Tupolev Tu-144: The Soviets' doomed rival to Concorde (2017)(edition.cnn.com)
edition.cnn.com
Tupolev Tu-144: The Soviets' doomed rival to Concorde (2017)
https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/tupolev-tu-144-concordski/index.html
139 comments
And you can go inside both!
How? They're on the roof. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Concorde...
edit There's a metal staircase: https://old.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/btze9j/my_picture...
edit There's a metal staircase: https://old.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/btze9j/my_picture...
The magic of.. stairs?
The HackerNews guidelines are quite clear regarding snark.
The stairs aren't easy to make out from that photo. Here's another photo that shows the metal staircase: https://old.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/btze9j/my_picture...
The stairs aren't easy to make out from that photo. Here's another photo that shows the metal staircase: https://old.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/btze9j/my_picture...
Unfortunately your initial comment comes off as a snark. On top of that you took your time to actually find a photo supporting your argument but didn’t bother searching for a photo of the entrance to the planes?
> On top of that you took your time to actually find a photo supporting your argument
I did not. Please assume good faith. That image was linked by someone else in the thread. [0]
Why would I deliberately seek out a photo that doesn't clearly show the staircase, only to then edit my comment to link to another image that does?
> your initial comment comes off as a snark
I don't know how I could have phrased the question to be any more neutral.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28336561
I did not. Please assume good faith. That image was linked by someone else in the thread. [0]
Why would I deliberately seek out a photo that doesn't clearly show the staircase, only to then edit my comment to link to another image that does?
> your initial comment comes off as a snark
I don't know how I could have phrased the question to be any more neutral.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28336561
The sister museum in speyer have a full 747 on some stilts
https://www.flickr.com/photos/meteorry/49653977743
https://www.flickr.com/photos/meteorry/49653977743
Ok wow. That’s some amazing effort to find room for not just the exhibit but to make it accessible to the visitors! These two German museums just jumped out of no where into the top ten of my science/engineering museum bucket list.
Speyer has the Buran as well
https://speyer.technik-museum.de/en/spaceshuttle-buran
https://speyer.technik-museum.de/en/spaceshuttle-buran
I always love the extra landing gear added to the Concorde to avoid tail strikes on rotation - sometimes "patches" are the correct solution to infrequent problems!
I don’t think they’re a patch - they were part of the original design.
There used to be a tour of the Airbus factory in Toulouse, where they made A380s, and at the end of the tour we took a bus across the tarmac and were able to walk around and go inside a Concorde. It was amazing.
It is a much bigger plane on the outside than you might think. That wing is huge.
It is a much bigger plane on the outside than you might think. That wing is huge.
part of the reason for the Concorde's decline was the fairly tight cabin, which was likened by some to be almost bus-like.
With the advent of lie-flat business class seats in the late 90s and early 2000s, Concorde became much less appealing since one could just fly a redeye to London and have a comfortable sleep than be cramped for a shorter period of time.
With the advent of lie-flat business class seats in the late 90s and early 2000s, Concorde became much less appealing since one could just fly a redeye to London and have a comfortable sleep than be cramped for a shorter period of time.
We went on the tour maybe 10 years ago so my memory is a bit vague but I think the aisle was actually raised so you would have to step down into the seats. Could that be right?
Go to Seattle's aviation museum and see for yourself. I'd call it "swanky bus", but yes, buslike.
The Airbus factory has had a museum nearby since 2015, Aeroscopia [1]. It hosts two Concordes, among others (like the Super Guppy [2]). It has a pre-production Concorde (F-WTSB), used for test flights, and an Air France one (F-BVFC). It’s worth a visit for any aviation enthusiast.
You used to be able to go inside the test flight one, but it’s a cramped space, so things might be different while covid regulations are in force.
[1] https://www.toulouse-visit.com/aeroscopia-museum
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_Spacelines_Super_Guppy
You used to be able to go inside the test flight one, but it’s a cramped space, so things might be different while covid regulations are in force.
[1] https://www.toulouse-visit.com/aeroscopia-museum
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_Spacelines_Super_Guppy
If you like that, you should definitely go to the Dayton Ohio AF museum where they have a Valkyrie. You can’t go inside it, unfortunately.
You can also see a Tu-144 in Zhukovsky, a city about an hour by train from Moscow. [1] A lot of Soviet aviation development happened there.
[1] http://www.rusaviainsider.com/zhukovsky-pays-tribute-venerab...
[1] http://www.rusaviainsider.com/zhukovsky-pays-tribute-venerab...
Lots of people have been having fun in the parking lot. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Technik+Museum+Sinsheim/@4...
An amusing anecdote (disclaimer: not sure if true), was that the Soviets were having trouble making tires that were durable enough. The KGB tried to hire a French runway worker to collect rubber samples.
The runway worker went to the French authorities, and a phone call to Michelin was placed: "Give us the very worst tire compound you can come up with." A batch was whipped up, and our runway worker sent some samples of it on to his KGB handler. Needless to say, their tire problems persisted.
The runway worker went to the French authorities, and a phone call to Michelin was placed: "Give us the very worst tire compound you can come up with." A batch was whipped up, and our runway worker sent some samples of it on to his KGB handler. Needless to say, their tire problems persisted.
Very probably and I had heard of some plans taken that were doctored so they got flawed plans.
Also espionage spying was common then (probably still is today)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/447464.stm
Also espionage spying was common then (probably still is today)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/447464.stm
As well funny, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-144#Early_flights :
> ...an alarm siren went off immediately after takeoff, with sound and volume similar to that of a civil defence warning. The crew could not figure a way to switch it off so the siren stayed on throughout the remaining 75 minutes of the flight. Eventually, the captain ordered the navigator to borrow a pillow from the passengers and stuff it inside the siren's horn.
> ...an alarm siren went off immediately after takeoff, with sound and volume similar to that of a civil defence warning. The crew could not figure a way to switch it off so the siren stayed on throughout the remaining 75 minutes of the flight. Eventually, the captain ordered the navigator to borrow a pillow from the passengers and stuff it inside the siren's horn.
Amazing, I hope this is true.
They should have done one that was very complex and would almost work but then be horrible to maintain.
This was somewhat common voluntarily or not thanks to the Farewell double-agent "revelations" of an actual massive technology siphoning operation from the west to the Soviet Union. There's a funny anecdote on Buran's TPS, which was allegedly based on a very early US iteration of the Shuttle tiles that was discarded and "given away like candies" to foreign spies.
The FOIA files are on cia.gov, but that disinformation campaign around the Shuttle is a pretty epic story. They basically took STS blueprints and added a bunch of fatal flaws then let the double agent pass it to the Soviets.
