It's not "Americans" gavor, it's just some people so full of their arrogant ignorance roadkill that they simply can't see the wood for the trees. They eagerly accuse Boroda (in this instance) in suffering from propaganda brainwash but surely sometimes one needs to look in the mirror?
American designs? Hmmm.. What's so particularly american do you find in Sikorsky helicopters? Last time I checked the great guy spoke with rather thick Russian accent until he'd died.
Or the infamous P47? Contrary to the popular luftwaffle belief Kurt Tank had nothing to do with it's design - and the designer name -Seversky - does not strike me as being of Anglo-Saxon "true American" origin either. Blimey - he was Russian! Woohoo...
Let's check later "american" stuff: Google... Belkin - that's just from the top of my head.
As for
I saw the soviet shuttle launch back in the 80's, gee it sure did look familiar. I wonder where the designs came from.
Well - I'll tell you - they came from Sergey Korolev's work. The chief Soviet rocket designer (Russian I have to add) drew sketches outlining basic design of a shuttle type space craft waaay back in the fifties. Remember? 1957? When that silly looking Sputnik went into orbit before your team led by - ahem - "true American" von Braun learnt how to wipe their arses without mommie's help. The drawings have been published, authenticated.. Won't you check them out? Although, I'm sure you won't - too pigheaded for that. So... When I saw the Space Shuttle launch I thought "gee it sure does look familiar"
. On the other hand, there's just so many ways to skin a cat.
Now let's talk about T144, shall we?
Judging by the film I've seen of it, it looked like massive structural failure in flight. But I'm sure you will enlighten us to the true cause
Canards. Heard of those? The little control surfaces stuffed far ahead of the wing, next to the pilots cabin? What happens when they mulfunction in flight? Did you say "structural failure"? Blast! They did teach you something, if only you'd taken Logic 101 with that you'd have been right on the money. But since you never did - all you get is the effects, missing the cause completely. It doesn't help, of course that some Soviet moron official too bent on "Soviet = the best and the best can't fail" decided to blame pilots for the crash.
Remember Early 737s had several crashes when the rudder control was failing and moved and stuck the rudder in max deflection in flight? Was it "structural failure" too when tails were coming off?
And yes, while we're on the subject let's talk about "Concordski".
Just because the Tu144 flew first does not mean it was an original design. It was based on plans stolen from the French.
Are you sure? Phone a friend maybe? No? Well - wrong answer pal. Ever heard of SU100? No? OK, it never did enter the service but it was a Mach3 all titanium strategic bomber prototype designed to counteract B70. Soviets didn't need to "steal the plans" - they had them already. And in a flesh too.
And of course the first Tu144s had a straight nose that was later modified to the droop nose after the French Concorde.
OK, whatever
.
All in all - the Soviets flew 3 months before Concord did. I think it was just too much for the West to take and voila - "the commie bastards must have stolen the design" and the Concordski myth was born. Ask Hortlund, if you repeat anything often enough with conviction - it begins to sound like the truth... Especially if the Soviets weren't shouting "Hold on! Let's look who stole from whom. It's just our new secret bomber with enlarged fuselage to accomodate passengers rather than nukes"
Dude you need to seriously think about coming over here and check out our "nothing-but-slogans" freedom LOL.
Hmmm... Why doesn't he indeed? Again - I'll tell ya! (I'm full of it at the moment trying to get my parents to come and attend my wedding. And gawd doesn't this silly statement of yours strike a cord!) You know what's funny? That back in the good ol' USSR days it were those bad commie/KGB types that made it next to impossible for the Russians to go anywhere. Now? The "freedom" is upon them - as Boroda says 10 bucks and you have a passport to go and visit anywhere... Oops. Doesn't work. Why? Why don't you ask your oh-so-flipping-free-and-democratic embassies? Mom tells me that businesses in Archangelsk wrote off the UK as a potential business partner. Why? Cuz it's impossible to get visas to go there. So now British embassy on the arsiness scale is rated just below... Care to take a guess? No? Yep - your very own USofA... Democracy? Freedom? Oh please...
And please - all you need is a driving licence? Aren't you "forgetting" that you do need to carry it with you as well as car registration? Over here I need to have it
if (and only if!) I want to drive. If the police stop me and for whatever reason want to see it - I have 7 days to present it to the police station of
my choice... If I don't drive - I don't have to have any ID whatsoever. Nothing. And I can go to Scotland, Wales and Ireland too. In fact, the only effect of crossing the border would be seeing "Welcome to Scotland" signs and people talking funny. How that for "our freedom is free'er than yours"?
I'm sorry if it looks like I'm having a go at you personally but I'm getting very tired and increasingly frustrated at your ilk. I can dig Grunherz. I disagree with most of his but he's got some sort of grievance with the Soviets and can't see that Russians and Soviets are not necessarily the same God bless'im. What is
your problem? You most likely grew up on a prosperity that the Cold War brought to the American industry. Shouldn't you be like grateful or something?
Midnight -
thank you for sticking to the facts Sir 
