Sad fate of the TU 144s.

Locked

Your post just shows your ignorance and (perhaps) russofobia.

Firstly, there are rules about trawling up long dead threads. Basically, don’t do it.

Secondly, read here: Click

Some extracts:

..early flights in scheduled service indicated the Tu-144S was extremely unreliable. It was prematurely launched into passenger service before proper testing and tuning of the aircraft were completed
The last passenger flight of Tu-144 on around May 30, 1978 involved valve failure on one of the fuel tanks.

One crashed at an airshow and another while carrying mail.

While developing thew Tu-144, Tupolev’s bureau had to work in parallel on other projects, including the Tu-154 passenger aircraft and the Tu-22M bomber. Despite large and high-priority resource investment in the Tu-144 development programme and the fact that a large part of the whole Soviet R&D infrastructure was subordinated to the Tu-144 project, parallel project development overwhelmed the bureau and caused it to lose focus and make design errors. (Design errors affected not only the Tu-144, but the Tu-154 as well).[44] The first batch of 120 Tu-154s suffered from wing destruction due to excessive structural load and had to be withdrawn.

Basically, the Tu-144 was rushed, poorly designed and a complete and utter failure.

The fact it came from Russia has absolutely nothing to do with my opinion or the facts at hand.

No. 114 as it looks today:
http://www.planesandchoppers.com/picture/number9011.asp
and 115 on show last week:
http://www.planesandchoppers.com/picture/number9012.asp

77102 crashed at Paris, but this is because the pilot, for whatever reason you believe (and there are a lot of theories) overstressed the airframe pulling out of a dive.

77111 crashed during a test flight because of a faulty fuel line which caused a fire. The defective fuel line caused a leak, and when the pilot started the APU in-flight as part of the trials for the day, a fire started. This was the first Tu-144D, the developed model with non-afterburning RD-36-51A engines giving better range.

Postal service was intended as a route proving capability and an extension of the long-distance flight trials. The Tu-144 was therefore earning revenue before Concorde, by the way.

The flights from Moscow to Kazakhstan were ended after about a year or so because Aeroflot wasn’t keen on waiting for the D model, and the international oil crisis was beginning to impact their operations as well at that point. A good portion of their plans for the jet were to fly reciprocal routes internationally through Europe and the Far East. As other airlines backed out of the SST business, a lot of those options dried up, and Aeroflot was left holding the bag. Plus, there was an anti-SST lobby within the USSR as well. They used the crash of the D model as an excuse to deride the program as unsafe, which was little more than propaganda.

There is nothing to suggest that the aircraft design itself was a technical failure, other than the fact that the Tu-144 series model didn’t have quite the range envisioned, but the D model would have solved that with room to spare. The Paris crash was a result of circumstances that would have seen any other civil-rated airframe break apart just as easily, not a design flaw of a supersonic transport. Now, Aeroflot could’ve kept the jet in service for its useable lifetime to satisfy the curiosity of naysayers around the globe like yourself, but why should they have done that? It was expensive, it only really made sense for very long distance routes, and its international options disappeared as fast as potential Concorde sales.

The Tu-144 did have faults, but find me a perfect aircraft. Or at least find any evidence to suggest that the jet was not well engineered or was not successful in carrying out the tasks it was given to perform. Economics finally killed it in the USSR, not a lack of ability.

Interesting points, albeit 6 months late! 😉 😀

Paul

One was “borrowed” in the late 90’s for two series of flight tests. 77114, a former Tu-144D, was reengined with the Tu-160’s NK-321 turbofans and redesignated the Tu-144LL.

saw a documentary about 10 years ago, didn’t Nasa buy some second hand ones for testing in the 1990s?

One broke up at an airshow.
I beleive a second also crashed and somepoint, ending its commercial career.
What is widely know is:

It didn’t fly in comercial service for long.
It didn’t fly in postal service for long either.
Has been grounded for many, many years.

Does this sound like a well engineered and successfull plane to you?

77102 crashed at Paris, but this is because the pilot, for whatever reason you believe (and there are a lot of theories) overstressed the airframe pulling out of a dive.

77111 crashed during a test flight because of a faulty fuel line which caused a fire. The defective fuel line caused a leak, and when the pilot started the APU in-flight as part of the trials for the day, a fire started. This was the first Tu-144D, the developed model with non-afterburning RD-36-51A engines giving better range.

Postal service was intended as a route proving capability and an extension of the long-distance flight trials. The Tu-144 was therefore earning revenue before Concorde, by the way.

The flights from Moscow to Kazakhstan were ended after about a year or so because Aeroflot wasn’t keen on waiting for the D model, and the international oil crisis was beginning to impact their operations as well at that point. A good portion of their plans for the jet were to fly reciprocal routes internationally through Europe and the Far East. As other airlines backed out of the SST business, a lot of those options dried up, and Aeroflot was left holding the bag. Plus, there was an anti-SST lobby within the USSR as well. They used the crash of the D model as an excuse to deride the program as unsafe, which was little more than propaganda.

There is nothing to suggest that the aircraft design itself was a technical failure, other than the fact that the Tu-144 series model didn’t have quite the range envisioned, but the D model would have solved that with room to spare. The Paris crash was a result of circumstances that would have seen any other civil-rated airframe break apart just as easily, not a design flaw of a supersonic transport. Now, Aeroflot could’ve kept the jet in service for its useable lifetime to satisfy the curiosity of naysayers around the globe like yourself, but why should they have done that? It was expensive, it only really made sense for very long distance routes, and its international options disappeared as fast as potential Concorde sales.