Except the soviets ended up building a very different craft. Buran was visually similar but radically different in basic layout (no main engines on orbiter etc). The Soviets didnt fall for all the bad intelligence they were fed.
And there is a flip side. Bomber gaps, missile gaps, the MiG-25 fiasco, that time the CIA double-counted bombers because the russians painted different tail numbers on either side ... America gobbled up its share of false intelligence too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-25#Wester...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqKE5xCogH0
And there is a flip side. Bomber gaps, missile gaps, the MiG-25 fiasco, that time the CIA double-counted bombers because the russians painted different tail numbers on either side ... America gobbled up its share of false intelligence too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-25#Wester...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqKE5xCogH0
Speaking of. The pictures of the remains of the program are fascinating:
https://www.boredpanda.com/abandoned-soviet-space-shuttle-pr...
https://www.boredpanda.com/abandoned-soviet-space-shuttle-pr...
Given that this was an airliner, one wonders how they might have felt should a hundred people have died due to a faulty tire based on that bad intelligence. It is one thing to sabotage an enemy weapons system, very much another to damage a civilian aircraft.
Ironically, a blown tire caused the fatal crash that led to the demise of Concorde. It struck debris, but there are always eerie similarities between western and russian programs.
Ironically, a blown tire caused the fatal crash that led to the demise of Concorde. It struck debris, but there are always eerie similarities between western and russian programs.
As worthy a consideration as this sounds, one would trust that problems would either be fixed through development - allowing your poor civilians on the plane in the first place; Or be so thoroughly instrumental in meddling with development that the aircraft couldn't be completed at all.
Somewhat related. While Concorde flew supersonic, the air which entered the engine needed to enter at subsonic speeds. They needed to slow the air using flaps in a very short distance. This was done by the Air Intake Control Units (AICU). Originally Concorde used an analogue computer in the prototypes. The analogue computer wasn't accurate enough for smooth flight. In the end, a fully digital solution was created at short notice by the rather grandly named "Guided Weapons Division" of the "Electronics and Space Systems Group" at BAC. Here's a pic of the unit:
http://images.yuku.com/image/pjpeg/4df3652018ef41c9e9669a5ea...
All done in the early 70s. These units started to fail in the 90s and they had to bring folks out of retirement to produce new units.
The Soviets struggled to crack this aspect and apparently approached UK Gov to license the tech. Unsurprisingly UK Gov said no as the tech was classified as it could be used by military aircraft too.
All done in the early 70s. These units started to fail in the 90s and they had to bring folks out of retirement to produce new units.
The Soviets struggled to crack this aspect and apparently approached UK Gov to license the tech. Unsurprisingly UK Gov said no as the tech was classified as it could be used by military aircraft too.
This account reminds me of the same issue that Lockheed faced in the design of the SR-71 Blackbird.
They had to figure out the design of the 'spikes' and engine inlet systems that controlled inflow to the engines for the aircraft that still holds many speed records (Mach 3), to this day [1]. It was an enormous engineering challenge.
I think this work was all done in the 60's.
0 - https://internationalaviationhq.com/2020/08/29/ben-rich-fath...
1 - http://www.sr71.us/srrcd~1.htm
They had to figure out the design of the 'spikes' and engine inlet systems that controlled inflow to the engines for the aircraft that still holds many speed records (Mach 3), to this day [1]. It was an enormous engineering challenge.
I think this work was all done in the 60's.
0 - https://internationalaviationhq.com/2020/08/29/ben-rich-fath...
1 - http://www.sr71.us/srrcd~1.htm
UK however has licenced Aircraft technology to Eastern Bloc countries. BAC One Eleven, jetliner was licensed to Romania by the UK, and several aircraft were made in that country in the 80s.
Canada even built nuclear reactors in Romania during the Cold War years.
Canada even built nuclear reactors in Romania during the Cold War years.
Western propaganda is so boring... Yes, Tu-144 wasn’t the biggest success story of the Soviet civil aviation, but it gave birth to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-160
And 35 years later the West is still unable to match Tu-160. The wise would say that every coin has a flip side, and every story about a Soviet “failure”, however one-sided coverage it usually receives in the Western propaganda, normally has too...
The equivalent match on the western side was the B-1, which was built earlier and served a roughly similar role until it was mostly replaced by the B-2 and now both are being retired in favour or the upcoming B-21.
The B-1B was not an equivalent to the Tu-160. One could go above Mach 2, the other could barely go above Mach 1. The B-1A would have been a match if it wasn't a failure.
[deleted]
[deleted]
By your premise any plane that flies even 10% slower doesn't match up, even if it's superior in every other way.
You don't have to match exact speeds to match outcomes when it comes to bombing. What matters is what the platform is meant to achieve and how effective is it at its mission. A slower supersonic plane may be the superior overall platform, depending on the other aspects of the plane.
Russia made a hyper expensive show pony, when they could have built a cheaper, more effective platform at a lower speed. That's usually the kind of mistake the Americans make. The relatively high max speed of the TU-160 turned out to be entirely meaningless, they would have been better off building a different plane.
The TU-160 has a $200m+ price tag. That's $1.2b scaled to the US economic terms. It's something beyond hyper expensive for the Russians in relation to their economic capabilities and military spending.
The B-1A was cancelled. The TU-160 should have been cancelled.
You don't have to match exact speeds to match outcomes when it comes to bombing. What matters is what the platform is meant to achieve and how effective is it at its mission. A slower supersonic plane may be the superior overall platform, depending on the other aspects of the plane.
Russia made a hyper expensive show pony, when they could have built a cheaper, more effective platform at a lower speed. That's usually the kind of mistake the Americans make. The relatively high max speed of the TU-160 turned out to be entirely meaningless, they would have been better off building a different plane.
The TU-160 has a $200m+ price tag. That's $1.2b scaled to the US economic terms. It's something beyond hyper expensive for the Russians in relation to their economic capabilities and military spending.
The B-1A was cancelled. The TU-160 should have been cancelled.
What do you mean 10% slower? The B-1B was essentially half the speed. That's a huge difference.
Scaling prices of Soviet inventions to US economic terms using Russian prices is really, really absurd.
Scaling prices of Soviet inventions to US economic terms using Russian prices is really, really absurd.
> And 35 years later the West is still unable to match Tu-16
Does it really need to?
Carrying 100 tons of bombs at mach 2... where?
A single F-18 can easily carry a 2Mt nuke, or two, mounted on some standoff missile with decent range on itself.
And USA, unlike USSR, has a network of friendly countries to host their airforce, and aerial refuelling infrastructure spanning the whole world.
Does it really need to?
Carrying 100 tons of bombs at mach 2... where?
A single F-18 can easily carry a 2Mt nuke, or two, mounted on some standoff missile with decent range on itself.
