Concorde versus concordski

RE: Concorde versus concordski

Hi,
I dont know somehow I dont trust russian aircrafts. I think concorde is mutch better that the tu-144

RE: Concorde versus concordski

The problem with the delta wing on the Tu-144 aircraft was that they were inefficient from an aerodynamic standpoint. They lacked the superior 3-d shaping found on Concorde’s wing. Thats why the aircraft was dropped, it wasn’t perfected and was taking way too long.

RE: Concorde versus concordski

I might also comment about the supercruising aspect…do you have any idea on the thrust to drag ratio and typical thrust to wight ratio which is tied down to lift which then is proportional to the drag by a square factor, how about the low aspect ratio of the concord(ski) and you’re talking about supercruising? at what speed?

RE: Concorde versus concordski

humm…mach 2 flights without afterburner, flying at a speed faster than the exhaust velocity of an air breathing engine…must be some kind of alien technology, or maybe it’s dual combustion while the russians don’t call them afterburners in order to “sound” better…if think otherwise, please provide more info on the Tu-144D engine info…

also, i think its the “western” assumption that with the British and French aerospace researches in delta wing a/c that the Russians were thought to have stolen some data. This is quite a reasonable assumption since Russians in the 50s,60s do not have as extensive research as the europeans into Deltas…again, logics here, if the TU-144 is so great and in a country where economic efficiency is not as important as capitalistic economies of the west, while pride being foremost importance, then why did they phase it out if its so great?

RE: Concorde versus concordski

You people are way off in a lot of areas. First off, the Tu-144 was first envisioned as a way of cutting travel time in Russia, not as an international airliner. National prestige, however, led the Russians to compete on the international market.

The Tu-144 was the first SST to fly (December 31, 1968), the first to go supersonic (5 June 1969), and the first to enter service (albeit carrying cargo, on 26 December 1975). I am very disappointed that all the news programs covering the crash of the Concorde have failed to mention the Tu-144, even going so far as to call the Concorde unique.

The Tu-144 did eventually find its way into Aeroflot passenger service, aircraft 77109 beginning service on flight SU499 on 1 November 1977. The fare was 167 rubles, compared to a normal fare of 110 or 130. After the first Tu-144D crashed on 23 May 1978, the 102nd and last Tu-144 passenger flight took place on May 30.

The Tu-144 was faster than Concorde at Mach 2.3, carried more passengers at 140, and in the D-model was longer ranged and arguably more fuel efficient. Airshow witnesses have called the aircraft quieter and cleaner, thanks to its engines. The Tu-144D, with its Koliesov RD-36-51A turbojets, did not even have afterburners, which would have made it even quieter. The -144D is probably the largest aircraft in the world capable of supercruising, and may have been one of the first.

The aircraft did have its faults. Until the Tu-144D came on the scene, the aircraft were victimized by extremely thirsty variations of the Kuznetsov NK-144 engine and had pitifully poor range as a result. Then there’s the issue of the prototype and its relatively pedestrian aerodynamics. One problem the design bureau had trouble with all the way through the aircraft’s history was cabin noise.

NASA did use a Tu-144LL (an NK-321 re-engined D model, aircraft 77114) for some test flights in 1997. With the Tu-160’s engines, the aircraft would have had an even better range, close to 6500 miles.

Hope this helps.

RE: Concorde versus concordski

Can’t really make the comparison as the Conkordskii never had regular passenger flights. Yes it was first but that does not mean that the Russkies did not use ‘stolen’ info from the Concord. There was always industrial espionage throughout the Cold War between the enemy and the allies themselves, it’s just more prominant.

The benefit from nicking Concord plans and data is that they did not have to spend huge amounts of money on finding technical solutions – they knew what would work. The same happened with the A-bomb when scientist and lefties were afraid what America might do with it if no one else had it and passed over details to the Russkies – the Rosenbergs got fried for it and others let off the hook (General MacArthur wanted to nuke the Chinese in Korea and was then kicked out of his job).

I digress. This is not to say that the Russians weren’t capable of doing it, it just would have taken a lot longer. As for the Paris Air Show crash, it turns out that the Tu-144 banked steeply up to avoid a French AF Mirage spy plane. Some people say that the pilot was just trying to show off but low speed high alpha in a prototype supersonic airliner in 1973 when even fighter planes could not do it????

The Tu-144 ended up flying mail across the SU and there were a lot of complaints from residents in its sonic path. The Americans paid to use the Tu-144LL supersonic test bed to do experiments for their next generation SST before it was killed. I think that the engines were uprated to those of a Tu-160 but I can’t remember exactly. I am certain that if the Tu-144 hadn’t crashed at Paris, it too would have become an ‘Ambassador’ for Soviet expertise – can you imagine the Concord and Conkordskii side by side or at a fly-past!!!!

If anyone can add (or retract) further info to(/from) the above, it would be much appreciated.

Krasnaya Zvezda

RE: Concorde versus concordski

>LAST EDITED ON 26-Jul-00
>AT 09:03 PM (GMT)
>
>Which one of those airplanes is
>the best? The British/French Concorde
>or the Soviet-Russian Tu 144.

Well if the paris airshow of 73 is anything to go by….

By the way ..How is it..

“The Safest profit airframe in the world”
also equals… as stated by the airlines (AF,BA)

“The Airframe with the least hours per year worked and or flown”

That sounds like an intresting equation

>It’s also a fary tail
>that furst the Concorde showed
>up and that Tupolev stoled
>the idea : they were
>the first.

Yes they were the first.Not only First to be a lawn dart , but according to the French , the first to steal the blue prints of the concorde way back in the mid 50’s.Hmmmmmm…..whom to side with??

>P.S. Did anybody thougt of buying
>stocks yesterday evening between 5
>and 6 of RR, BA
>or Air France? You could
>earn some nice money right
>now

AHHHH… good to see the profit motive alive and well,
Speaking of profit…I spent a little under $500.00 US dollars , PAN-AM- Seatac,heathrow, RETURN. @ present concorde prices I pocketed about $19,500US dollars . Silly me.
But, hey… I’ve always had more time than money.

Who says white Elephants do not fly?