talking about the Tu-154, just not in connection with the VC-10. For one thing, in case you hadn’t noticed, it’s only got three engines, which is why I bracketed it with the other two tri-jets.
Meanwhile back with the VC-10/Ilyushin IL-62 debate – check out the website mentioned in post #36 by LH707330. It is a seriously good read, and quite accurately debunks the Russian copy myth.
http://www.vc10.net/History/Comp_il62.html
If it’s any consolation, I’m sure absolutely everybody agrees with your end comment; “Can’t deny the similarity”

I suppose while we are at it, here’s another copy to consider.

If we ignore those scimitar props, did the A400M copy the Il-76. Or the C-17/C-141 family, or
the C-130/An-12 family? Or is it just another case of “Form follows function”?

Finally, here’s some pornography for oldannyboy

MaksFly wrote:

jordanh wrote:

WorldFlier wrote:

Western bullcrap. Just because something looks like something (and there may have been *some* industrial espionage), does not mean it is a COPY.

I think you contradict yourself: if there were no attempt to copy, then why the need for "some" industrial espionage? Just so someone can practice carrying secret paperwork under their trench coat?

Really?

Do you not think Boeing would not love to have full Airbus design specs or vice versa?

Knowing what your competitor is up to does not mean you are going to copy them 100% or at all. It merely gives you more information to decide if what you are working on will work out or not (competitively speaking).

Industrial espionage happens everywhere and in all industries.

WorldFlier wrote:

Just because something looks like something (and there may have been *some* industrial espionage), does not mean it is a COPY.

jordanh wrote:

I think you contradict yourself: if there were no attempt to copy, then why the need for "some" industrial espionage? Just so someone can practice carrying secret paperwork under their trench coat?

Wikipedia wrote:

Boeing President Bill Allen led a company delegation to the UK in summer 1950, where they saw the Comet fly at the Farnborough Airshow, and also visited the de Havilland factory at Hatfield, Hertfordshire where the Comets were being built.

........practicing carrying secret paperwork under their trench coats.

intrance wrote:

So this topic has kind of spiralled away from the original question... I'm pretty sure there are some decent side by side pics. Today I taxied in at Tallinn (EETN/TLL) and a DHL/EAT 757 and a Russian Post TU-204 were sitting cozy on adjacent stands. Didn't grab a picture because it's fairly common so I suggest looking through some pics from Tallinn airport. Otherwise I'll try to keep an eye out.

I really don't care about who copied who or who was first.

ushermittwoch wrote:

I wonder why nobody has cried about the A350 being a B787 copy. They both have two engines and are designed for a 3-3--3 layout, right?

Kilopond wrote:

PatrickZ80 wrote:

[...]The most obvious copy however is the B-29 Superfortress / Tu-4, this is as far as I know also the only aircraft that is officially known to be a copy.[...]

Other interesting rip-offs of about that era were the B-52 (military) and the 152 (civil). Although they did not plagiarise each other, both of them were copy cats of a certain common predecessor.

Kilopond wrote:

Other interesting rip-offs of about that era were the B-52 (military) and the 152 (civil). Although they did not plagiarise each other, both of them were copy cats of a certain common predecessor.

jakubz wrote:

Wait, so is the B-52 a copy of something, or was something a copy of the B-52? Same for the 152 (and are you talking about a Cessna 152?).

ushermittwoch wrote:

I wonder why nobody has cried about the A350 being a B787 copy. They both have two engines and are designed for a 3-3--3 layout, right?