And USA, unlike USSR, has a network of friendly countries to host their airforce, and aerial refuelling infrastructure spanning the whole world.
Especially since payload of Tu-160 is much smaller than B-1B and supersonic capability it can provide works only on very short distances - it's not for delivering bombs faster, more for running away from fighters.
It is not delivering bombs it is delivering cruise missiles.
Which makes the supersonic capability even more pointless. If it's going to release missiles from far away there won't be any fighters to evade.
Tu-160 can't cruise supersonically unlike Tu-144 or Concorde and they really have very little in common.
Tu-144 was doomed by the whole system of socialism - and not really in a bad way. In a classless Soviet society there were no people for who paying 5x for the ticket to get 2.5x speed would be justified just because there was no mass inequality. In the west, there were some of those people and for a while (1980s and 1990s) that was enough for profitable operation of planes that came for free - but even then, that wouldn't work out if the airlines had to pay for planes.
If was an expensive toy West could somehow afford for a while, but Soviet Union couldn't.
Tu-144 was doomed by the whole system of socialism - and not really in a bad way. In a classless Soviet society there were no people for who paying 5x for the ticket to get 2.5x speed would be justified just because there was no mass inequality. In the west, there were some of those people and for a while (1980s and 1990s) that was enough for profitable operation of planes that came for free - but even then, that wouldn't work out if the airlines had to pay for planes.
If was an expensive toy West could somehow afford for a while, but Soviet Union couldn't.
I’d suggest the book red plenty for an interesting set of perspectives on the Soviet system. The Soviet Union was not a classless society by any stretch.
[deleted]
It's worth remembering that one reasons for Concorde's limited success was regulatory manipulation by companies like Pan-AM, TWA and Boeing to initially block the most profitable transatlantic flights to the US.
That limited initial orders and almost killed the project until it was slightly relaxed enough to allow some flights to New York.
That limited initial orders and almost killed the project until it was slightly relaxed enough to allow some flights to New York.
As someone who grew up in the USSR at the very bottom, it was definitely not classless. It was the epitome of corruption - get into a position of power by any means possible, and start lootin'.
This sort of cynical approach to government and lack of dedication to public service is exactly what I see now taking root in the United States. Get to the feeding trough and grift your heart out. It's f--ing tragic.
This sort of cynical approach to government and lack of dedication to public service is exactly what I see now taking root in the United States. Get to the feeding trough and grift your heart out. It's f--ing tragic.
What’s “the west” and how were they trying and weren’t able to match tu-160?
The West being the US and Western Europe and the attempts were mainly the B-1A and the XB-70 both of which failed.
Cancellation isn't failure. By that point it was clear that non-stealth high altitude bombers were going to be completely useless within the next few years due to advances in missile technology.
Actually, no it wasn't. What was clear was that low altitude bombers were going to become useless due to look-down shoot-down radars. High altitude and high speed bombers were and are the best non-stealth alternative.
>High altitude and high speed bombers were and are the best non-stealth alternative.
Which are carried by interceptor aircraft - meanwhile the long-term shift was clearly towards anti-aircraft missiles., and stealth was only a few years away. At this point the F/A-117 was already pretty far along in development.
Which are carried by interceptor aircraft - meanwhile the long-term shift was clearly towards anti-aircraft missiles., and stealth was only a few years away. At this point the F/A-117 was already pretty far along in development.
There have been countless numbers of articles about 737Max's failures or A380's financial woe, and yet a single article about Tu-144 and you call it propaganda?
> And 35 years later the West is still unable to match Tu-160
Unable to match what? Aircraft is designed to serve a use case. B52 is planned to remain in service until at least 2050s, despite not winning any records. SR71 is a dazzling aircraft that is universally admired, yet none are in service today.
> And 35 years later the West is still unable to match Tu-160
Unable to match what? Aircraft is designed to serve a use case. B52 is planned to remain in service until at least 2050s, despite not winning any records. SR71 is a dazzling aircraft that is universally admired, yet none are in service today.
buffs not so shabby record-wise. A simple search for “b52 record” returns plenty of gold.
There were actually aircraft designed by the US to match the Tu-160. See the XB-70 Valkyrie, which was a complete failure that never gave suite to anything. So yes, the US never matched the Tu-160, despite trying.
There were actually aircraft designed by the US to match the Tu-160
At the risk of “arguing with someone on the internet”, I think you may have your chronology backwards, since it seems the Tu-160 was designed to match the US aircraft you mention.
The Valkyrie was a late 1950’s to early 1960’s design with physical prototypes existing and flying by 1964.
The B-1A design began in 1965, with the first flight in 1974. This would have been the closest western analog to the Tu-160, since the B-1B derivative had a different focus - low-altitude terrain following - since it was believed that the high-altitude/high speed designs like the B-1A were vulnerable to newer Soviet missile designs. Stealth was also becoming increasingly important to US command due to the same concerns about missiles.
The design competition that begat the Tu-160 began in 1972, with a first flight in 1981. I’m not saying it’s not a great plane - by all accounts it is very capable - but US designs were not done in response to it.
At the risk of “arguing with someone on the internet”, I think you may have your chronology backwards, since it seems the Tu-160 was designed to match the US aircraft you mention.
The Valkyrie was a late 1950’s to early 1960’s design with physical prototypes existing and flying by 1964.
The B-1A design began in 1965, with the first flight in 1974. This would have been the closest western analog to the Tu-160, since the B-1B derivative had a different focus - low-altitude terrain following - since it was believed that the high-altitude/high speed designs like the B-1A were vulnerable to newer Soviet missile designs. Stealth was also becoming increasingly important to US command due to the same concerns about missiles.
The design competition that begat the Tu-160 began in 1972, with a first flight in 1981. I’m not saying it’s not a great plane - by all accounts it is very capable - but US designs were not done in response to it.
The Valkyrie was wound down because missile technology made it obsolete before it was even done. The USA instead focused on the supersonic B1. And even that project was almost cancelled as obsolete if Reagan hadn’t had intervened, and gone for a low flying B1B instead that had much less chance of being shot out of the sky before dropping its bombs. To be honest, even the B1B isn’t that useful, ballistic and cruise missiles do the job much better. Even Russia doesn’t fly its supersonic bomber very often, flying the less expensive to operate TU-95 a lot more.
War isn’t a pissing contest to see who can have the fastest X, it is rather one where you find a bunch of most effective tools for the job.
War isn’t a pissing contest to see who can have the fastest X, it is rather one where you find a bunch of most effective tools for the job.
The main reason the XB-70 and B-1A were shutdown was yes missiles advancing, but mostly price.
