Tupolev Tu-95/-142 - the mighty "Bear"

[PR19_Kit]

.....but perhaps to paraphrase a Simpsons character "my English was inelegant" 

I thought it was quite inventive actually. 

[jcf]

Mavericks' original "moving the tailplane to the canard position" was quite clear in meaning and, as far as I can  see, accurate. With reference to the word "canard" the Random House dictionary defines this for aeronautics as follows:

a) an airplane that has its horizontal stabilizer and elevators located forward of the wing,
b) also called canard wing - one of two small lifting wings located in front of the main wings.
c) an early airplane having a pusher engine with the rudder and elevator assembly in front of the wings.

And Collins English Dictionary gives:

an aircraft in which the tailplane is mounted in front of the wing

Which would suggest that there is a "canard position".

Same with the comment on "Rutanise". Rutan may not have invented the canard but it has become, along with smooth, flowing lines and flying surfaces in odd positions, something of a Rutan trademark. And, possibly because of the swept flying surfaces, that canard Bear has a very Rutan look to it. Maverick's description seemed spot on to me.

Take the definitions apart yourself and you'll see that 'tailplane moved forward' and 'tailplane is mounted in front of the wing' make no sense as the canard surface is a foreplane, which, BTW, does not perform in exactly the same manner as a horizontal tail.

As to Rutan and 'smooth flowing lines', I guess you've never seen a Vari-Viggen. 
Nor was he the first with asymmetric airframes, tandem wings or any of his supposed signature features.
Yep, he's an interesting fellow with an interesting career, but he's not the God of Aerodynamics his fanboys
would have everyone believe. In closing using a term like Rutanise gives him credit he doesn't deserve and is just
lazy.

[McGreig]

Take the definitions apart yourself and you'll see that 'tailplane moved forward' and 'tailplane is mounted in front of the wing' make no sense as the canard surface is a foreplane, which, BTW, does not perform in exactly the same manner as a horizontal tail. As to Rutan and 'smooth flowing lines', I guess you've never seen a Vari-Viggen.  Nor was he the first with asymmetric airframes, tandem wings or any of his supposed signature features.
Yep, he's an interesting fellow with an interesting career, but he's not the God of Aerodynamics his fanboys would have everyone believe. In closing using a term like Rutanise gives him credit he doesn't deserve and is just lazy.

You seem to have missed the point entirely.

Whether Rutan invented canards, asymmetric airframes or drafted the Declaration of Independence is irrelevant – he has a distinctive style and the canard Bear looks like a Rutan design. "Rutanised" is not lazy, it's a short, clever way of getting this across. 

But, more importantly, Mav posted a complimentary comment on the canard Bear and was immediately shot down for using "Rutanised" and then explaining his use by reference to the canard position of the tailplanes. Even if they were right (which they're not), these critical comments are  unnecessarily picky, provide no useful information, don't advance the topic and serve no useful purpose. They simply didn't need to be posted.

There are too many of these "negative posts" on the Forum, criticising other members for trivial reasons, expounding the poster's pet prejudices and generally trying to show how much more knowledgeable the poster is than anybody else. My suggestion would be that, if you can't be constructive, don't post. Or post in a JMN forum – there are plenty of them around.

[jcf]

There are too many of these "negative posts" on the Forum, criticising other members for trivial reasons, expounding the poster's pet prejudices and generally trying to show how much more knowledgeable the poster is than anybody else. My suggestion would be that, if you can't be constructive, don't post. Or post in a JMN forum – there are plenty of them around.

How about following your own advice.

[Green Dragon]

but perhaps to paraphrase a Simpsons character "my English was inelegant"  

Regards,

Mav

Was that the one where Grandpa got picked up by a bloke and taken up to his penthouse?

Love the designs on this thread BTW and think I have a Dragon bear somewhere.

Paul Harrison

[PR19_Kit]

One rule for you, one rule for me? <sigh>

[Cobra]

Guys, the Design is Cool Let's try to be Civil, and FYI a Lot of Forums & Blogs I've Seen Seem to have a 'Russians are Gods of Design' Attitude that Offends those who build Aircraft in the UK,China,Japan,Etc. Didn't mean to Almost Rant about it. Dan

[chrisonord]

Mav, you say it how YOU see it and interpret it, I know what you mean and I am sure many of us here do to, so lets stop picking and and start building yes??
Chris.

[Maverick]

GD, it was the one where the Germans took over the nuclear plant.  Classic episode.

Gordon's reply wasn't attacking JCF, therefore it wasn't one rule for one, etc...  He was merely bringing a point to bear regarding the actions of some on this forum as of late.  Plenty of us get abused for it, but it seems that some are immune from desultory comments.  As to whether people understood, I still stand by comments that 'most' of us would understand, if there are those that are too anal to understand, that isn't really my problem.

Oh, and by the way, I'm not a Rutan 'fanboy', I merely used what has been a popular phrase that, once again, I thought most understood.

Regards,

Mav

[McColm]

I agree with Mav.

[Spey_Phantom]

BUMP.

i believe there's a lot of WHIF potential in the Tu-95, such as a civilian airliner (realword Tu-114).
could also make a good freighter 



or the stop-gap Tu-116, a direct conversion of the Bear-D bomber.



i also remembered, there was a luft'46 version in progress from someone on the revell forum.

http://community.revell.de/viewtopic.php?t=644

[Hobbes]

BUMP.

i believe there's a lot of WHIF potential in the Tu-95, such as a civilian airliner (realword Tu-114).
could also make a good freighter 

The freighter was the An-22...

[kitnut617]

BUMP.

i believe there's a lot of WHIF potential in the Tu-95, such as a civilian airliner (realword Tu-114).
could also make a good freighter 

The freighter was the An-22...

But it doesn't have swept wings ----- 

[McColm]

The forward canard design was applied to the Super Marauder back in 1941, it never made it to the production stage.

[NARSES2]

The forward canard design was applied to the Super Marauder back in 1941, it never made it to the production stage.

Is this in the right place ? I'm afraid I can't see the relevance ?

Chris with Moderators hat on