Putnam Books..

RE: Garry…

Garry, Read post No.5 again. 🙂 If I had the means…

RE: Garry…

“I did a long time ago. I even produced a pic with an arrow pointing out the door’s general area. When the debate about the Mil-28’s rear cabin and door came up, that book the first thing I”

Yes, I remember the picture of the Mi-28 in flight and a white arrow pointed at its rear. What I don’t understand is if you have that book why you didn’t post the picture on page 52 with a guy leaning into the cabin in question with the cabin door open.

RE: Garry…

>Ahh, so you have seen the picture with the rear cabin door
>open on a Mi-28… and you said nothing… 🙂

Garry,

I did a long time ago. I even produced a pic with an arrow pointing out the door’s general area. When the debate about the Mil-28’s rear cabin and door came up, that book the first thing I grabbed. 🙂

Regards, Glenn.

RE: Garry…

“Osprey Colour series book yes? Got it and have had it for years. Thanks anyway.”

Ahh, so you have seen the picture with the rear cabin door open on a Mi-28… and you said nothing… 🙂

Garry…

>BTW Glenn… I found that book that shows the rear cabin
>door of the Mi-28 open.
>
>The book is called “Soviet Battlefield Helicopters” by David
>Oliver.
>It is the top picture on page 52.
>
>This is quite a good book with lots of nice colour pictures
>but due to its age it has nothing about the Ka-50 series nor
>the Ka-60s.
>Nice big clear colour photos however added to the fact that
>it is an old book you might be able to pick up cheaply are
>features in its favour.

Osprey Colour series book yes? Got it and have had it for years. Thanks anyway.

And SOC, some of those others you mention are also high on the ‘Russian’ list at the moment, especially the encyclopedia. 🙂

Regards, Glenn.

RE: Putnam Books..

Thanks for the info on those book SOC… will look them up too..

BTW Glenn… I found that book that shows the rear cabin door of the Mi-28 open.

The book is called “Soviet Battlefield Helicopters” by David Oliver.
It is the top picture on page 52.

This is quite a good book with lots of nice colour pictures but due to its age it has nothing about the Ka-50 series nor the Ka-60s.
Nice big clear colour photos however added to the fact that it is an old book you might be able to pick up cheaply are features in its favour.

RE: Putnam Books..

I have the Tupolev and MiG books you mention, both are quite good for data on anything pre-1990’s, most data on newer types can be found in greater detail in other sources. I’d recommend both of them.

If you’re looking for books on Soviet/Russian aviation, here are some others in my collection that might be of interest.

-OKB Sukhoi-excellent reference work, but again don’t expect there to be anything on the Su-47 as it flew after the book was published. Great section on the T-4 though.

-Osprey Encyclopedia of Russian Aircraft-contains the data in the MiG and Tupolev books (thanks to being written by Gunston), plus data on every other Soviet/Russian aircraft flown since, well, they first flew one. VERY detailed, great reference work, but again, only goes up to about 1995.

-Soviet X-Planes-interesting book describing research and development aircraft. Covers everything up to and including the MFI and Su-47.

-MiG 50 Years Of Secret Aircraft Design-being co-authored by Rostislav Belyakov, this is your best bet for MiGs, although the Putnam book is more in-depth as to newer variants, operators etc.

Hope this helps.

SOC

“Peace through kinetic solutions”

RE: Putnam Books..

For good comprehensive surveys, all those books are good.
Lennaert Andersson is particularly good. Treatment of some fo the stnadard aircraft I-16, SB-2, etc., is a bit weak, but he makes up for it by his covrage of little-known Soviet dyptes of the 1920s-30s, and particularly for his discussion of the development of both military and civil aviation between the wars.

Georgii

If you want information send a spy. If you want good information send a modeler.

RE: Putnam Books..

Lets try the old fashion way then…

The body of the aircraft I think is the one in question is very much like that of the Yak-38, though the cockpit area does look a little like a gripen. There are large canards level with the cockpit in height and positioned just behind the canopy.
The wing is a cranked delta with what look like Aphids or Atolls on the wingtips.
At the crank in the delta shape of the wing there is a large long engine pod that looks very much like the engines of a Yak-28 in shape and attachment to the wing. The engine pods do not extend far enough back to be visible under the wing, but protrude forward right to the canards.
The image is black and white so I can’t tell what the colours are but the number under the cockpit is 25, the nose looks grey and the upper surface of the aircaft looks dark while the underside looks light.
There are red stars on the outer upper wing surfaces and on the vertical tail.
There are no horizontal tail surfaces.

It is a model, not an artists drawing.

RE: Putnam Books..

>If you could post your pic

DAMN! I still don’t have a scanner! Thanks anyway. The Su-27 FLANKER book by Y.Gordon is where the picture is.

Regards, Glenn.

RE: Putnam Books..

“On the Yaks, does that book mention the Yak-45? “

Yes but that is all… there are no pictures and all it says is:

“This was the OKB number for a series of studies in 1973-74 for an extremely agile, single seat fighter equipped with radar and missiles.
It would have beenpowered by two Favorski Type 69 non vectoring augmented turbofans, each derived fromthe R-28 and rated at 8,000kg thrust, hung ahead of a broad delta wing, with a large canard foreplane. It lost to the Mig-29. In 1978-79 Yak developed a V/STOL version with rectangular vectored nozzles and with two RD-38 jets in the fuselage. One insoluable problem with this version was how to survive failure of any engine in the hover mode.”

On an earlier page there is a delta with large canards that may be the first aircraft mentioned above. If you could post your pic I could tell you if they are the same. (Its caption here reads “A selection of Naval V/STOL project models”, though none of them look V/STOL to me… of course all are only visible from above.)

RE: Putnam Books..

Thanks again Garry, I recall you saying you had the YAK book a while ago, and the Soviets had some pretty weird and extremely ambitious concepts up their sleeves I think we can grant them that for sure. 🙂

The Putnam books are expensive yes, but I will get the three manufacturers at least. On the Yaks, does that book mention the Yak-45? One of the losing contenders to the Su-27 (T-10) in 1970/71 for the tactical fighter interceptor program. I have a pic of the Yak-45 in another book but few specs on it.

Regards, Glenn.

RE: Putnam Books..

Hi Glenn,

I have the two bottom books and rather like them.
I got them at reduced price (the Tupolev one was only about $80 while the Yak one was $90).
The wide range of aircraft in the Tupolev book was quite interesting and I do like the Tu-22M3 and Tu-160 anyway.
The Yak book was rather a surprise in that there is a nice last chapter on RPVs which is quite interesting.
Also of interest is a proposed air defence system… it would have been enormous. (Its designation is VVP something… sorry I haven’t got the book in front of me)
Think of a giant pool table.
Where each of the 6 pockets would be imagine a stub wing with the two engines and main rotor of an Mi-6.
On the main body there are three rows of 2 SA-2s on launch ramps… a total of 6 SA-2s per aircraft.
Truely weird.
Also there is information about newer designs but they are sketchy.
(That stealthy version of the Yak-141 that has been posted here before is actually the Yak-43. It uses a vectoring engine from the Tu-160… yes a 25 ton thrust main engine!)

If you can get these books cheap… I’d say go for it.
At full price… I’d say it would probably be too expensive to justify buying all of them.

RE: Putnam Books..

Hi Glenn, I’ve got a good number of the Putnam books, covering most of the British Manufactureres, McDonnell Douglas and a few others. I have found them to by universally good works of reference with less than the average number of errors. I’d recommend them to anyone.
KeithMac