While waiting for paint to dry and contemplating my next move on the P-51D I’m working on I flipped through my copy of Combat Aircraft of WW II (ISBN 0946495 43 2). I noticed how simular aircraft looked from different countries and some were predecessors of a/c that made history under a different name.
Take the Curtiss-Wright CW-218, Demon. It looks just like the FUi-A, Corsair.
then the simularties between the following:
P-47:
Re 2002
Nik 2-3-J, shinden
Lagg-3/5 F/N
Ki-84, Hayate and Ki-100
P-40:
Mig 1
Re 2001
S.A.I. 207
P-51
Yak-9U
2.Re 2005, Veltro
MC 202, Flogore
Although different performance levels, there seems to be a thread of consistancy in designs that proved effective.
Like I said, just waiting for paint to dry and …[#offtopic]
I guess some similarities (which I spelled right :D) are inevitable when the designers are all from the same time period, designing for the same purpose. For a while everyone was riffing off the racing planes of the 30s, giving us the Spit, the IAR-80, the Heinkel 100 and early MiGs.
Hey didfaI,
have you ever noticed the Hein Tony KI-66 it looks like a Japanese version of the NA’s P-51, and it’s very interesting to see how other countries aircraft evolve almost parallel to each other, a classic look at the Russian SST and the British/French’s SST (Concord) they almost look like each other but the design firms never seen the others designs, also look at the NA F-86 & MiG 15 they closeily resemble each other as with the TA-186 from Folke Wolf, the designers have the same Ideas but go about them a different way the Russian built planes are built for the less experienanced maintainers and for no special tools required as for the US’s they are more experienanced from the highly funded technical training courses used by the US and needs special tools to complete the special jobs and the Russian planes are very competative to the Wests planes and require little special tools just the basic wrenches, screwdrivers, hammers, etc…
I have always been under the assumption that it was corporate espionage and plans were sold or stolen. I think that basic styles of the times will put things close to being the same but you can’t tell me that they just happen to have came up with similar (out of the air) designs for the U.S. and Russian Space Shuttles, F-15 & F-18’s and their MiG look alike.
Call me a conspiricy thoerist but I just don’t think that all of the TWINS are by accident…
Like I said, I was just waitng for paint to dry and picked up the book for some paint refs.
It seems that during WW II there many captured a/c on both sides and the tekkies reverse engineered to accomodate shortcomings in their own designs.[:D]
Every thing looks the same today because of computers - All the new cars look the same - all the airplanes look the same - basically gigo (garbage in - garbage out) - you put the same data in two computers and they will both give the same answer
hey PaddyWagon,
yes the Russians did copy the Space Shuttle but they added improvements to it like jet engine so it could do a go around if they missed the final approach, and they made the MiG 29 to compete the F-15’s & F/A-18’s but they came up with their own designs, the plane was to out fly the F-16 in 9G manuvers but fell far short as with it’s SU-27 sister, but the SU-35 could out manuver the F-16 but if the Falcon was updated with vectoring thrust engines then the SU would be in the same suite as with her sisters the SU-27 & MiG-29, but still the west fighters have the advantage over their Russian counter parts is that the west built planes have a vast amout of funding resorces to stay ahead of the pack, look at the EF-2000 Typoon it has the targeting system that all the pilot does is look at it aggressor and the targeting system automaticly tracks it, and the F-22 & F-35 have Stealth Technology behind it & super cruise so radar can barely pick it up and they could be in the area within a few moments, also they have targeting systems that track targets 100+ miles out and able to hit them within 75 miles so the aggressor will never know they are there, this stuff makes one a little edgy to be the bad guy
Anthony, I understand that the Mitsubishi F-1 is a development of the Jaguar.
Here’s another similarity, The Vickers VC 10 & Ilyushin Il 62.
The thing is, given a particular set of goals, Range, speed, Carrying capacity, etc and a similar level of Technology, it is hardly surprising that a/c turn up off of the drawing boards of companies looking more or less the same.
Here’s another couple; Bristol Blenheim & Junkers Ju 88
or how about the D H Vampire & the Very similar Focke Wulf (I think) twin boom single engine fighter.
how many Biz jets with a low wing & twin podded engines at the back can you think of?
& can you tell them apart? An H S 125 is easy, but a Challenger from a Citation?
Pete
That the P-47 and Re-2002 looked similar is not quite an accident. Both were heavily influenced by the Seversky P-35, although in the case of the P-47 this is through the P-43 Lancer. One of the designers in the Reggiane group actually had experience in the United States in the thirties and was very influenced by the Seversky plane (Aircraft in Profile, V6, The Reggiane RE-2000). What also is kinda’ neat: many have criticized Italian WW 2 designs as lacking in offensive armament, sacrificed for ‘lightness’ and manuverability. Yet the original P-47 design proposal was for a lightweight, manuverable but not heavily armed plane. Only as WW 2 began did Republic re-think this design philosophy.
That the P-47 and Re-2002 looked similar is not quite an accident. Both were heavily influenced by the Seversky P-35, although in the case of the P-47 this is through the P-43 Lancer. One of the designers in the Reggiane group actually had experience in the United States in the thirties and was very influenced by the Seversky plane (Aircraft in Profile, V6, The Reggiane RE-2000). What also is kinda’ neat: many have criticized Italian WW 2 designs as lacking in offensive armament, sacrificed for ‘lightness’ and manuverability. Yet the original P-47 design proposal was for a lightweight, manuverable but not heavily armed plane. Only as WW 2 began did Republic re-think this design philosophy.
In this case one would do well to remember the old slogan from the world of
architecture: “Form follows function”. Of course, a goodly helping of copying or
downright thievery is also responsible for some of these look alikes. A prime
example of this would be how the Soviets copied our B-29 Superfortress in the late 40’s after some of these planes had landed in Siberia during the war.