Well.

Since this thread has gone completely, 100%, off the rails thanks to certain a$$hats, i will just post this;

Inferior gopnik squat, unfortunately. Feet closer and soles firmly to the ground toe to heel, for maksimalnaya stabilnost.

I do wish they would sort out what it is to be called.

IIRC, MC-21 is Cyrillic for Modern Samolet 21st Century – the Cyrillic letter C translating into the Latin letter S for Samolet (aeroplane).

In fact all the publicity early on used to say MC-21 in Russian publications and MS-21 in the western press.

It now seems they are only using MC-21 – but what to does it stand for ???

Ken

It is supposed to be MS-21 – Magistralnyy samolyot* 21 veka, i.e. “main/principal aircraft of the 21st century”

I think that’s an Irkut “working title” of sorts that stuck around. But yeah, they have started to mix it up for real now.

* Or samolet, but since it’s самолёт a truer-to-the-pronunciation transcription would be samolyot.

a big day for Russia`s post-Soviet aviation industry

Yup. The Sukhoi SSJ-100, while successful (even EU airlines have started to adopt it now!) is a bit conservative and not all that exciting. The MS-21 is a big step, with novel materials and technologies (at least for Russia) and so on. Can’t wait for its first flight.

I would bet that both of them are treated.. Maybe the windshield is treated with something rather expensive but providing higher visual clarity while the rear glass uses something more conventional? Just a speculation, though..

I would wager that neither piece is properly treated from a “stealth” POV just yet, though the rear one might be halfway there. That rear piece tint does however echo that commonly seen in other modern-ish Russian fighters and fighters from other countries going way back before the “stealth” era – ie radiation protection for the pilot(s). Possibly reduces sun interference inside the cockpit too, those huge MFD’s are definitely treated with an anti-reflective coating but full-on sunlight is still somewhat annoying.

The EA-6B had the rear cockpit windows tinted like that too, to protect the crew from its own EW suite I gather.

So is Tsikron the same as Zircon?

Place the R right. Tsirkon/Циркон is Russian for Zircon, yes, same thing. Russian naming practices, P-??? Tsirkon (Zircon) is named after a mineral just like P-500 Bazalt (Basalt), P-700 Granit (Granite), P-800 Oniks (Onyx) and so on.

And they will use them on what plane/copter?

That particular one is for the Irkut MS-21.

Nice shot. Photo’s from 2015 though.

Also, I quite honestly think that there’d be some other mentions of a 50-6 first flight way before a civilian-shot artsy-fartsy photo suddenly shows up on a planespotting site…

Amm, yeah, what is up with russian bombs being so … non aerodynamic or .. so WW2 looking. Even in syria, they look like they are getting rid of WW2 stock!!

The Soviet/Russian M62 series of iron bombs come in a low-drag casing, but you rarely see them. The typical ones (like the ones here) are space efficient but draggy, for short-range subsonic carry or internal carry, as others have said.

But no WW2 hereabouts, these are 1950’s. And yeah, they probably are getting rid of a lot of old stock, when they get an opportunity.

You meant to say boring, but slick, modern and proffecial?

Anyway, how can something be boring and at the same time be slick and modern?

Plain matte “NATO”-style grey is very boring, no matter how you look at it. But it’s also very modern, and it instills confidence in the machine. Apparently it’s also notably less prone to unsightly chipping, and it hides away surface unevenness and so on too.

However, even when the Russian Air Force paints things grey it tends to look dated because instead of going with those slick, matte low-viz shades that we’ve gotten so used to seeing, they splash on some awful glossy stuff in nonsensical shades and they do it really badly too. I reckon that Serdyukov wanted to “westernize” things, but all that came out of that was repulsive aubergine things and so on. OK, they did a fairly good job on the choppers, but that was exactly where that kind of thing was needed the least (aesthetically speaking).

Mikoyans M2/35/K/KUB prototypes and their in-house paintjobs is the only real exception I can think of, to be honest. Lo and behold – when finally put into service (K/KUB) by the VMF they just bloody had to mess it up. It’s like it’s a compulsion. I will never get that, seriously.

I cringe when I see videos from the whole Syrian deal now, especially those from RT and other propagandistic outlets. They’re accompanied by sensational “Russia strong!” headlines, clearly aimed at a Western audience (that’s what RT etc are for), but at the same time we’re seeing planes that look flippin dreadful compared to ours and most people will think the same thing. If they’d whip up some something Strike Eagle-esque for the Su-34, you know that the PR bit would be a whole lot more successful, don’t you? I seriously can’t be alone in this.