Low flying approaches and cruise missiles were strongly reconsidered at the the because the MiG-31 had look-down shoot-down capability. We don't know if it would have been a better or worse option, we're dealing in counterfactuals.
Russia has few uses for the Tu-160 anymore. It's main use was to penetrate hostile airspace of near peer opponents. Since the fall of the USSR yes there is not much more use for that.
Low flying approaches and cruise missiles were strongly reconsidered at the the because the MiG-31 had look-down shoot-down capability. We don't know if it would have been a better or worse option, we're dealing in counterfactuals.
Russia has few uses for the Tu-160 anymore. It's main use was to penetrate hostile airspace of near peer opponents. Since the fall of the USSR yes there is not much more use for that.
Valkyrie was a different class of bombers, one that never came to be. Rather than the Blackjack, the Russian answer to Valkyrie was actually the T-4. The SR-71 was a spyplane, but there was also to be an SR-71-class interceptor meant to shoot down incoming Valkyrie/T4-class bombers. That entire field of mach-3 bombers and fighters was stopped by advanced in missile tech.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_T-4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_T-4
The Tu-160 was made obsolete by anti-air missiles and radar (also the reason all work on supersonic interceptors stopped in the 60's). SR-71 by satellites.
I'm not very familiar with the Tu-160, so I'm curious to hear your opinion. It seems like it was a Soviet success at building something like North American attempted (unsuccessfully) with the XB-70. I'm not suggesting it was a copy, just that it seems like the same class of aircraft?
Interesting that the Tu-144LL was fitted with the Tu-160 bombers engines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznetsov_NK-32 ; The Tu-144LL did test flights for Nasa and Boeing, when they tried to design a supersonic jet liner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-144#Use_by_NASA ; at least someone was trying to learn from the design of this bird.
Interesting part of cold war rivalry between the US and USSR amusingly won by Europeans.
The American Concorde never even left the design stage so at least the Tupolev got that going for itself.
Given how much the EU pissed away on a useless airplane that did not lead to any future orders beyond the initial set I would not exactly say that the EU 'won' this competition. The only way to win this game was not to play and earlier you bailed out on consumer SST the better off the end result.
The European aerospace industry absolutely won it. Concorde established anglo-french cooperation, known today as Airbus. Many innovative features (such as electric flight controls) introduced in Concorde were further developed in the following Airbus A300 and reached their full potential in A320, which is the highest-selling airliner in the world and has exceptional safety record.
A300 in particular was so ahead of its time that American airlines saw it as being too good to be true. An airliner much safer, efficient and reliable than any counterpart couldn't get a single sale for years until Airbus gave a few to Eastern Airlines for free (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln-ffJM9sJc).
A300 in particular was so ahead of its time that American airlines saw it as being too good to be true. An airliner much safer, efficient and reliable than any counterpart couldn't get a single sale for years until Airbus gave a few to Eastern Airlines for free (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln-ffJM9sJc).
That might be the case, but that doesn't mean the plane was a success. That means the reorganization of the industry was a success.
That is a nice story to tell yourself, but it is not actually what happened. Concorde was more about tying the UK into the European Economic Community and the future EU. The Aerospatiale/BAC partnership that developed the Concorde existed in parallel to Airbus and it was only much later that Airbus took over a lot of the operational maintenance of Concorde when it acquired Aerospatiale entirely in 2000.
Concorde was not an Airbus aircraft. Tech developed for Concorde was not the same fly-by-wire that ended up in the A300 line. The A300 line is very good, but would have (probably) existed without Concorde and the money pissed away on Concorde by Aerospatiale and BAC did nothing for either company other than weaken them and lead to BAC disappearing into BAE. (BAE, the weakened Aerospatiale and what was left of Messerschmidt previously had been pushed by their respective governments to join into Airbus.)
When BAC still existed as an independent company in the late 60s it lobbied the UK government to not support the A300 program and instead tried to push its own competing civilian airliner. Maybe if Concorde was not such a failure then Aerospatiale might have been able to continue on its own and BAC would not have been forced to be acquired by BAE and become a part of the Airbus group. In this imagined reality both would have continued as national aerospace champions in civilian planes in addition to their military work, but we will never know.
Concorde was not an Airbus aircraft. Tech developed for Concorde was not the same fly-by-wire that ended up in the A300 line. The A300 line is very good, but would have (probably) existed without Concorde and the money pissed away on Concorde by Aerospatiale and BAC did nothing for either company other than weaken them and lead to BAC disappearing into BAE. (BAE, the weakened Aerospatiale and what was left of Messerschmidt previously had been pushed by their respective governments to join into Airbus.)
When BAC still existed as an independent company in the late 60s it lobbied the UK government to not support the A300 program and instead tried to push its own competing civilian airliner. Maybe if Concorde was not such a failure then Aerospatiale might have been able to continue on its own and BAC would not have been forced to be acquired by BAE and become a part of the Airbus group. In this imagined reality both would have continued as national aerospace champions in civilian planes in addition to their military work, but we will never know.
I think you are the one telling stories to yourself. According to you, Concorde was created to tie the UK to the EEC, which UK was not part of. May I remind you that the EEC membership was proposed to the UK and they flatly refused. Later when they tried to join, France denied their membership up until 1973. Concorde first flew in 1969.
Parent is correct, Concorde was a first step towards Airbus. European governments knew that there was too many aircraft manufacturers and they saw the need for mergers. France and UK are the leading europeans aircraft manufacturers, that made sense to start with a franco british venture. Many of the Concorde staff later worked for Airbus, like Henri Ziegler, and refined the concorde technology.
Parent is correct, Concorde was a first step towards Airbus. European governments knew that there was too many aircraft manufacturers and they saw the need for mergers. France and UK are the leading europeans aircraft manufacturers, that made sense to start with a franco british venture. Many of the Concorde staff later worked for Airbus, like Henri Ziegler, and refined the concorde technology.
Wasn't that partly because of intense lobbying in the US to disallow it to fly overland routes (even subsonically) because of "sonic boom noise"?
Sonic boom noise/damage is a very real thing, and the engines on Concord were VERY loud compared to modern high bypass turbofans even when not operating supersonic. Flying the Concord subsonically doesn't make much sense; the range was tailored to cross the Atlantic at supersonic speeds (4,400 mi range. 3,600 mi trip. Don't forget that it needs to reserve 30 minutes of fuel, in addition to the nearest alternate). If you slow it down over land it gets less efficient so you really can't get too much farther than the coasts unless you stop to refuel. But then you've just got a low capacity, loud, expensive to operate subsonic plane.
The reality is that the Concord was very good at one thing, getting across the North Atlantic at speed. But it was much worse for almost anything else since it lacked the range for longer crossings (it had about half the range of a 747), and wasn't a good option for subsonic overland travel, and consumed more fuel per passenger per mile.