The Tu-144 did have faults, but find me a perfect aircraft. Or at least find any evidence to suggest that the jet was not well engineered or was not successful in carrying out the tasks it was given to perform. Economics finally killed it in the USSR, not a lack of ability.

Somewhere in the g/f’s garage I have slides of them cutting a Tu-144 up with an angle grinder during an early MAKS show. Must try and locate it and scan it in.

TU 144 facts from credible source hear – http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.32.4338

Ben

I don’t mean to derail this further, but I feel that last post was a little unjust. I’ve apologised and explained my reasoning behind the “short tempered” reply already. If you feel that warrants the above abuse, then I think you’re being a little hypocritical.

My apologies to the topic starter and posters, I promise my next post will be on topic.

See your PM’s.

Paul

95% of stats are made up on the spot…& the other 10% aren’t much better! 😀

So Concorde v Koncordski…which one was faster???

That’s not half as irritating as reading your poor attitude and short tempered arrogance. There’s simply no need for it. There are ways of saying things without being rude, and it isn’t difficult.

I don’t mean to derail this further, but I feel that last post was a little unjust. I’ve apologised and explained my reasoning behind the “short tempered” reply already. If you feel that warrants the above abuse, then I think you’re being a little hypocritical.

My apologies to the topic starter and posters, I promise my next post will be on topic.

I’m sorry Paul, but I can’t stand people claiming facts without any form of reference. I’m sure you’re familiar with the saying “Did you know 95% of Statistics are made up on the spot?”, and old as the saying may be, It has taken extra meaning with the rise of the internet, where anyone can say what they want and claim its fact.

That’s not half as irritating as reading your poor attitude and short tempered arrogance. There’s simply no need for it. There are ways of saying things without being rude, and it isn’t difficult.

There’s no need to apologise to me. Just think before you type.

Paul

Just purely out of interest, Dan, do you have a total inability to ask a question in a reasonable manner? A basic level of politeness costs nothing.

I’m sorry Paul, but I can’t stand people claiming facts without any form of reference. I’m sure you’re familiar with the saying “Did you know 95% of Statistics are made up on the spot?”, and old as the saying may be, It has taken extra meaning with the rise of the internet, where anyone can say what they want and claim its fact. I merely want to weed out the fact from the fiction, and I’m sorry if that came across as rude, I didn’t intend it to.

A simple reference is all that you need, no link or anything (although prefered!), just “The AAIB’s investigation into aircraft safety in 2007 showed…” (for example). If you can’t put in a reference like that, then you’re stating opinion, not fact, which is perfectly acceptable provided you don’t claim it as fact.

Again, sorry if that came across as rude.

Tu 144 Paris 1975

http://www.abpic.co.uk/photo/1003142/

http://www.abpic.co.uk/photo/1003143/

better days….

And you get this info from where? And where’s the data for the Tupe?

Just purely out of interest, Dan, do you have a total inability to ask a question in a reasonable manner? A basic level of politeness costs nothing.

Whether the TU-144 is deemed to be a wonderful aircraft or a poorly designed screw up, the fact it’s a highly significant part of aviation history can not be argued on any grounds and it’s purely for that fact I find it very sad to see it rotting away under the harshness of the elements. She deserves better.

Paul

The Concorde has the worst civil safety record with 12,5 fatal events per million flights, which is over 3 times the next worst aircraft.

And you get this info from where? And where’s the data for the Tupe?

One broke up at an airshow.
I beleive a second also crashed and somepoint, ending its commercial career.
What is widely know is:

It didn’t fly in comercial service for long.
It didn’t fly in postal service for long either.
Has been grounded for many, many years.

Does this sound like a well engineered and successfull plane to you?

Bmused55,

The Concorde has the worst civil safety record with 12,5 fatal events per million flights, which is over 3 times the next worst aircraft.

I am using this as an example to show statistics can be twisted either way to back up any point. The fact is, you do not know whether the Tu-144 is a badly engineered plane or not, unless you work for Tupolev.

It had it’s share of bad luck, and suffered from selected technology lags of the Soviet Union, such as engine/fuel control systems and brake technology. This does not mean the vehicle itself was badly engineered. Aeroflot and the Soviet Unions priorities changed and the Tu-144 was placed on the development back burner.

A research version of the Tu-144 used turbojet engines that gave them nearly the fuel efficiency and similar range to Concorde. It had 126 seats. With a top speed of Mach 2.35 (made possible due to titanium and steel leading edges) and a cruise of Mach 2.16 it was potentially a more competitive aircraft, but by this stage the entire world had moved away from supersonic toward larger capacity subsonic vehicles. Even Concorde suffered due to this fundamental shift.

Disclaimer: I think the Concorde to be one of the most beautiful aircraft ever to grace our skies, and a technological tour-de-force. The above statistic was used to illustrate a point, and was based on the one unfortunate crash at Paris. But you get the gist. I do wish it was still flying.

Just came through these sad pictures of TU 144s rotting away.
[…]
http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2009/03/robots-making-cars.html

Well, it still works.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIFjvMjzBNg :eek::)

Which lends credence to Bemused’s observations. Any add on to an airframe is a necessary correction for some flight deficiency.