Way to Russia Community and Forum

If you have a question or want to help someone, please, go to
Way to Russia Forum on our Facebook page.
 
We also invite you to join our Facebook community, where you can meet other travelers and read interesting news on topics ranging from visa regulations to culture and music.
 

 

We are currently moving the old forum to Facebook, so what you see below functions as an archive.

If you have a question, please, post it on
Way to Russia Facebook Discussions Page

FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Chat   Log in

Is there an air & space museum in Moscow? Goto page 1, 2  Next

Way to Russia Talk Lounge Forum Index -> Moscow

Author	Message
Klamm Frequent Guest Joined: 04 Sep 2004 Posts: 38 Location: Chile	Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 4:57 pm    Post subject: Is there an air & space museum in Moscow? Webmaster: I´d like to know if there´s an air & space museum in Moscow like there is in Washington DC. Is there some memorial to Gagarin? is the some replica of the Vostok ship and the sputnik? I ask because I will go to Moscow and I am very interested about the history of the space flights. Thanks in advance
Back to top
waytorussia Frequent Guest Joined: 17 Mar 2010 Posts: 14	Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:27 pm    Post subject: See http://waytorussia.net/Moscow/Museums.html - Memorial Museum of Cosmonautics
Back to top
Intourist Talk Show Host Joined: 21 Dec 2004 Posts: 245 Location: Moscow	Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2005 3:07 pm    Post subject: About 40 minutes outside of Moscow there is a town called Monino which hosts an aviation museum. It has a model of almost every single place ever produced in Russia, including the failed SST, Russia's answer to the concorde. It's more focused on airplanes and airforce than space, but it's probably the most comprehensive and extensive aviation museum in Russia. It's located on the grounds of the Airforce academy. The academy is officially closed to foreigners, for obvious reasons, but it is possible to get to the museum. You can actually 'google' Monino to find out more information.
Back to top
Kesha Talk Show Host Joined: 26 Sep 2005 Posts: 258 Location: Terrapin Station	Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 1:52 am    Post subject: ... Would this be the place my friends took me to that they called (translated) "Star City?"
Back to top
wwwadim Lounge Lizard Joined: 15 Apr 2005 Posts: 145 Location: Moscow Region, M-7 Highway, Noginsk	Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 4:12 pm    Post subject: Re: ... Kesha wrote: Would this be the place my friends took me to that they called (translated) "Star City?" No, star city is near Monino town - 10 km. Intourist, Kesha, Try to search some my previous posts. I have been said about Monino and Star City 3 month ago very informatively.
Back to top
Vic Talk Show Host Joined: 29 Mar 2005 Posts: 298 Location: Moscow, Russian Federation	Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:08 pm    Post subject: Intourist wrote: About 40 minutes outside of Moscow there is a town called Monino which hosts an aviation museum. It has a model of almost every single place ever produced in Russia, including the failed SST, Russia's answer to the concorde. It's more focused on airplanes and airforce than space, but it's probably the most comprehensive and extensive aviation museum in Russia. It's located on the grounds of the Airforce academy. Actually, they are not MODELS, they are real aircraft in Monino. It is only aircraft, both WW2 and Post WW2 (Cold war). Vic P.S. The Tu-144 beat the Concorde into the air so we can argue about what was an answer to what Vic
Back to top
CHeburashka Talk Show Host Joined: 23 Sep 2005 Posts: 218	Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:57 pm    Post subject: The TU-144 project was of course started after the concorde project, with the purpose of beating it by becoming the world's first supersonic airliner. It flew for a couple of years on long-distance routes in the USSR and was withdrawn after two accidents. I wouldn't call it a complete failure because of this. There's actually a TU-144 still flying, a modernised version with small 'duck-wings' in front of the large delta-wings, for test purposes. Can't say a thing like that on the concorde They're all gone...
Back to top
