Tehran to Unveil First Iran-Made Passenger Plane

[Al Bhatti]

Stop your trolling you wahabi. and stick to the topic, which is about planes not condoms.

here goes again, you sure forget things fast.

And regarding the trolling please check above who started it and tell him not to troll.

 

[Mosamania]

Stop your trolling you wahabi. and stick to the topic, which is about planes not condoms.

So you are allowed to troll but not him?? And dont use the W word.it is offensive.

 

[SOHEIL]

PERSIAN GOD KING: انالله واناالیه راجعون

he was good boy

back to topic

stop fighting each other ... we are brothers


I'm just kidding ... ok

 

[Mosamania]

PERSIAN GOD KING: انالله واناالیه راجعون

he was good boy

back to topic

stop fighting each other ... we are brothers


I'm just kidding ... ok

Respect man. Fukcing respect for you man. Your comments give me hope it really does I would hug you if I could.

 

[SOHEIL]

Respect man. Fukcing respect for you man. Your comments give me hope it really does I would hug you if I could.

Fu(king is correct ... thanks a lot

 

[CaptainCrunch]

They can not claim this is a Iranian design. There might have been some development in Iran but if it is a derivative of an Antonov design that means its not completely Iranian. Not so much credit due as first thought. Keep trying.

 

[SOHEIL]

They can not claim this is a Iranian design. There might have been some development in Iran but if it is a derivative of an Antonov design that means its not completely Iranian. Not so much credit due as first thought. Keep trying.

Iranian designed will be coming soon ... don't worry

 

[Hack-Hook]

I have a question Aerodynamic of these planes seems to be a bit
different from the planes Boeing or Airbus are making can anybody
tell me why there is such difference and whats the pro and cons of
each design .

 

[longbrained]

I have a question Aerodynamic of these planes seems to be a bit
different from the planes Boeing or Airbus are making can anybody
tell me why there is such difference and whats the pro and cons of
each design .

Not aerodynamics. Just the design layout. The Boeing and Airbus make planes whose primary design objective is fuel efficiency and comfort. While this particular plane An-158, is designed to be dual use and tough, landing and taking off from un-prepared airports or dirt strips as you can see the engines have been put higher. I guess these are perhaps design requirements since soviet times when everything designed had to be able to work under extreme conditions of war. This plane actually has been chosen as VIP transport in Russia for some of these reasons.

You can not usually go to south pole and do this with an Airbus:

Russians had a habit of making planes that could even land on grass:

Anyways, Anatonov is actually known for making big planes like the world's largest plane, the mighty An-225:

 

[longbrained]

Another Russian plane with unusual design:

 

[Hack-Hook]

well what about the bump in front of where wing is attached
to the body won't it change the aerodynamic. and what's the
use of that bump.

 

[longbrained]

well what about the bump in front of where wing is attached
to the body won't it change the aerodynamic. and what's the
use of that bump.

It should not. Aerodynamic design is always a compromise between many factors. I am not sure which bump you are talking about but an aerospace engineer has to take every detail into account or the plane will fail. There is absolutely nothing in a design that does not serve any purpose. But if you mean the thick wing fuselage point, it must be for structural bars running underneath which have to be strong enough to handle the weight of the aircraft in flight and they might even house fuel, only some one familiar with the design of this specific aircraft can tell you for sure. As you can see in order to put the engines higher the engineers have put the wings above the fuselage unlike the "regular" Airbus design, that means wings are holding the aircraft from above.

 

[CaptainCrunch]

I look forward to new aircraft designs even be if its from the Iranians. There is a different set of challenges when designing an aircraft from nothing versus modifying one to suit better need. There are a whole set of reliability testing and safety testing that goes into designing a new model.

The Russians no doubt have decent reliability near that of the west or even surpassing it at times. Some of our designs lack in areas and so do the Russians. Being a lover of aviation I can not dismiss their aircraft. They have some wonderful planes and ideas. Reading the book Mig Pilot by John Barrow I recall of a Russian Mig-25 pilot that defected to Japan and landed his airplane intact for the US to inspect. The US feared this aircraft for years. They thought it was the best of the best. This fear lead the US to actually develop what the Russians did not even think aerodynamically possible. I believe resulting in the F-15.

When the US inspected this Mig they found out some thing about simplicity. When the US was using advanced materials and construction methods the Russians used steel and welded the aircraft together. They used what they had. Areas that did not need to be smooth used button head rivets to hold skin together. This was a different method than the US used.

The Mig was only good for its intended roll. That roll was interception of fast bombers. This Mig was not a dog fighter. This aircraft could not turn very well. This aircraft could not go very far. This aircraft fit its intended roll.

I would love to see an aircraft producer out there that will make fuel efficient, safe, reliable, and easy to maintain aircraft. Some thing that aircraft designers lack over the years is easy to maintain factor. Your aircraft reliability will go up if you make it easier to maintain. Do not make something that needs to be regularly serviced difficult to access. Lot of aerospace designs are made before the complete aircraft is done. They might design part that needs lubrication. They install lubrication fittings symmetrically across the part. These fittings need an adapter to take lube. This adapter is relatively large but works great when you have access to the area. Then when the designers put the part in the airplane they figure out a way to secure it to the airframe. They bolt it to the wall and put in long control rods to keep this part from moving around. You guessed it one of these control rods runs within an inch of this lubrication fitting.

Standard lubrication adapters are too large to fit this area. These normally would make the job a one man hassle free job. You have to find something that will fit. Using a needle adapter you need two guys one to operate the gun and the other to hold the adapter.

I would like to see Russian engine technology become more reliable. This is a hard thing to do.

 

[Nishan_101]

Although my wish was that the PAC would join Chinese in the development of of planes like CN-235 and KC-390s other than K-8s and JF-17s.
If I am not wrong then we need 11 CN-235s class planes and about 21 C-130/KC-390 class planes for transport roles. More over CN-235s class planes can also be used as AWE&Cs(11 for PAF and 3 for PN) and MPAs(11 for PN) & EW/ELINT(3-5 for PAF) too.

 

[wonkcerbon]

Although my wish was that the PAC would join Chinese in the development of of planes like CN-235 and KC-390s other than K-8s and JF-17s.
If I am not wrong then we need 11 CN-235s class planes and about 21 C-130/KC-390 class planes for transport roles. More over CN-235s class planes can also be used as AWE&Cs(11 for PAF and 3 for PN) and MPAs(11 for PN) & EW/ELINT(3-5 for PAF) too.

CN-235 is Joint coopertion between Dirgantara Indonesia and CASA Spain,and yes its beautifull plane