The reality is that the Concord was very good at one thing, getting across the North Atlantic at speed. But it was much worse for almost anything else since it lacked the range for longer crossings (it had about half the range of a 747), and wasn't a good option for subsonic overland travel, and consumed more fuel per passenger per mile.
USSR back then and all the currently "democratic" societies now are more than happy to support projects that show everyone how much better they are than the "other guys" but when it comes to actually improving the life of non-elite, all the elite-led societies (all of the current and past societies) seem to fail for some reason. I wonder why.
It always reminds me of Eisenhower's famous chance for peace speech: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chance_for_Peace_speech
> when it comes to actually improving the life of non-elite, all the elite-led societies (all of the current and past societies) seem to fail for some reason
They haven't failed, it has been exactly the opposite. Which is of course why the global immigration magnet is so incredibly strong toward those nations.
Those societies, the more affluent democratic ones you refer to, have been hyper progressive and prosperous for the average person since the WW2 era.
A middle class person since ~1950-1960 in Austria, Germany, France, Britain, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, the US, Canada, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Belgium, Ireland, Slovenia, Japan, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand (and numerous others) - have largely led quite comfortable lives compared to what it was like in the past. Life has gotten better in most every regard if you're in those nations vs pre WW2.
You can even watch this progress happen in rapid fashion, in eg the Baltics or the former Czechoslovakia, as they're quickly joining the more affluent tier post Soviet rule. The same is true in South Korea, China, Taiwan in terms of non-elite progress. The progress by the non-elites in those nations has been breathtaking over a very short period of time (30-40 years).
They haven't failed, it has been exactly the opposite. Which is of course why the global immigration magnet is so incredibly strong toward those nations.
Those societies, the more affluent democratic ones you refer to, have been hyper progressive and prosperous for the average person since the WW2 era.
A middle class person since ~1950-1960 in Austria, Germany, France, Britain, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, the US, Canada, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Belgium, Ireland, Slovenia, Japan, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand (and numerous others) - have largely led quite comfortable lives compared to what it was like in the past. Life has gotten better in most every regard if you're in those nations vs pre WW2.
You can even watch this progress happen in rapid fashion, in eg the Baltics or the former Czechoslovakia, as they're quickly joining the more affluent tier post Soviet rule. The same is true in South Korea, China, Taiwan in terms of non-elite progress. The progress by the non-elites in those nations has been breathtaking over a very short period of time (30-40 years).
The Monino Airfield [1], north of Moscow, has a Tu-144 [2] on display. You can walk right up to it, but can't physically get in it.
Monino is one of the more amazing aviation museums I have seen. There are some extremely rare aircraft on display, including my favorite, a Mil V-12 [3]
You can hire a former pilot who was stationed at the base to give you a tour. They can speak some English, but if you speak a little bit of Russian the stories become a lot more interesting!
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monino_Airfield
[2] https://www.google.com/maps/place/55°50'12.0%22N+38°10'12.0%...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_V-12
Monino is one of the more amazing aviation museums I have seen. There are some extremely rare aircraft on display, including my favorite, a Mil V-12 [3]
You can hire a former pilot who was stationed at the base to give you a tour. They can speak some English, but if you speak a little bit of Russian the stories become a lot more interesting!
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monino_Airfield
[2] https://www.google.com/maps/place/55°50'12.0%22N+38°10'12.0%...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_V-12
> French President Georges Pompidou, foregoing nationalism, called it "a beautiful plane."
For a brief moment I imagined a different world to the one I experienced in my youth, in which the Cold War, with all its cliched animos stereotyped rivalrous ranting that filled every newspaper and news bulletin for three decades, was replaced by a good faith chivalrous respect.
It felt good. The world was a better, more interesting, more productive place.
For a brief moment I imagined a different world to the one I experienced in my youth, in which the Cold War, with all its cliched animos stereotyped rivalrous ranting that filled every newspaper and news bulletin for three decades, was replaced by a good faith chivalrous respect.
It felt good. The world was a better, more interesting, more productive place.
And yet one half of it lived under a dark tyranny.
USSR officially congratulated USA on the moon landings, for example. People rarely talk about things like that, sadly.
It was also one of the only country with the ability to confirm that the USA did go to the moon, and had every reason (politically) to call it a hoax and didn't.
That's why I still don't get moon landing conspiracy theories.
That's why I still don't get moon landing conspiracy theories.
I accidentally got into a debate with a moon landing conspiracy theorist about this once. Their claim was that both space agencies were tacitly colluding to sponge budgets off of their respective governments. I dug into this further and after a couple of rounds of back-and-forth the answers they presented effectively required the entire Soviet political and ideological system to be a sham. I pointed this out and commented that, if true, this would be a conspiracy theory that makes a bit of NASA trickery pale to insignificance in comparison, and never heard from them again. I’d like to think they changed their mind, but I don’t think it's likely.
My (uncharitable) explanation is that it gives a comforting sense of control and understanding of the world to be part of an in-group that has simple explanations for every outsider’s (potentially complicated and technical) objections.
My (uncharitable) explanation is that it gives a comforting sense of control and understanding of the world to be part of an in-group that has simple explanations for every outsider’s (potentially complicated and technical) objections.
One previous comment:
Concordski: What ever happened to Soviets' spectacular rival to Concorde? (2017) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19021153 - Jan 2019 (1 comment)
Concordski: What ever happened to Soviets' spectacular rival to Concorde? (2017) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19021153 - Jan 2019 (1 comment)
*the Soviet's doomed rival to the doomed Concord
The plane uses the French spelling with an e, even in English (although it appears there was a bit of back and forth on that back during the 1960s).
It was actually really controversial at the time, at least for conservative English newspapers. I stumbled upon old news footage of it on YouTube once. I remember an English worker with a rough accent saying something like “I don’t care if they put three es on the end, just let us keep working on the bloody thing”.
The Soviet scored another first by dooming its plane before the West
To use more creative language: If Concord was doomed, then the Tu-144 was completely fucked from day 1.
In Sinsheim/Germany there is a Tu144 on display right next to a Concorde. It really is a sight to behold and the museum is IMO a great place to visit (if you are a nerds).
Here is a photo of the beauties: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Concorde...
Here is a photo of the beauties: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Concorde...
One of the best Soviet airplane rivalry stories is the Tupolev Tu-4 - a bolt for bolt copy of the US B-29.