Vic Talk Show Host Joined: 29 Mar 2005 Posts: 298 Location: Moscow, Russian Federation	Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 8:00 pm    Post subject: Чебурашка wrote: The TU-144 project was of course started after the concorde project, with the purpose of beating it by becoming the world's first supersonic airliner. It flew for a couple of years on long-distance routes in the USSR and was withdrawn after two accidents. I wouldn't call it a complete failure because of this. There's actually a TU-144 still flying, a modernised version with small 'duck-wings' in front of the large delta-wings, for test purposes. Can't say a thing like that on the concorde They're all gone... Actually, the "duck like wings" (canards) were there from the very start. Well, they were fitted onto the prototype because it had SERIOUS problems handling at subsonic speeds. BAC/Aerospatiale "fixed" this problem on the concorde by changing the shape of the wings WHICH compromised it's maximum speed (The concorde's is Mach 2.2 and the 144's is Mach 2.5 - originally they had the same wing). We fixed this problem by adding the canards which would extend during climb and approach (basically, they would extend when the nose visor was lowered but the systems are independent). The are not primitive slabs of metal either, they actually have their own set of flaps! In any case, the prototype was a horrible aircraft, it was pieced together in months to beat the concorde, which it did. The production aircraft IS pretty much a WHOLE DIFFERENT AIRCRAFT. The aircraft itself is in no way a failure (the improved DD version isn't anyways) but there was absolutely no need for a Supersonic transport in the USSR. The thing would eat as much fuel as a Boeing 767 (don't worry - the concorde was just as 'efficient') but carry two times less passengers for the same ticket price - remember, this was socialism, the Tu144 ticket from Moscow to Almata was 10% more expensive than a regular aircraft, the Concorde's London-New york ticket was 400% more expensive! The aircraft was constructed only to beat the concorde into the air, which it did. However it gave invaluable data for the Tu-160 project (Long Range strategic supersonic bomber, very much like the B1 but bigger and heavier) So it was not a failure in that sense. Unfortunately there are no more Tu-144's flying either. The modified one (the flying laboratory) isn't flying anymore since the joint Tupolev-NASA project has ended and all usefull info has been gained from it. It is now engineless in Zhukosky (the engines on this machine were borrowed from the Air Force from a Tu-160 bomber) Here is a picture of the Tu-144D (production model) with nose down and canards deployed. Here is a picture of the prototype (before the installation of the canards). Also note that the engines are closer together - this would cause overheating of the tail (The exhaust from the engines would heat the tail) and they would be moved farther apart on the production models. Also note that the main landing gears on the prototype retract INTO THE WING nacelles while on the production model (see above picture) they retract into a small compartment BETWEEN the nacelles of engine 1 and 2; 3 and 4. There are also more windows on the production models and the fuselage is a little bit longer. As said above: the prototype was pieced together very quickly. Closeup of the deployed canards and lowered visor (and a waving pilot) Here you can see the 144's nose visor up and canards in the retracted position (Supersonic Mode) Here is a 3view from a Concorde, note the wing shape. Here is a 3view from a 144. Notice that the "double delta" wing in the top view is much more distinct than the smooth double delta in the concorde's wing. Also note that the 144's wing first goes out and then swoops down (in the front view) while the concorde's swoops down, plateaus and then swoops down again near the tips - this is what gave them the stability in subsonic flight, but our engineers just added the canards instead of redesigning the whole wing. If you want more information on the Tupolev 144, search for it in google and you will find plenty of hits or you can look at our site at http://www.tupolev.ru/English/Show.asp?SectionID=148 That is the manufacturer's site so it is a little more informative. You can also look here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A2818640 Most of what is written there is correct. If you have any more questions feel free to ask. Vic P.S. I love it when someone mentions aviation, I always get carried a way do it more often!
Back to top
Paul-Holmes Lounge Wizard Joined: 12 Apr 2005 Posts: 1073	Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 1:12 am    Post subject: Vic, I like your opinion on the Canadian fighter Aviro Arrow. There is a still huge debate whether it should have been cancelled or not. It is nice to get an informed opinion outside of my country.
Back to top
CHeburashka Talk Show Host Joined: 23 Sep 2005 Posts: 218	Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:35 pm    Post subject: Nice post Vic... especially with the explanation and drawings of the Tu and the Concorde. You know 'canard' is just plain French for 'duck'?
Back to top
