Talk:Antonov An-30

message: In the "Design" section, it is stated: "The fuselage nose is extensively glazed, reminiscent of the Boeing B-29."
The statement does not add information pertinent to the An-30's design, singling out the B-29 is both inaccurate and inappropriate. If anything, it may give a false impression, both of the work of the An-30's designers, and of the purpose of the An-30's glazing.
If I don't hear objections/suggestions relating to this in the next few days, I will change the statement in question. My suggestion is at the very bottom.
Before I get to that, here are my reasons for this:
Inaccurate, as the An-30 has more glass around the navigator than a B-29. Following the glass tip of the nose, and the first row of windows, which includes the flat window at the 6 o'clock position, the An-30 has two more rows of windows. One that appears to encompass the entire circumference of the nose, and another, at the 3 and 9 o'clock positions on the fuselage.
The B-29, meanwhile, has the glass tip and the first row of windows, including flat window at the 6 o'clock position. Note that the glass nose itself is at the center line of the fuselage. All glass is situated in a surface that (bar the one flat window) has rotational symmetry about that center line. Beyond that first row, there is no glass below the 2 o'clock and 10 o'clock positions, respectively.
This photo illustrates the glass present at the nose of the B-29.
On the B-29, the bombardier's position is effectively part of the cockpit, pilots could see through the same windows as the bombardier, 
On the An-30, meanwhile, the navigator's/surveyor's position is a separate space from the cockpit, and pilots could not see the navigator/surveyor or their windows, 
Seeing that the An-30 was developed from a transport designed for work not requiring a glazed nose, it makes sense that the cockpit or its windows would not be integrated with the glazed space.
This interior view of the An-30 navigator's/surveyor's position further illustrates the difference to the B-29.
Back to the exterior of the An-30, we notice that, including the cockpit, the forward section of the fuselage does not have rotational symmetry. Unlike the B-29, there is a bulge not present on the An-24. It appears that the cockpit was elevated for reasons related to turning the transport into a survey plane. On this bulge, we find the (also elevated) conventional cockpit windows. In front of these, we see a black, anti-glare surface, further separating the cockpit from the glazed nose.
Inappropriate, or so it appears to me, as glazed noses were very common in mid-20th-century Soviet aircraft. Both civilian and military transports, and even on jet airliners. Examples: Antonovs An-8, An-12, An-22; Tupolevs Tu-104, Tu-124, Tu-134; or the Ilyushins Il-76. Even at least one supersonic multi-role attack aircraft had a glazed nose, the Yakovlev Yak-28. Many of which resembled the An-30's nose at least as well as the B-29 does.
One may notice the the fraction of the nose on the An-30 that is glazed exceeds that on many of those other Soviet era aircraft. But the An-30 was designed as a survey aircraft, based on a transport with no glass nose at all. On most of those other Soviet aircraft, the glass nose would have been for the navigator's position. On the An-30, this may also have been the case. But it is hardly surprising that survey work might require more windows, directly for surveying or for more extensive navigation work related to surveying.
But just as it exceeds the glass fraction on many Soviet era aircraft, it also exceeds the glass fraction on the B-29.
When the B-29 was developed, glass noses for use by bombardiers and possibly navigators were fairly common on bomber aircraft. Consider the Handley Pages Halifax and Hampden; Bristols Blenheim and Beaufort; bombardiers' "bubbles" on Avros Lincoln, Lancaster, and Manchester; Heinkel He 111; Kawasaki Ki-48; or the Caproni Ca.311.
Like the B-29, all these planes, from all sides, had glazed noses.
It has been my experience that certain people, feeling particular loyalty towards the USA when it comes to discussing the Cold War, will insist that any part of any Soviet aircraft was either 
a) a flagrant copy of an American design, 
b) so obviously and fundamentally flawed as to illustrate the Soviet engineers' incompetence, or
c) so trivial, even an utterly incompetent designer could have come up with something that works. 
This may extend (I've seen it at least once) to Soviet planes that had entered flight testing the year before anyone had even issued specifications for the American design that was supposedly copied.
Please lets not feed that maelstrom! Some Soviet designs may have been copied, in whole or in part, from American designs. At the same time, it must be recognized that two planes designed for the same application, using the same tools, at the same time, will have some resemblance as a matter of course. Physics does not recognize ideology or nationality.
During WW2, when the B-29 was developed, all sides had planes with the design feature in question. They (presumably) had it mostly to serve the same application (aiming bombs). This includes planes designed some time before the B-29, such as, for example, the Bristol Blenheim or the Heinkel He 111.
I would propose changing the sentence in question thus:
A distinctive visual difference from the An-24 is the glazed fuselage nose. While many Soviet planes of the era (but not the An-24) had similar features for their navigator's positions, their glazing did not extend as far as that of the An-30.  
If I don't hear objection within the next few days, I will implement this change. I obviously welcome discussion and suggestions.
DerGolgoAgain (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Design > glazed nose reminiscent of B-29 

message: In "Bullet to Beijing" Harry Palmer flies with a ramshackle AN-30 to Bratsk.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.207.180.128 (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Used in Film