A good telling of the story here: https://wwiiafterwwii.wordpress.com/2019/06/29/b-29-to-bull/
A good telling of the story here: https://wwiiafterwwii.wordpress.com/2019/06/29/b-29-to-bull/
The USSR's call to develop and produce the Tu-144 seems to have been a mistake - in hindsight naturally, but also at the time: The European Concorde was targeted at the rich, whose time was so precious that they absolutely had to get across the world much faster. The USSR was a poorer country, and though it too was stratified (to bureaucrats with country Dacha's etc.) - it did not have a jet-set of multi-millionaires to cater to as air travelers. Plus, I believe international travel both within and outside of the "Soviet block" was much more limited generally. So there was simply not going to be demand for it. Combine that with the significant technical challenges and chance of accidents and I just don't see how that makes sense.
But - I'm no "Sovietologist", so do enlighten me if I'm wrong about this!
But - I'm no "Sovietologist", so do enlighten me if I'm wrong about this!
There was popular demand for these flights. My father once flew with Tu-144 from Moscow to Alma-Ata because of some urgency. The distance between these two cities is about 4000 km which is comparable to the distance between London and New-York. By the time he used to be a student and since the flight was subsidized it costed him just 83 roubles, which is just 20 roubles more than a flight on an ordinary plane, according to wiki (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D1%83-144#%D0%9A%D0%BE%...)
And 83 roubles will be like 2x more that his monthly stipend.
I'm not an expert but I do not think that commercial viability was really something they were interested in. Again, flight inside USSR were pretty common, and there was a demand for those flights, but only at heavily subsidized prices. So the idea probably to have this token supersonic jet as more of a demonstration of capabilities of Soviet technology, operating at a loss. Also, technological parity. I think it is more of a execution failure rather than idea.
BTW, country dachas was not exactly a marker of a bureaucrat class. More precisely I believe there were two classes of dachas - small summer homes for common people and 'nomenklatura' dachas for people with personal drivers.
BTW, country dachas was not exactly a marker of a bureaucrat class. More precisely I believe there were two classes of dachas - small summer homes for common people and 'nomenklatura' dachas for people with personal drivers.
That's about right. TU-144 was borne more of the need to keep up with the Joneses. That is to maintain technological parity with the West.
Another such project was Buran/Energia, which while not a carbon copy of Space Shuttle was an outcome of matching "what the Americans have".
Another such project was Buran/Energia, which while not a carbon copy of Space Shuttle was an outcome of matching "what the Americans have".
Buran/Energia was in many ways more capable, and powerful than the Space Shuttle. Buran was certainly inspired. However, Soviets knew how to get into space. They improved the design considerably.
Buran doesn't use integrated reusable engines with the external tank, so there's no awkward mix of solid boosters. Plus, Buran has a fully functional emergency ejection seats for all crew members. More so, the Buran had automated flight from the outset and meant that Buran could be lauched without anyone and be landed fully automatic.
Energia could be launched by itself, and carry about 100 tons which is about 3 times the shuttle's capacity, and being a seperate system makes so much more sense than the booster + fuel tank mix of the Space Shuttle system.
In general, Buran, from an engineering point of view, was a fantastic piece of work and although might have been inspired by the Shuttle initially, it definitely improved on the Shuttle design.
It's truly sad that the Buran was discontinued only after one flight. It deserved more time in the sun to shine.
Buran doesn't use integrated reusable engines with the external tank, so there's no awkward mix of solid boosters. Plus, Buran has a fully functional emergency ejection seats for all crew members. More so, the Buran had automated flight from the outset and meant that Buran could be lauched without anyone and be landed fully automatic.
Energia could be launched by itself, and carry about 100 tons which is about 3 times the shuttle's capacity, and being a seperate system makes so much more sense than the booster + fuel tank mix of the Space Shuttle system.
In general, Buran, from an engineering point of view, was a fantastic piece of work and although might have been inspired by the Shuttle initially, it definitely improved on the Shuttle design.
It's truly sad that the Buran was discontinued only after one flight. It deserved more time in the sun to shine.
Funnily enough at the sister museum to the Sinsheim Technology museum where they have a Tupolev they have a Buran shuttle
https://speyer.technik-museum.de/en/spaceshuttle-buran
https://speyer.technik-museum.de/en/spaceshuttle-buran
Energia, the booster of Buran, was part of the Soviet version of star wars; they tried to put up Poljus - an 80 ton space station with a 1 MW laser designed to down incoming targets. And that was after Gorby has pledged not to militarize space.
But yes, the USSR almost outdid the USA on star wars, if it weren't for some software error.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4XgCRnqwpg
https://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-rise-fall-the-sovie...
More details on the project in this article (in Russian) https://warspot.ru/19630-tayny-polyusa
But yes, the USSR almost outdid the USA on star wars, if it weren't for some software error.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4XgCRnqwpg
https://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-rise-fall-the-sovie...
More details on the project in this article (in Russian) https://warspot.ru/19630-tayny-polyusa
Wikipedia says "shortly before Polyus' launch, Mikhail Gorbachev visited the Baikonur Cosmodrome and expressly forbade the in-orbit testing of its capabilities." It wasn't the case that USSR upper power hid its cruel intentions or that space industry was more militaristic than Politburo.
Buran had other interesting features, like non-toxic propellants and longer ability to stay on orbit. It's not that Soviets always learned from their mistakes and made better systems - sometimes they couldn't, and sometimes the problems were internal to the system, like grounding of TKS after Chelomey's death - it's that sometimes this approach did lead to improved results. Soviet engineers were quite capable in aerospace.
Regarding economics of Tu-144 flights. I've heard that economics of civil aviation in USSR was rather weird - political pressure dictated having civil aviation, economical realities dictated subsidizing most - not only Tu-144 - flights to keep them affordable, yet this approach also had side benefits in keeping industry, which essentially was tailored for military orders, occupied with projects, testing, maintenance, learning, education of specialists, even international sales.
Buran had other interesting features, like non-toxic propellants and longer ability to stay on orbit. It's not that Soviets always learned from their mistakes and made better systems - sometimes they couldn't, and sometimes the problems were internal to the system, like grounding of TKS after Chelomey's death - it's that sometimes this approach did lead to improved results. Soviet engineers were quite capable in aerospace.
Regarding economics of Tu-144 flights. I've heard that economics of civil aviation in USSR was rather weird - political pressure dictated having civil aviation, economical realities dictated subsidizing most - not only Tu-144 - flights to keep them affordable, yet this approach also had side benefits in keeping industry, which essentially was tailored for military orders, occupied with projects, testing, maintenance, learning, education of specialists, even international sales.