Vic Talk Show Host Joined: 29 Mar 2005 Posts: 298 Location: Moscow, Russian Federation	Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 8:18 pm    Post subject: Paul Holmes wrote: Vic, I like your opinion on the Canadian fighter Aviro Arrow. There is a still huge debate whether it should have been cancelled or not. It is nice to get an informed opinion outside of my country. I would be glad to give my opinion, but please have in mind that I have no inside information on the Arrow (I know as much as anyone else could possibly know) and that there were alot of of political intrigues around the project which finally led to its death. I can tell you about the technical aspect of the aircraft. The Arrow really was a revolutionary aicraft for its day. It was built in the 1950's but would rival the MiG-21, which would come 10 years later, and it would in some way surpass it. It was better than any American interceptor for the next 15 years. It would perfectly fit the role that was intended for it in the RCAF (to intercept Soviet nuclear bombers while they were over the Canadian far north) After the cancellation, the RCAF would buy McDonnel Douglas CF-101's, which would serve for 30 years and were far inferior in comparisson to the CF-105 (Arrow). The main characteristics that the CF-105 would have to have to fill the RCAF's place for it were: 1) Speed (The Arrow 2 would have Mach 2.5) 2) Quick turn around times (The Arrow could be refueled and re-armed in 10 minutes) 3) Quick Startup time (It would take it 5 minutes to get the engine on and get it to altitude) 4) Range (The Arrow would have aprox. 800 nautical mile range @ Mach 1.5 and 400 nautical miles @ maximum speed, which would be good enough using proper bases - you could effectively intercept any intruder before he could even get close to the U.S. border or any major Canadian city/industrial area) 5) Dispatch reliability (no info on this) The CF-101 that would be purchased would could barely hold Mach 1 and was a pain to turn around although it would have better range. This would mean that the Soviet bombers would have to be located more than an hour prior to their interception - which would probably not happen in a combat situation anyways. The interceptor would have to intercept the Tu-95 long range bomber, it's speed was 800km/h (Mach 0.82), range was more than 10,000km and it could carry several hydrogen or nuclear bombs. The Arrow would be better than anything the USSR would have until we built the MiG-25 in the end of the 60's - 15 years after the Arrow. The Americans took even longer. The Arrow had an advanced flight control system. It had fly-by-wire controls (with feedback, like a force-feedback joystick - it was the first to have this feature and no other aircraft went into mass production with this feature for another 20 years). The Arrow could also be controlled from the ground - it could fly with no pilot onboard. The avionics are also impressive for their day - it had an advanced navigation system and so was the weapons targeting system - it could track multiple targets at ranges up to 600km. It could also carry several air to air missiles INSIDE the aircraft in a "bomb bay" instead of having them mounted on hardpoints on the wings like is done on other aircraft - this would provide less resistance and make it faster and increase range a bit. The Arrow's manuevarability was not that great, but it would not need it anyways since its primary task was to intercept bombers, which are not that manuevarble themselves. The Arrow impressed very many people, but you must also keep in mind that the only CF-105's that flew were powered by Pratt and Whittney engines, which were much weaker than the Iriqois engines that would power the Arrow 2 (Its designation would have been CF-105 MKII) in terms of thrust - which limited it's payload and maximum speed and actually make the aircraft lighter! (The P&W engines were weaker, less efficient and heavier than the Canadian made Iroqois). The first 5 aircraft to be built (Numbers 201, 202, 203, 204 and 205 if I am not mistaken) were powered by Pratt and Whitney JP-75's while the 206 was powered with Iroqois PS-13 engines (She would be the only Arrow MKII to be completed but she would never fly - the project would be cancelled the day after her completion and she would be broken up along with her sisterships 201 through 205 and the incomplete MK2 frames 207 through 211 - all in different phases of construction. Alltogether, more than half a billion Canadian dollars (Keeping in mind that the Canadian doller WAS stronger than the American untill the 70's) was wasted on this project and absolutely nothing became of it - AVRO would go bankrupt after having its AVRO Jetliner project cancelled due to the Korean war (The second passenger jetliner to fly after the DeHavilland Comet - 5 years before the Boeing 707) and having the CF-105 Arrow forcibly cancelled by the