Correct. Add to this that in the USSR civil and military uses were much closer related than in the west, for an example, see my previous comment: the engine of the Tu-160 bomber was later fitted to the experimental Tu-144LL. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznetsov_NK-32
I am not quite convinced about the test limitations for the Polyus station; I mean according to Anton Chechov, that (laser) gun in the picture would have to shoot, at some point. Maybe that would have resulted in much earlier conflict between the political leadership and the military industrial complex, who knows. They mentioned that that they had the Buran launcher fuelled up and ready for launch, while attempts were ongoing to push the decission for the test launch through, I mean that sounds like of lots of politics was going on behind the scene, assuming that this exercise would have a significant risk and cost a non trivial amount of money.
I am not quite convinced about the test limitations for the Polyus station; I mean according to Anton Chechov, that (laser) gun in the picture would have to shoot, at some point. Maybe that would have resulted in much earlier conflict between the political leadership and the military industrial complex, who knows. They mentioned that that they had the Buran launcher fuelled up and ready for launch, while attempts were ongoing to push the decission for the test launch through, I mean that sounds like of lots of politics was going on behind the scene, assuming that this exercise would have a significant risk and cost a non trivial amount of money.
But - I'm no "Sovietologist", so do enlighten me if I'm wrong about this!
and though it too was stratified (to bureaucrats with country Dacha's etc.)
It wasn't so stratified to mention it explicitly. Everyone had more or less the same lifestyle. And many had Dacha's, not just bureaucrats. Also, if you'd seen those dachas...
E.g. four years ago I visited Stalin's dacha on the lake Ritsa. I'd say that average house of the current Russian middle class is much bigger and more luxurious than Stalin's dacha. And he was the leader of the USSR.
and though it too was stratified (to bureaucrats with country Dacha's etc.)
It wasn't so stratified to mention it explicitly. Everyone had more or less the same lifestyle. And many had Dacha's, not just bureaucrats. Also, if you'd seen those dachas...
E.g. four years ago I visited Stalin's dacha on the lake Ritsa. I'd say that average house of the current Russian middle class is much bigger and more luxurious than Stalin's dacha. And he was the leader of the USSR.
It probably was much larger than average Soviet house at the time, as well as far more luxurious. Stalin was into expensive cars and fine cuisine as well (even as parts of the country quite literally starved to death).
Thing is, you don't have to be ultra-rich to feel good about yourself. You just need to be substantially richer than the next guy. And no party functionary (let alone Stalin) ever had any lifestyle issues. Dachas, yachts, personal chefs - it's par for the course until your fellow party members take you out with a pickaxe or something to free up the spot.
Thing is, you don't have to be ultra-rich to feel good about yourself. You just need to be substantially richer than the next guy. And no party functionary (let alone Stalin) ever had any lifestyle issues. Dachas, yachts, personal chefs - it's par for the course until your fellow party members take you out with a pickaxe or something to free up the spot.
This is true for absolutely any world leader. I doubt that Hoover was starving during Great Depression. It's an unfair appeal to emotions: no matter how much or how little Stalin ate, it wouldn't solve hunger problem of the entire country.
It'd solve a lot of problems if he died of starvation though, like millions of his de-facto slaves in rural Russia. Folks should remember this when they vote for commies. It always ends up like this, no exceptions.
Not everyone had more or less the same lifestyle. If nothing else, you had central cities and peripheral towns and villages, and Russia vs other Soviet Republics (I know Ukraine got the shorter stick, to say the least for a very long time if not all the way to the end), etc.
I know Ukraine got the shorter stick
I don't think so. It's probably a propaganda of the new independent Ukraine government since 1991. Many of my relatives are stuck on Ukraine now because they moved there during USSR times because life there was better. They'd be happy to return to Russia, but they're old and they are citizens of Ukraine and if they sell their property in Ukraine, they'd be unable to buy real estate in Russia, so it's almost impossible for them to return. And they regret that dearly because of politics of nazism and poor state of economy.
Not all republics in USSR were equal, but differences weren't as big as they're now. And contrary to what current propaganda says, most prosperous republics were Baltic republics and Georgia. USSR was investing a lot of money in those republics to buy loyalty. You can find numbers in the USSR statistics. For example, USSR paid more for milk from farmers in Baltic republics than it cost in the grocery shops.
It was a big mistake to invest in those countries. Now they hate us the most despite all that effort and money poured there by Russia.
I don't think so. It's probably a propaganda of the new independent Ukraine government since 1991. Many of my relatives are stuck on Ukraine now because they moved there during USSR times because life there was better. They'd be happy to return to Russia, but they're old and they are citizens of Ukraine and if they sell their property in Ukraine, they'd be unable to buy real estate in Russia, so it's almost impossible for them to return. And they regret that dearly because of politics of nazism and poor state of economy.
Not all republics in USSR were equal, but differences weren't as big as they're now. And contrary to what current propaganda says, most prosperous republics were Baltic republics and Georgia. USSR was investing a lot of money in those republics to buy loyalty. You can find numbers in the USSR statistics. For example, USSR paid more for milk from farmers in Baltic republics than it cost in the grocery shops.
It was a big mistake to invest in those countries. Now they hate us the most despite all that effort and money poured there by Russia.
I don't think that major Ukrainian cities of let's say post-Stalin era were in worse shape then comparable Russian cities of the same time. You had more 'deficit' goods in Moscow sure, I don't know if Kyiv was lacking anything else to be honest.
Rural/urban gap was very real though but with each decade more and more people were able to live in the cities due to extensive housing program.
Around 1990-1991 there was a popular sentiment in Ukraine that we are feeding the whole Union etc, something similar was in Russia (that they subsidize other republics), the reality was a bit of a mixed bag
Rural/urban gap was very real though but with each decade more and more people were able to live in the cities due to extensive housing program.
Around 1990-1991 there was a popular sentiment in Ukraine that we are feeding the whole Union etc, something similar was in Russia (that they subsidize other republics), the reality was a bit of a mixed bag
Another aspect is that you can only fly over sea (since the sonic boom is too noisy). So the routes would have been limited probably to only go from Moskow to Wladiwostok, or best to Japan. But there would probably be no supersonic flight allowed to go across central Europe.
There was no regulation prohibiting overland supersonic flights over USSR (and hearing sonic booms from military jets was pretty common in some areas)
Yes, but ppl wouldnt put up with it. Like Saudi Arabia withdrew flight rights after Nomads complained that it was upsetting their Camels. https://mainlymiles.com/2021/06/03/singapore-airlines-concor...
There are videos of the tragic crash on YouTube, but this one of the aftermath is quite something: https://youtu.be/rPyvuBbhAAs
> its rushed development made it notoriously unreliable and unpleasant to fly.
Apparently taking away the profit motive didn't work.
Apparently taking away the profit motive didn't work.
The Boeing 2707 had the same complaints.
And the closest to successful version, the Concorde, was never profitable but propped up with heavy .gov funding from the French and British governments.
And the closest to successful version, the Concorde, was never profitable but propped up with heavy .gov funding from the French and British governments.
> The Boeing 2707 had the same complaints.
It could hardly be unpleasant and unreliable, because it never was completed and never flew.
As for uneconomic, sure. That's a common result of it being a government project, just like the Concorde.
It could hardly be unpleasant and unreliable, because it never was completed and never flew.
As for uneconomic, sure. That's a common result of it being a government project, just like the Concorde.
They had two prototypes and enough simulations to know that it was unpleasant and unreliable.
That's why .gov dropped their funding and cancelled it.
That's why .gov dropped their funding and cancelled it.
No support for your contention in the wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_2707#Government_funding...
The funding was cut because it was uneconomic and environmentally damaging.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_2707#Government_funding...
The funding was cut because it was uneconomic and environmentally damaging.
It being obvious that people wouldn't want tickets because it's unpleasant, and operating being expensive because it's unreliable were contributing factors in it being uneconomical.
The env damaging part was only over land and there were plenty of niches for it. It could have done just fine over oceans. Late 70s/early 80s would have loved an SST going west coast to Japan and Hawaii.
The env damaging part was only over land and there were plenty of niches for it. It could have done just fine over oceans. Late 70s/early 80s would have loved an SST going west coast to Japan and Hawaii.
> It being obvious that people wouldn't want tickets because it's unpleasant (1), and operating being expensive because it's unreliable(2) were contributing factors in it being uneconomical.
I'll need a cite for (1) and (2). I don't believe it.
I'll need a cite for (1) and (2). I don't believe it.
Your wiki citation talks about it in the botched transition from swing wings to a fixed delta wings. The swing wings were unreliable, and caused quite a bit more chatter in a larger design like an airliner compared to designs like the F-14 (which already aren't really known for being a smooth ride). Converting the design to be a fixed delta wing aircraft had them using crazy ideas like using more or less solid titanium in the air frame, which was never going to be financially viable in the airliner space.
You can see some of this today in B-1 lancers, which are very much known for being rough rides, and are pretty close to a half billion dollars a piece compared to <$100M for a B-52 which is significantly closer to airliners wrt design philosophy and cost, and reliability (the B-52 has something like an ~80% ready rate, compared to the B-1's ~50% ready rate).
You can see some of this today in B-1 lancers, which are very much known for being rough rides, and are pretty close to a half billion dollars a piece compared to <$100M for a B-52 which is significantly closer to airliners wrt design philosophy and cost, and reliability (the B-52 has something like an ~80% ready rate, compared to the B-1's ~50% ready rate).
It's pretty clear why it was cancelled, and it wasn't because it was unreliable and unpleasant like the Concordski. Newer designs learn from older ones, and you can't tell something like unreliable and unpleasant from an airplane that never flew, and didn't even have a completed design.
Nowhere in the article does it say doomed. Its 2021, can we stop flogging the commies yet?
The Tupolev was an absolute engineering masterpiece given the constraints it operated under. This thing had to transport regular people and land at practically any airport, something Concorde never did.
The Tupolev was an absolute engineering masterpiece given the constraints it operated under. This thing had to transport regular people and land at practically any airport, something Concorde never did.
Yes, it was doomed - it operated for less than a year.
No, it wasn't a masterpiece - it was plagued by usual Soviet issues: poor quality and bad engines.
And no, it wasn't intended to transport regular people and land at practically any airport.
No, it wasn't a masterpiece - it was plagued by usual Soviet issues: poor quality and bad engines.
And no, it wasn't intended to transport regular people and land at practically any airport.
> A Tupolev Tu-144 in flight over Moscow as part of a NASA-sponsored research project in 1998.
Photo five, featuring a Tu-144 with a US and Russia flag on it. Ah the brief optimistic days before the Cold War resumed. There are even a smattering of Hollywood movies over that span of time where the Russians and Americans work together in friendly fashion. When you view those movies now (eg Air Force One 1997), it seems entirely bizarre, from some fantasy world. Movies before: Soviets, Cold War, enemies; during the thaw: yay, Russia, democracy, friends, hugs all around; after: Putin, Cold War, quasi-enemies.
Photo five, featuring a Tu-144 with a US and Russia flag on it. Ah the brief optimistic days before the Cold War resumed. There are even a smattering of Hollywood movies over that span of time where the Russians and Americans work together in friendly fashion. When you view those movies now (eg Air Force One 1997), it seems entirely bizarre, from some fantasy world. Movies before: Soviets, Cold War, enemies; during the thaw: yay, Russia, democracy, friends, hugs all around; after: Putin, Cold War, quasi-enemies.
One of my favorite electronic bands has an album entirely dedicated to communist era transports and there is a track dedicated to the TU 144
The videoclip has lots of footage of the plane. https://youtu.be/t09R_uTrvlw
The videoclip has lots of footage of the plane. https://youtu.be/t09R_uTrvlw
The key flaw of Tu-144: the whole wing structure was machined from a single enormous piece of aluminium.
Take that, Steve Jobs.
Really? Do you have a source for that? I’d like to read more.
https://testpilot.ru/russia/tupolev/144/tu144_1.php
> Крыло самолета (удлинения 1,74 и сужения 7, многолонжеронной конструкции) состоит из основной и отъемных частей и имеет кессонную конструкцию с силовой нагруженной обшивкой в виде фрезерованных крупногабаритных панелей вафельной конструкции из высокопрочных алюминиевых сплавов.
"The wing consists of the main, and detachable part, and has a caisson construction with load carrying honeycomb panel skin machined from high strength aluminium alloy"
So, a correction there. The wing is made of two ennormous machined parts: the main wing, and the wing extension.
> Крыло самолета (удлинения 1,74 и сужения 7, многолонжеронной конструкции) состоит из основной и отъемных частей и имеет кессонную конструкцию с силовой нагруженной обшивкой в виде фрезерованных крупногабаритных панелей вафельной конструкции из высокопрочных алюминиевых сплавов.
"The wing consists of the main, and detachable part, and has a caisson construction with load carrying honeycomb panel skin machined from high strength aluminium alloy"
So, a correction there. The wing is made of two ennormous machined parts: the main wing, and the wing extension.
I read it as "big machined honeycomb panels made out of high strength aluminum alloys"... So no mention of the actual size of a single panel.
Крупногабаритных just means "large/big sized".
Крупногабаритных just means "large/big sized".
New take on a supersonic travel: https://boomsupersonic.com/overture
Gotta give it to the Soviet party apparatchiks - they've actually flown in these, I believe several times. Or maybe underlings just didn't tell them how dangerous that was.
[0]: https://sinsheim.technik-museum.de/en/tupolev-tu-144