government would deal a final blow to them. The would later be bought out by Hawker-Sidley of the UK, which itself would run into financial problems not too soon after that. The invaluable knowledge gained during during this project - the only thing to survive the cutting torches - would be classified and would prove useless on future military projects because the people who could use the information would not be able to get their hands on it. The Iroqois PS-13 engine would also meet the same fate, despite getting orders from Dessault of France for their projected Mirage fighter/interceptor, which would prove to be very succesfull - the Canadian government would not allow it's export and would force the project to be closed down. The Canadians would order the CF-101 from McDonnel Douglas - an inferior aircraft for the same price. A further 1.5 billion would be spent on them. The cancellation was a knee jerk reaction to the launch of the Sputnik 1, the Canadians thought that the era of bombers and interceptors was over than that the future of warfare would be in space and not involve conventional aircraft. The other factor was that the rushing of the Iroqois engine (This is why the first 5 aircarft would have P&W's - the Iroqois was not ready) would increase the funding. PM Diefenbaker would refuse to grant AVRO $20 million in fear that it would look bad during the upcoming election, this is after having spent half a billion on it with a miserable $20 left to finish it. It is also thoerised that the Americans put pressure on the Canadian government to close the project as it would rival and surpass anything the Americans had and would have in the near future. Had the project not been cancelled, it is very likely that Canada could still be producing world-class military aircraft and that the CF-105 would still be flying and perhaps still be in production as upgraded versions. All in all, it is a sad end for a good machine. You can find some additional information about the Arrow at http://www.kaap.purpleglen.com/ There is also a pretty good CBC documentary that I saw several years back when I was living in Canada called "The Avro Arrow: Canada's Broken Dream". If you have any more questions, feel free to ask! Last edited by Vic on Thu Oct 13, 2005 8:37 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
Vic Talk Show Host Joined: 29 Mar 2005 Posts: 298 Location: Moscow, Russian Federation	Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 8:32 pm    Post subject: Чебурашка wrote: Nice post Vic... especially with the explanation and drawings of the Tu and the Concorde. You know 'canard' is just plain French for 'duck'? Had no clue, and I studied french in school for several years "Canards" is actually the english term for them. We called them "Стабилизаторы Полёта при Низких Скоростях" (СПНС) "Low Speed Flight Stabilizers" I have a friend that worked on the Tu-144LL project as an engineer. He is now head of the Tu-334 project (and he helped me out quite a bit) and he also told me some neat things about it. There are some good books about the 144, but most of them are in Russian and there are few good sites about it. Vic
Back to top
init6 WayToRussified Joined: 01 Jun 2005 Posts: 363 Location: Москва, Россия	Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 3:17 pm    Post subject: To give some more info on the original post, there is a massive statue of Gagarin near Leninskii Prospekt metro station at Ploshchad Gagarin(Gagarin Square). I can't remember if it's 100 feet or 100m, but you can see the top of it from the metro station. I haven't been there yet, but will likely take a stroll past it on the way home from school tomorrow. Vic, we still need to go to Monino. Give me a shout this weekend!
Back to top
Rick Moderator Joined: 04 May 2005 Posts: 854 Location: Касабланка	Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 3:57 pm    Post subject: I have heard some stories from dutch cosmonaut Andre Kuipers, who mentioned that at Baikonur, before take-of, cosmonauts still pee against the rear wheel of the bus that brings them to the rocket. Like Gagarin did on his historic flight. Also that for many years, until she died, cosmonauts would travel past Gagarin's birth village for a cup of tea at his mother's
Back to top
alanh Frequent Guest Joined: 14 Oct 2004 Posts: 22	Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 3:07 am    Post subject: Yes, I do believe they still pee on the tire. Bet Alan Shepard wished he had done that before his Freedom 7 flight -- after spending 4 hours in launch holds, he had to pee in his suit. The Cosmonautics museum is nice, albeit a bit small.
Back to top
Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First

	Way to Russia Talk Lounge Forum Index -> Moscow	All times are GMT + 3 Hours Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2